Cosa: The Sculpture and Furnishings in Stone and Marble 9780472131594, 9780472126118

Citation preview

Cosa The Sculpture and Furnishings in Stone and Marble

Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome

Supplementary Volume XV

Support for this publication was provided by the Lucy Shoe Meritt, FAAR ’37, ’50, Publication Fund of the American Academy in Rome, as well as by research grants from the American Council of Learned Societies, the University of Massachusetts, and the National Endowment for the Humanities, a Federal Agency.

Cosa The Sculpture and Furnishings in Stone and Marble

Jacquelyn Collins-Clinton

       by University of Michigan Press Ann Arbor, Michigan 2020

Copyright © by the University of Michigan 2020 All rights reserved For questions or permissions, please contact [email protected] Published in the United States of America by the University of Michigan Press Manufactured in the United States of America ♾ Printed on acid-free paper First published April 2020

A CIP catalog record for this book is available from the British Library.

ISBN: 978-0-472-13159-4 (hardcover : alk. paper) ISBN: 978-0-472-12611-8 (e-book)

Contents

List of Illustrations

ix

Preface

xix

List of Abbreviations

xxiii PART I: INTRODUCTION

1

Archaeological Context History and Topography The Sculptures: Public Sphere The Sculptures: Private Sphere Furniture and Furnishings Findspots and Places of Display Materials Piecing

1 2 5 6 6 7 11 13

2

The Historical Context Introduction The Embellishment of Cosa in the Late Republic The Arx The Forum Cosa and Overseas Trade The Embellishment of Cosa in the Empire (Augustus–Hadrian) Findspots vs. Places of Display The Arx The Forum The House of Diana The Imperial Cult The Late Empire (Severans–Late Antiquity) The Shrine of Liber Pater: Its Plan and the Finds Postlude

15 15 15 19 19 20 27 27 28 28 32 35 37 38 41

vi

CONTENTS

PART II: CATALOGUE



3

Public Statuary Introduction Public Statues PS 1: Torso of Asclepius PS 2: Hindquarters of Lion PS 3: Torso of Jupiter Capitolinus Portrait Heads PS-Head 1: Drusus Minor? PS-Head 2: Nero? PS-Head 3: Bust of Agrippina Minor PS-Head 4: Head of Agrippina Minor PS-Head 5: Hadrian Portrait Statuary PS-St 1: Divus Claudius PS-St 2: Nero PS-St 3: Agrippina Minor as Priestess PS-St 4: Draped Female PS-St 5: Togate Figure PS-St 6: Cuirassed Figure

45 45 45 45 50 51 54 54 55 56 58 60 62 62 64 66 71 73 74

4

Domestic Sculpture Introduction Statuettes Herms Introduction Catalogue Miniature Herm Busts Introduction Catalogue Oscilla Introduction Catalogue Other Decorative Pieces

81 81 83 104 104 106 112 112 115 124 124 126 128

5

Tables Introduction The Supports The Table Tops Bases and Plinths for Tables Table Supports Late Republican: Late Second Century–ca. 70–60 B.C. Imperial: Augustan–Second Century A.D.

135 135 136 138 142 143 143 152

CONTENTS

Table Tops Late Republican: Second Century–ca. 70–60 B.C. Imperial: Augustan–Second Century A.D. Table Bases and Plinths

vii

164 164 169 170

6

Altars Introduction Catalogue

173 173 178

7

Basins and Their Supports Introduction The Circular Basins The Rectangular Basins The Supports Catalogue

191 191 193 193 194 195

8

Puteals (Wellheads) Introduction Catalogue

205 205 212

9

Sundials Introduction Catalogue

221 221 222

10 Body Parts Introduction Heads Necks and Tenons Shoulders and Arms Hands Legs Feet

225 225 225 229 230 234 236 239

Appendix: Colored Marbles at Cosa

247

Select Bibliography

249

Plates

following page 258

Illustrations

Plates CHAPTER 1. ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT Plate 1 Plate 2 Plate 3 Plate 4 Plate 5 Plate 6

Fig. 1. Town plan Fig. 2. Actual state plan of forum Fig. 3. Plan of houses Fig. 4. Forum, north corner Fig. 5. Plan of basilica/odeum, actual state Fig. 6. House of Diana, plan Fig. 7. Pillar in Proconnesian marble CHAPTER 2. THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Plate 7 Plate 8 Plate 9 Plate 10

Fig. 8. Plan of arx Fig. 9. Odeum, reconstruction of scaenae frons Fig. 10. Shrine of Liber Pater, actual state plan Fig. 11. Shrine of Liber Pater, location of fnds Fig. 12. Detail of forum, southeast end, actual state CHAPTER 3. PUBLIC STATUARY

Plate 11

Plate 12

Plate 13

Plate 14

Public Statues Fig. 13. PS 1: Torso of Aesclepius, front Fig. 14. PS 1: Torso of Aesclepius, back Fig. 15. PS 1: Torso of Aesclepius, underside Fig. 16. PS 1: Torso of Aesclepius, right side Fig. 17. PS 1: Torso of Aesclepius, left side with attached shoulder and arm Fig. 18. PS 1: Torso of Aesclepius, left side, attachment surfaces Fig. 19. PS 1: Torso of Aesclepius, left shoulder and arm, inner attachment surface Fig. 20. PS 1: Torso of Aesclepius, detail, neck Fig. 21. PS 2: Hindquarters of Lion, back Fig. 22. PS 2: Hindquarters of Lion, right fank Fig. 23. PS 2: Hindquarters of Lion, right fank, drawing Fig. 24. PS 2: Hindquarters of Lion, left fank Fig. 25. PS 2: Hindquarters of Lion, underside Fig. 26. PS 3: Jupiter Capitolinus, front Fig. 27. PS 3: Jupiter Capitolinus, right side, oblique view

x

ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 28. PS 3: Jupiter Capitolinus, back Fig. 29. PS 3: Jupiter Capitolinus, left side, oblique view Fig. 30. PS 3: Jupiter Capitolinus, underside Portrait Heads Plate 15 Fig. 31. PS-Head 1: Drusus Minor?, front Fig. 32. PS-Head 1: Drusus Minor?, back, attachment surface Fig. 33. PS-Head 2: Nero? Plate 16 Fig. 34. PS-Head 3: Bust of Agrippina Minor, front Fig. 35. PS-Head 3: Bust of Agrippina Minor, head, right side Fig. 36. PS-Head 3: Bust of Agrippina Minor, head, left side Fig. 37. PS-Head 3: Bust of Agrippina Minor, head, back Fig. 38. PS-Head 3: Bust of Agrippina Minor, bust, front Fig. 39. PS-Head 3: Bust of Agrippina Minor, bust, back Fig. 40. PS-Head 3: Bust of Agrippina Minor, bust, underside Plate 17 Fig. 41. PS-Head 4: Head of Agrippina Minor, front Fig. 42. PS-Head 4: Head of Agrippina Minor, left side Fig. 43. PS-Head 4: Head of Agrippina Minor, right side Fig. 44. PS-Head 4: Head of Agrippina Minor, back Plate 18 Fig. 45. PS-Head 5: Head of Hadrian, front Fig. 46. PS-Head 5: Head of Hadrian, right side Fig. 47. PS-Head 5: Head of Hadrian, left side Fig. 48. PS-Head 5: Head of Hadrian, back Portrait Statues Plate 19 Fig. 49. PS-St 1: Divus Claudius Wearing Hip-mantle, torso, front Fig. 50. PS-St 1: Divus Claudius Wearing Hip-mantle, torso, back Fig. 51. PS-St 1: Divus Claudius Wearing Hip-mantle, head Fig. 52. PS-St 1: Divus Claudius Wearing Hip-mantle, right hand Fig. 53. PS-St 1: Divus Claudius Wearing Hip-mantle, right hand, palm Plate 20 Fig. 54. PS-St 2: Togate Figure of Nero, front Fig. 55. PS-St 2: Togate Figure of Nero, back Fig. 56. PS-St 2: Togate Figure of Nero, neck tenon Plate 21 Fig. 57. PS-St 3: Agrippina Minor as Priestess, front Fig. 58. PS-St 3: Agrippina Minor as Priestess, back Fig. 59. PS-St 3: Agrippina Minor as Priestess, reconstruction Fig. 60. PS-St 3: Agrippina Minor as Priestess, detail, bedding for right shoulder Plate 22 Fig. 61. PS-St 3: Agrippina Minor as Priestess, piece of right shoulder Fig. 62 PS-St 3: Agrippina Minor as Priestess, piece of right shoulder, detail, inner side Fig. 63. PS-St 3: Agrippina Minor as Priestess, right foot Fig. 64. PS-St 3: Agrippina Minor as Priestess, right foot, inner side Plate 23 Fig. 65. PS-St 4: Draped Female Figure, upper body, front Fig. 66. PS-St 4: Draped Female Figure, upper body, back Fig. 67. PS-St 4: Draped Female Figure, lower legs, front Fig. 68. PS-St 4: Draped Female Figure, lower legs, back Fig. 69. PS-St 4: Draped Female Figure, hand Plate 24 Fig. 70. PS-St 5: Fragmentary Togate Figure, feet, front

ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 71. PS-St 5: Fragmentary Togate Figure, feet, back Fig. 72. PS-St 5: Fragmentary Togate Figure, right shoulder and upper arm, side view Fig. 73. PS-St 5: Fragmentary Togate Figure, right shoulder and upper arm, front Fig. 74. PS-St 5: Fragmentary Togate Figure, right shoulder and upper arm, back Plate 25 Fig. 75. PS-St 6: Cuirassed Figure, front Fig. 76. PS-St 6: Cuirassed Figure, back Fig. 77. PS-St 6: Cuirassed Figure, left side Fig. 78. PS-St 6: Cuirassed Figure, detail, pteryges Fig. 79. PS-St 6: Cuirassed Figure, right foot Fig. 80. PS-St 6: Cuirassed Figure, left lower leg Plate 26 Fig. 81a–e. PS-St 6: Cuirassed Figure, pieces of drapery from below left arm Fig. 81a. PS-St 6: Cuirassed Figure, drapery, top, outer side Fig. 81b. PS-St 6: Cuirassed Figure, drapery, top, inner side Fig. 81c. PS-St 6: Cuirassed Figure, drapery, near bottom, one side Fig. 81d. PS-St 6: Cuirassed Figure, drapery, near bottom, other side Fig. 81e. PS-St 6: Cuirassed Figure, drapery, near bottom CHAPTER 4. DOMESTIC SCULPTURE Plate 27

Plate 28

Plate 29

Plate 30

Plate 31

Statuettes Fig. 82. DS-St 1a, b: Locks of Hair, 1a at left, 1b at right Fig. 83. DS-St 2: Pan, front Fig. 84. DS-St 2: Pan, oblique view Fig. 85. DS-St 2: Pan, left side Fig. 86. DS-St 2: Pan, back Fig. 87. DS-St 2: Pan, right side Fig. 88. DS-St 2: Pan, head, front Fig. 89. DS-St 2: Pan, head, back Fig. 90. DS-St 2: Pan, comparandum Fig. 91. DS-St 3: Female Head (used for Diana), front Fig. 92. DS-St 3: Female Head (used for Diana), right side Fig. 93. DS-St 3: Female Head (used for Diana), back Fig. 94. DS-St 4: Female Head, Venus?, front Fig. 95. DS-St 4: Female Head, Venus?, right side Fig. 96. DS-St 5: Female Bust, front Fig. 97. DS-St 5: Female Bust, right side Fig. 98. DS-St 5: Female Bust, back Fig. 99. DS-St 6: Bacchus, front Fig. 100. DS-St 6: Bacchus, back Fig. 101. DS-St 6: Bacchus, right side Fig. 102. DS-St 6: Bacchus, left side Fig. 103. DS-St 6: Bacchus, right hand Fig. 104. DS-St 7: Diana as Huntress, front Fig. 105. DS-St 7: Diana as Huntress, back Fig. 106. DS-St 7: Diana as Huntress, left and right hands Fig. 107. DS-St 7: Dog

xi

xii

ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 108. DS-St 8: Half-nude Female Figure, front Fig. 109. DS-St 8: Half-nude Female Figure, back Plate 32 Fig. 110. DS-St 9: Hercules Tunicatus?, front Fig. 111. DS-St 9: Hercules Tunicatus?, back Fig. 112. DS-St 10: Sarapis Enthroned, front Fig. 113. DS-St 10: Sarapis Enthroned, left side Plate 33 Fig. 114. DS-St 11: Torso of Nude Male Figure, front Fig. 115. DS-St 11: Torso of Nude Male Figure, back Fig. 116. DS-St 11: Torso of Nude Male Figure, left side Fig. 117. DS-St 12: Head of Attis, front Fig. 118. DS-St 12: Head of Attis, right side Plate 34 Fig. 119. DS-St 13: Male Head, front Fig. 120. DS-St 13: Male Head, right profle Fig. 121. DS-St 14: Face of Child, front Fig. 122. DS-St 15: Small Right Hand Holding Cantharus Herms Plate 35 Fig. 123. DS-Herm 1: Draped Herm of Satyr?, front Fig. 124. DS-Herm 1: Draped Herm of Satyr?, right side Fig. 125. DS-Herm 2: Draped Female Herm, front Fig. 126. DS-Herm 2: Draped Female Herm, right side Fig. 127. DS-Herm 2: Draped Female Herm, neck cavity Fig. 128. DS-Herm 3: Fragment of Draped Female Herm, front Fig. 129. DS-Herm 4: Hip Herm, front Fig. 130. DS-Herm 4: Hip Herm, back Plate 36 Fig. 131. DS-Herm 5: Herm Shaft? Fig. 132. DS-Herm 6: Herm Shaft? Fig. 133. DS-Herm 7: Herm Shaft in two pieces Fig. 134. DS-Herm 7: Herm Shaft, side view of tenon end Fig. 135. DS-Herm 8: Phallus Miniature Herm Busts Plate 37 Fig. 136. DS-MHB 1: Bearded Dionysus, front Fig. 137. DS-MHB 2: Bearded Dionysus on Separate Shaft, front Fig. 138. DS-MHB 3: Eros, front Fig. 139. DS-MHB 3: Eros, left side Fig. 140. DS-MHB 4: Helmeted Warrior, headless, front Plate 38 Fig. 141. DS-MHB 5: Bearded Hercules, front Fig. 142. DS-MHB 5: Bearded Hercules, left side Fig. 143. DS-MHB 6: Bearded Silenus, front Fig. 144. DS-MHB 7: Headless Bust, front Fig. 145. DS-MHB 8: Headless Bust, front Oscilla Plate 39 Fig. 146. DS-Osc 1: Mask of Papposilenus Fig. 147. DS-Osc 2: Tondo, side A, satyr

ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 148. DS-Osc 2: Tondo, side B, grape vine Fig. 149. DS-Osc 3: Tondo Plate 40 Fig. 150. DS-Osc 4: Pinax, front, Papposilenus Fig. 151. DS-Osc 4: Pinax, back, lion attacking deer Fig. 152. DS-Osc 5: Pinax, front, mask Fig. 153. DS-Osc 5: Pinax, back, animal Other Decorative Pieces Fig. 154. DS-Other 1: Krater Rim, fragments all together Fig. 155. DS-Other 1: Krater Rim, fragments CE 798ab Plate 41 Fig. 156. DS-Other 2: Miniature Feline Leg Fig. 157. DS-Other 3: Relief with Old Man Fig. 158. DS-Other 4: Round Plinth Fig. 159. DS-Other 5: Round Plinth Fig. 160. DS-Other 6: Round Plinth, top Fig. 161. DS-Other 7: Square Plinth, top Plate 42 Fig. 162. DS-Other 8: Square Plinth, top Fig. 163. DS-Other 8: Square Plinth, oblique view Fig. 164. DS-Other 9: Platter?, upper surface Fig. 165. DS-Other 10: Marble Sample Fig. 166. DS-Other 11: Pillar CHAPTER 5. TABLES Table Supports Plate 43 Fig. 167. T-Supp 1: Bearded Herm, front Fig. 168. T-Supp 1: Bearded Herm, back Fig. 169. T-Supp 1: Bearded Herm, right side Fig. 170. T-Supp 1: Bearded Herm, head Fig. 171. T-Supp 1: Bearded Herm, head, left side Plate 44 Fig. 172. T-Supp 2: Rosette Fig. 173. T-Supp 3: Lion’s Head, front Fig. 174. T-Supp 4: Stretcher with K, top Fig. 175. T-Supp 4: Stretcher with K, underside Fig. 176. T-Supp 5: Paw from Console Table, front Fig. 177. T-Supp 5: Paw from Console Table, left side Plate 45 Fig. 178. T-Supp 6: Fragment, Lion Griffn, left side Fig. 179. T-Supp 6: Fragment, Lion Griffn, front Fig. 180. T-Supp 7a: Slab Support, outer side Fig. 181. T-Supp 7a: Slab Support, inner side Plate 46 Fig. 182. T-Supp 7a: Note from F. E. Brown regarding T-Supp 7a Plate 47 Fig. 183. T-Supp 7b: Slab Support, outer side Fig. 184. T-Supp 7b: Slab Support, inner side Fig. 185. T-Supp 8: Winged Goat, left side Fig. 186. T-Supp 9: Fragment of Feline Foot, front

xiii

xiv

ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 187. T-Supp 10: Fragment of Griffn’s Foot, front Plate 48 Fig. 188. T-Supp 11: Herm, reconstruction Fig. 189. T-Supp 11: Herm, oblique view, front/right side Fig. 190. T-Supp 11: Herm, front, detail Fig. 191. T-Supp 11: Herm, head, front Fig. 192. T-Supp 11: Herm, head, left side Plate 49 Fig. 193. T-Supp 12: Inscribed Herm Shaft, front Fig. 194. T-Supp 13: Columnar Support Fig. 195. T-Supp 14: Fragmentary Leg of Tripod Table Fig. 196. T-Supp 15: Stretcher with E, top Fig. 197. T-Supp 15: Stretcher with E, arm, detail Fig. 198. T-Supp 15: Stretcher with E, arm end, detail Table Tops Plate 50 Fig. 199. T-Top 1: Rectangular Leaf with Raised Rim, top Fig. 200. T-Top 1: Rectangular Leaf with Raised Rim, underside Fig. 201. T-Top 2: Rectangular Leaf with Raised Rim, top Fig. 202. T-Top 2: Rectangular Leaf with Raised Rim, underside Fig. 203. T-Top 3: Rectangular Leaf with Raised Rim Fig. 204. T-Top 4: Rectangular Leaf with Raised Rim Plate 51 Fig. 205. T-Top 5: Rectangular Leaf with Raised Rim Fig. 206. T-Top 6: Round Leaf with Raised Rim Fig. 207. T-Top 7: Round Leaf with Raised Rim Fig. 208. T-Top 8: Round Leaf with Raised Rim, top Fig. 209. T-Top 8: Round Leaf with Raised Rim, underside Plate 52 Fig. 210. T-Top 9: Round Leaf with Raised Rim, top Fig. 211. T-Top 9: Round Leaf with Raised Rim, underside Fig. 212. T-Top 10: Round Leaf with Raised Rim Fig. 213. T-Top 11: Rectangular Leaf, top Fig. 214. T-Top 11: Rectangular Leaf, underside Table Bases and Plinths Plate 53 Fig. 215. T-Base 1: Plinth?, top Fig. 216. T-Base 1: Plinth?, underside Fig. 217. T-Base 2: Base for Monopod Table Plate 54 Fig. 218. T-Base 3: Base for Monopod Table, side Fig. 219. T-Base 3: Base for Monopod Table, top Fig. 220. T-Base 4: Fragment of Table Base, profle Fig. 221. T-Base 4: Fragment of Table Base, profle Fig. 222. T-Base 5: Facing for Table Base CHAPTER 6. ALTARS Fig. 223. A 1: Small Round Altar Fig. 224. A 2: Small Round Altar Plate 55 Fig. 225. A 3a–c: Fragments 3a and 3b of Double Ritual Procession, as displayed in the museum

ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 226. A 3a–c: Double Ritual Procession, 3b Fig. 227. A 3a–c: Double Ritual Procession, 3c Plate 56 Fig. 228. A 4a–f: Bucranium/Garland Frieze, 4a Fig. 229. A 4a–f: Bucranium/Garland Frieze, 4b Fig. 230. A 4a–f: Bucranium/Garland Frieze, 4c Fig. 231. A 4a–f: Bucranium/Garland Frieze, 4d Fig. 232. A 4a–f: Bucranium/Garland Frieze, 4e Fig. 233. A 4a–f: Bucranium/Garland Frieze, 4f Plate 57 Fig. 234. A 5: Fragment of Lares Altar Fig. 235. A 6: Panel with Attributes of Minerva Fig. 236. A 7a–c: Altar Pulvini, 7a on left, 7b on right front, 7c on right rear Fig. 237. A 7a–c: Altar Pulvini, 7b, front of right pulvinus CHAPTER 7. BASINS AND THEIR SUPPORTS Plate 58 Fig. 238. B 1: Public Bath Basin, top Fig. 239. B 1: Public Bath Basin, underside Fig. 240. B 2: Inscribed Labrum, 2b at bottom, 2a in middle, 2c on top Fig. 241. B 2: Inscribed Labrum, profle, fragment 2b Fig. 242. B 3: Basin or Bowl Fragment, profle Plate 59 Fig. 243. B 4: Hemispherical Basin, fragment of rim, interior Fig. 244. B 5: Hemispherical Basin, fragment of rim Fig. 245. B 6a, b: Fragments of Rectangular Fountain Basin Fig. 246. B 7: Fragment of Rectangular Fountain Basin Fig. 247. B 8: Fragment of Foot of Columnar Basin Support Fig. 248. B 9: Columnar Basin Support Plate 60 Fig. 249. B 10a, b: Supports for Fountain Basin Fig. 250. B 10a, b: Upper surface, joiner’s mark Fig. 251. B 10a, b: Grayish veins as seen on one side Fig. 252. B 11: Foot of Columnar Basin CHAPTER 8. PUTEALS (WELLHEADS) Plate 61 Fig. 253. P 1: Fragment of Rim and Upper Shaft Fig. 254. P 3: Fragment of Base Fig. 255. P 4: Fragment of Base Fig. 256. P 5: “Capitolium” Puteal I, as restored Fig. 257. P 5: “Capitolium” Puteal I, relief Plate 62 Fig. 258. P 6: Fragment of Shaft Fig. 259. P 7a, b: Fragments of Rim and Upper Shaft Fig. 260. P 8: Fragment of Rim, front Fig. 261. P 8: Fragment of Rim, back Plate 63 Fig. 262. P 9a–e: Fragments of Rim, Shaft, and Base Fig. 263. P 10: Fragment of Rim, profle Fig. 264. P 11: “Capitolium” Puteal II, fragments of rim with part of inscription Fig. 265. P 12: Fragment of Rim

xv

xvi

ILLUSTRATIONS

CHAPTER 9. SUNDIALS Plate 64 Fig. 266. S 1: Part of Base and Lower Dial, front Fig. 267. S 2: Part of Lower Dial CHAPTER 10. BODY PARTS Heads Fig. 268. BP 1: Hair Fig. 269. BP 2: Nape of Neck Fig. 270. BP 3: Hair Necks and Tenons Fig. 271. BP 4: Neck, front Fig. 272. BP 4: Neck, back Plate 65 Fig. 273. BP 5: Neck and Tenon, front, drawing at 1:2 Fig. 274. BP 6: Tenon Fig. 275. BP 7: Tenon, front Shoulders and Arms Fig. 276. BP 8: Right Shoulder, front Fig. 277. BP 8: Right Shoulder, side Fig. 278. BP 8: Right Shoulder, back Plate 66 Fig. 279. BP 9: Left Shoulder to Elbow, front Fig. 280. BP 9: Left Shoulder to Elbow, back Fig. 281. BP 10: Right Shoulder, front oblique view Fig. 282. BP 10: Right Shoulder, side Plate 67 Fig. 283. BP 11: Right Upper Arm, front Fig. 284. BP 12: Left Elbow of Togatus Fig. 285. BP 13: Right Forearm and Elbow Fig. 286. BP 14: Upper Arm? Fig. 287. BP 14: Upper Arm?, dowel channel Fig. 288. BP 15: Right Forearm and Hand Plate 68 Fig. 289. BP 16: Right Forearm Fig. 290. BP 17: Left Elbow and Forearm Hands Fig. 291. BP 18: Left Hand, male Fig. 292. BP 19: Left Hand Holding Rotulus, outer side Fig. 293. BP 19: Left Hand Holding Rotulus, thumb side Fig. 294. BP 20: Left Hand, male, top Fig. 295. BP 20: Left Hand, male, palm Fig. 296. BP 21: Left Hand, male, top Fig. 297. BP 21: Left Hand, male, palm Plate 69 Fig. 298. BP 22: Finger on Sword Hilt Fig. 299. BP 23: Right Hand, top Fig. 300. BP 23: Right Hand, palm

ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 301. BP 24: Right Hand Legs Fig. 302. BP 25: Male Thigh Fig. 303. BP 26: Right Leg, front Fig. 304. BP 26: Right Leg, outer side Fig. 305. BP 26: Right Foot, inner side Plate 70 Fig. 306. BP 27: Lower Leg, male Fig. 307. BP 28: Lower Leg, male Fig. 308. BP 29: Lower Leg, female, draped Fig. 309. BP 30: Right Lower Leg and Foot

Plate 71

Plate 72

Plate 73

Plate 74

Feet Fig. 310. BP 31: Left Heel, male Fig. 311. BP 32: Left Foot, male, inner side Fig. 312. BP 32: Left Foot, male, outer side Fig. 313. BP 33: Right Foot Wearing Calceus Fig. 314. BP 34: Left Foot Wearing Calceus, top Fig. 315. BP 34: Left Foot Wearing Calceus, inner side Fig. 316. BP 35: Right Foot Wearing Calceus, outer side Fig. 317. BP 35: Right Foot Wearing Calceus, top Fig. 318. BP 36: Right Toes, male Fig. 319. BP 37: Right Female Foot Wearing Soft Shoe, top Fig. 320. BP 37: Right Female Foot Wearing Soft Shoe, inner side Fig. 321. BP 38: Right Female Foot Wearing Soft Shoe, front Fig. 322. BP 38: Right Female Foot Wearing Soft Shoe, inner side Fig. 323. BP 38: Right Female Foot Wearing Soft Shoe, outer side Fig. 324. BP 39: Right Female Foot Wearing Soft Shoe Fig. 325. BP 40: Right Female Foot Wearing Soft Shoe Fig. 326. BP 41: Right Foot of Togatus Fig. 327. BP 42: Right Foot Wearing Calceus, outer side Fig. 328. BP 42: Right Foot Wearing Calceus, inner side Fig. 329. BP 43: Sandaled Right Foot on Plinth Fig. 330. BP 44: Nude Right Foot, outer side Fig. 331. BP 44: Nude Right Foot, front Fig. 332. BP 45: Nude Right Foot, top Fig. 333. BP 45: Nude Right Foot, outer side Fig. 334. BP 46: Nude Right Foot, top Fig. 335. BP 46: Nude Right Foot, inner side Fig. 336. BP 47: Nude Right Foot APPENDIX: COLORED MARBLES NOT IN CATALOGUE Fig. 337. Revetment molding from House of Diana, Bardiglio Fig. 338. Plinth? from House of Diana, Giallo antico

xvii

xviii

ILLUSTRATIONS

Profles Profles 1–5 Rectangular Table Tops Profles 6–10 Round Table Tops

140 141

Tables Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6

Late Republican Material Objects Found in the Forum Reservoir Imperial Material Objects Found in the House of Diana Objects Found in the Shrine of Liber Pater Body Parts

21 29 30–31 33 39 226–27

Preface

T

his project has taken several decades to complete. It began in the late 1960s when I participated in the excavations at Cosa under the aegis of the American Academy in Rome directed by Frank E. Brown. It then became the subject of my doctoral dissertation of 1970 under Otto J. Brendel at Columbia University, “The Marble Sculptures from Cosa.” In 1982 Frank Brown and I decided to enlarge the scope to consider the sculpture and furniture in other stones: limestone, travertine, and tuff. This has made it possible to include the late Republican phase in the history of Cosa, essentially excluded from my dissertation, and has resulted in providing a more complete picture of the place of the sculpture and furnishings in the life of this small Roman town. At the turn of the century a small group of pieces in white marble was tested by Donato Attanasio and his team to determine their quarries of origin. I owe them a great deal of gratitude for carrying out this project, for it revealed the presence at Cosa of some pieces that may well have been imported from Greece in late Republican times, thus opening a new avenue of research that indicates the acquisition of material wealth among the elites of Cosa at that time. Documentation for the excavations at Cosa may be found in the Archaeological Archive at the American Academy in Rome. This includes: (1) The Cosa excavation journal, in two volumes, which contains a day-to-day summary of the excavations; at the beginning of each year the names of the excavators are listed. (2) The excavation notebooks, especially those begun in 1965, which record in detail the actual daily work: plans, descriptions of masonry and soil changes indicative of levels, and the fnds. The inventory numbers of certain fnds have been added in red ink. (3) The catalogue/inventory cards are arranged by the year of excavation and inventory number. At the end of each year is a section where the fnds are arranged by category, such as marble sculpture or blackglaze pottery. The negatives for the Cosa excavation photographs and the color slides are stored separately in the Photo Archive of the American Academy; photographs are accessible through the Digital Humanities Center of the American Academy in Rome. I am indebted to many people for their help and advice on several fronts. First, to Frank Brown who suggested that I make the study of the marble sculpture from Cosa the subject of my dissertation. Lawrence Richardson, jr., generously offered his advice and information, especially concerning the early excavations of the 1950s in which he had participated. Evelyn B. Harrison provided valuable advice before I began studying the sculptural material. Kevin Clinton offered epigraphical information when I needed it and looked after our children when I was at Cosa to examine new material or while I was in Rome and Pompeii. For permission to study the head of Hadrian in Florence and to have good photographs made in 1982, I thank Dr. Francesco Nicosia, former Superintendent of the Antiquities of Tuscany. For my visit at Pompeii in 1984 I am grateful to Dr. Giuseppina Cerulli-Irelli, then Superintendent of the Antiquities of Pompeii, Herculaneum, and Stabiae, for permission to study furnishings at Pompeii and to Antonio D’Ambrosio and Stefano De Caro of the Scavi di Pompei for

xx

PREFACE

facilitating this. In 1998 Lisa Fentress invited me to compare Rabun Taylor’s draft of his catalogue of the sculptures from her excavation of the House of Diana with the objects themselves; she and her colleague Adam Rabinowitz have been most helpful with my questions. Stephen Dyson has been a great help with queries about the ager Cosanus and his work at the villa Le Colonne. Russell T. Scott, co-responsible for the site for the American Academy, has answered many questions regarding the excavations of the ’60s and early ’70s and has supported my work over the years of its gestation. In Athens the American School of Classical Studies has also played an important role, beginning in 1967 when I was a member of its summer school. Later, while my family was there in 1983/84, I began my study of the basins and tables; the librarian, Nancy Winter, was helpful in many ways. In the summer of 1989 I spent a few weeks there working on the Hellenistic torso of Asclepius from Cosa, thanks to an NEH Travel to Collections grant. A close comparandum to Cosa’s torso is that of Asclepius from Munychia in the National Archaeological Museum in Athens, and I am grateful to Dr. Olga Tzachou-Alexandri, then Director, for permission to study it. More recently I stayed at the American School in the autumn and early winter of 2005/06 when I participated in the School’s trip to northern Greece, under the direction of Professor John Oakley. This gave me the opportunity to visit sites and museums where I could see the Greek antecedents for certain types of Roman furnishings. Most importantly, the American Academy in Rome has supported my work over the years, beginning with my Rome Prize Fellowship in 1967–69, when I completed my doctoral dissertation. An NEH Fellowship in the spring of 1981 gave me an opportunity to begin a study of the portrait statuary from Cosa at the Academy and to travel to museums to study comparanda in Italy. It was at that time that I met Robert Cohon and Christopher Moss, who were in Rome working on their doctoral dissertations on Roman table supports. Their work inspired me to include those in stones other than marble in my own project. A summer grant from the American Philosophical Society in 1982 permitted me to analyze at the American Academy the fndspots for the sculpture and furniture from Cosa. Among the staff of the Academy Pina Pasquantonio and Marina Lella have been most helpful, as well as Eric De Sena, former Assistant for Archaeology, who introduced me to Donato Attanasio, and Archer Martin, former Professor in Charge of the School of Classical Studies. The Academy’s outstanding library has played a critical role. Special thanks are due to its librarians, Christina Huemer, the former Director; Sebastian Hierl, the present Director; Lucilla Marino, former Assistant Director; and Denise Gavio, Assistant Director; as well as to members of its staff, P. Imperatori, T. Mirra, P. Brozzi, and others from earlier years. S. Hierl very kindly brought me the books I needed and assisted in other ways in the summer of 2015, when I had broken my wrist. Very special thanks go to Anne Laidlaw, an old friend from our days excavating at Cosa, who has been of special help in my most recent examination of this material at Cosa and who has proofread the introduction to this volume. The University of Michigan Press has provided assistance on many fronts. Elaine Gazda, Professor of the History of Art, has shown great interest in the project and has given much valuable advice. I have beneftted from the help of graphic artist Lorene Sterner at the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, with producing the illustrations at the proper specifcations. For her editorial skills I am grateful to Margaret Lourie, former editor at the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology. The custodians of the Cosa Museum, Graziano Bannino, Gianni Benemei, Claudia Cotardo, Lucia Filisdeo, and Patrizia Lanciano, looked after my needs in a myriad of ways: fnding things in the storerooms, opening vitrines in the museum, bringing delicate or heavy objects to me, even cups of espresso to keep me going. Ivo Piccolini, foreman of the earlier excavations, was there should I need assistance while working in the storerooms in the 1980s.

PREFACE

xxi

Many other scholars and individuals have assisted me in different ways. I list them here, though some are also acknowledged in the text where appropriate: John Bodel, Kimberly Bowes, Matthew Brennan, the late V. Bruno, Kevin Clinton, Andrea De Giorgi, Eugene Dwyer, the late Judith Ginsburg, the late Evelyn B. Harrison, the late Ulrich Hausmann, Ann Kuttner, Julia Lenaghan, Olga Palagia, Nicholas Rauh, Brunilde S. Ridgway, C. Brian Rose, Kathleen Slane, Jocelyn P. Small, Rabun Taylor, and Susan Wood. The two anonymous readers of the manuscript have made many helpful suggestions. All attributions and conclusions are, needless to say, my own. Ithaca, New York Spring 2019

Abbreviations

In order to simplify the cross-referencing of objects where necessary, the categories of objects are abbreviated as below. The objects are numbered strictly within their category. A B BP DS DS-Herm DS-MHB DS-Osc DS-Other DS-St P PS PS-Head PS-St S T-Base T-Supp T-Top

Altar Basin Body part Domestic sculpture Herm Miniature herm bust Oscillum Other decorative piece Statuette Puteal Public statue Portrait head Portrait statue Sundial Table base or plinth Table support Table top

Other Abbrevations ca. D. Diam. Est. Gr. H. inv. no. L. Max. Pres. Th. W.

circa, approximately Depth Diameter Estimated Greatest Height inventory number Length Maximum Preserved Thickness Width

PART I

Introduction

1 ♦ Archaeological Context

C

osa, a small Roman town on the west coast of Italy about halfway between Rome and Pisa, has been excavated since 1948 under the aegis of the American Academy in Rome. The ruins of the city today nestle among the trees of a fourishing olive grove perched atop a hilly promontory. The town is best known as a paradigm of Roman Republican town planning that superimposed a grid plan upon the undulant terrain (fg. 1). Religious and civic building in permanent form did not get underway until the following century, and it was in the decades before and after 100 B.C. that Cosa reached the peak of her prosperity. Materials discovered and published to date include coins and all types of ceramic ware: black gloss, Arretine, sigillata, and utilitarian pottery, to list a few, as well as lamps,1 all representing the quality of life in Cosa from Republican to late antique times. The sculpture and furniture in marble and other stones likewise provide an insight into not just life in a small Roman town in central Italy but its embellishment mainly from the late Republic and through the early Empire to the time of Hadrian. Public statuary is not well preserved at Cosa, to a large extent because of disturbances during the Middle Ages. On the other hand, stone and marble material from the private sphere is well represented; domestic sculpture and furniture is by far the largest category of objects, dating from the early second century B.C. almost to the end of the frst century A.D. The presence of stone and marble sculpture and furniture in the public and private spheres of a town is an index of its prosperity and the wealth of individual families residing there, and Cosa is no different. It has the advantage of being a small town with limited periods of prosperity, and the embellishment of its public and private spaces is correspondingly limited in both space and time. These parameters mean that this material is more easily comprehensible as a whole for the entire town as excavated, compared, for instance, to the much larger cities of Pompeii and Herculaneum. The marble and stone sculptures from Cosa comprise a rich and varied group of statuary, furniture, and other furnishings representative of the sort of sculptures to be found in most Roman towns during the late Republic and early Empire. They echo in their date and variety those from Pompeii and Herculaneum, whose preservation beneath the debris of Vesuvius’s eruption in A.D. 79 has supplied for us not only structures but also objects of daily life vividly depicting the Roman style of life in those seaside towns. Cosa was neither so large nor so wealthy; nor was it preserved in so complete a manner. But careful excavation has revealed a collection of material that has supplemented the evidence of the architecture and other fnds in telling the story of life in this much smaller town.

1

Coins: Buttrey 1980; black gloss: Scott 2008; Arretine, sigillata, fine wares: Moevs 1973, Moevs 1980a and b,

Moevs 2006; utilitarian pottery: Dyson 1976; lamps: Fitch and Goldman 1994.

2

ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT

History and Topography Cosa was founded as a Latin colony in 273 B.C. after the Romans had defeated the Etruscans at nearby Vulci in 280 B.C.2 The location perched atop a hilly promontory was a position that commanded views down the coast as far as Tarquinia and up the coast toward Talamone and beyond—Elba can be seen on clear days from the hilltop. Inland views include the nearby hills and the fertile valley, the Valle d’Oro, which eventually supported a number of villas. This was a strategic location, both for its command of the sea and for its port and harbor, especially during the Punic Wars, which occupied the third century B.C. In addition, the port, constructed at the base of the hill on the southern side, served as the outlet for exporting Cosa’s agricultural products, mainly grain and wine, which, in turn, led to the growth of prosperity in both the town and countryside during the second century B.C. Its impressive fortifcation walls roughly defne a diamond shape, the lower point facing seaward (fg. 1), that corresponds to the contours of a low hill upon whose highest part is the arx or citadel. Here are the remains of a large temple, whose outer walls are still standing, a landmark visible from miles away. Within the imposing walls, the town itself has a regular grid of streets despite the contours of the hill. The main streets run inwards from the two landward gates, one facing northwest, the other northeast. These two streets meet at the forum, laid out on the most level area of land (fg. 2). The entrance is marked by a triple arch, one of the earliest in Roman architecture. Along the northeast side are the basilica, the curia and comitium, a temple (Temple B), and a jail. Opposite the main entrance is a secondary entrance in the short southeast end, designed as a gateway with a single column; this was later turned into a shrine of Liber Pater. On either side of this gateway is an atrium house; four more face the forum on its long southwest side. These would have had shops facing the porticoed open space. At the west corner of the short northwest side is a large reservoir, the forum reservoir, and two more atrium houses, one on each side of the main entranceway. The one closer to the basilica has been considered an Atrium Publicum. Across the street from the reservoir are the ruins of Cosa’s Bath Complex. Small private houses occupy the rest of the town, with three more large reservoirs, two of which are near the northwest and northeast gates respectively. Cosa’s location on a waterless limestone hill made it necessary to collect rainwater. Each private house had its own cistern, and the forum contained fve more in addition to the reservoir already mentioned. The frst colonists arrived soon after the founding of the town. The third century B.C. saw only a few construction projects, primarily the city walls with towers and gateways. Early activity on the arx, however, took the form of a sacrifce of frst fruits cast into a crevasse upon the highest point of the arx; when excavated, this pit, or mundus, had contained at its bottom the decayed vegetal remains of this sacrifce. Behind the pit was a platform, or auguraculum, for taking auspices, the pit and platform together forming an augural templum.3 Also dating to the third century B.C. are architectural terracottas that have been attributed to another construction on the arx, a Temple of Jupiter.4 2 On the history of Cosa see Brown 1951, 5–113; Brown 1980 on the Republican period; Bace 1983, chs. 2–4; McCann in McCann et al. 1987, 15–43; Scott 1988, 73–75; and Fentress 1994, 208–22. Brief treatments are S. L. Dyson, “Cosa,” in Dyson 2013, 472–84 and Fentress and Perkins 2016. R. Patterson provides a picture of Cosa and the ager Cosanus in the late Republic and Empire (Patterson 2006, 6, 40, 76–77, and esp. 92–101).

3 On the sacrifce, the pit, and the platform see Brown 1980, 1–33 and Brown in Brown et al. 1960, 3–18. 4

The location of the early Temple of Jupiter is controversial. It may have stood behind the later temple (Scott 1992, 91–94) or may have overlooked the mundus instead of the auguraculum (Taylor 2002). It was apparently dismantled and incorporated in the construction of the “Capitolium” (Scott 1992, 92). See further below, pp. 3, 173–74, and P 5 and 11.

HISTORY AND TOPOGRAPHY

3

No traces of permanent housing from this time have come to light, and it is presumed that the colonists lived on the small farms that were allotted to them in the ager Cosanus.5 An apparent loss of manpower, most likely a result of the frst two Punic Wars, led to a request to Rome for new colonists, which was fulflled in 197 B.C.6 This led to a boom of construction occupying most of the second century B.C. On the arx a larger temple replaced the old Temple of Jupiter. Originally considered a Capitolium based on its form—a tripartite cella, a high podium, and its location on a height overlooking the town—the new temple is now thought to have been dedicated to Jupiter Optimus Maximus and possibly also to Hercules and Minerva (henceforth for convenience this temple will be called a “Capitolium”).7 A second temple, Temple D, may have been dedicated to Mater Matuta.8 In the forum civic buildings and the colonnade appeared,9 as well as atrium houses to accommodate Cosa’s elite families.10 More atrium houses lined the Processional Way, Street P, that led from the forum to the arx. Elsewhere housing for the lower classes was built.11 Sometime between 70 and 60 B.C. Cosa was attacked, burned, and those in residence kidnapped, presumably by the pirates known to have been active around Italy at that time.12 The pirates took what they could of value as well. Cosa lay dormant afterward for a few decades, visited only by family members or others who survived in the countryside and who would have taken what they could fnd of any value.13 The town revived early in the reign of Augustus. The area sacra of the “Capitolium” was cleared of debris, which was dumped, along with that from elsewhere in town, off the south side of the 5

Brown 1980, 17.

6 D. W. Rathbone has mentioned that magistrates from Cosa must have asked for a second allotment of colonists, citing a passage in Livy (29.15.5) that alludes to the summoning to Rome of “the magistrates and the ten leading citizens . . . of each of twelve defaulting Latin colonies” as of 304 B.C. (Rathbone 1981, 17–18). 7

Brown et al. 1960, 49–109. On the new identifcation see E. Bispham, “Coloniam deducere: How Roman Was Roman Colonization during the Middle Republic?,” in G. Bradley and J.-P. Wilson, eds., Greek and Roman Colonization: Origins, Ideologies and Interactions, Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2006, 73–160, esp. 78–80, 95–105, and J. C. Quinn and A. Wilson, “Capitolia,” JRS 103 (2013) 117–73, esp. 123–33. The reference to Hercules is based in part on the letter H inscribed on a few fragments of black gloss bowls found around the altar erected above the mundus in the third century B.C. augural templum; on these fragments, see Scott 2008, 50. Later, when the “Capitolium” was built along with its cistern, pieces of two puteals preserve references to Hercules, one of the second century B.C. (mentioned below, p. 19) and the other of the Augustan rebuilding of the temple (noted below, p. 28); on these see also P 5 and 11. Minerva’s importance must rely upon the mythological relationship between her and Hercules, in which Minerva had introduced Hercules to Olympus. No traces of their cult images have been found. 8

Brown 1980, 47–49 and fg. 54.

9 Brown in Brown et al. 1993, 57–153, 207–36; on the dating see now Scott 2008, 111 and n. 3. Carlsen 2006, 144

has advanced the possibility that a member of the Domitii Ahenobarbi may have paid for one or more of the public buildings constructed in the forum, based on the fact that the family owned property in the ager Cosanus, but this does not square with W. V. Harris’s observation that the Ahenobarbi did not acquire land in the ager Cosanus until after Sulla’s war with Marius in the early frst century B.C. (Harris 1971, 295). 10

No mention of social differentiation among the colonists was made by the original excavators. For the hierarchy of housing at Cosa as refecting this social differentiation in the second century B.C. see Fentress in Fentress 2000, 14–20 and Fentress et al. 2003, 21–26. On the population of Cosa during this time see J. W. Hanson and S. G. Ortman, “A Systematic Method for Estimating the Populations of Greek and Roman Settlements,” JRA 30 (2017) 301–24, esp. 314 and 316 tables 3 and 4. 11

Bruno and Scott 1993, 13–158.

12

Brown 1980, 73–75. According to Cicero, pro lege Manilia, 31–34, the pirates had already attacked Gaeta, Misenum, and Ostia. On piracy at that time see further below, p. 18 n. 26. The ager Cosanus was not affected, nor was the port; see most recently Moevs 2006, 15 with earlier bibliography. S. Dyson, in a personal conversation of March 2010, also reinforced this. 13

On the destruction at Cosa as the result of a raid by pirates because of Cosa’s increasing prosperity, see further below, p. 18. For an alternative interpretation see Patterson 2006, 95; for the lack of damage to the port and to the countryside, see also the comments of Moevs 2006, 15.

4

ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT

temple’s podium and forecourt.14 The “Capitolium” was repaired and received a new roof and new terracotta revetments. The forecourt was repaved and provided with a surrounding wall and a small arched entrance facing the Sacra Via.15 The nearby temple, Temple D, was not repaired.16 In the forum not all the atrium houses were rebuilt. The Atrium Publicum, facing the main entrance road, was renewed, though it lost some of its shops,17 as was the House of Diana.18 Later, the basilica collapsed, most likely related to an earthquake recorded in A.D. 51 (Tac. Ann. 12.43.1),19 and was rebuilt early in the reign of Nero as a small odeum.20 After the second half of the frst century A.D. little building activity occurred: a few repairs about the forum, to the “Capitolium,” and to the baths, as brick stamps, inscriptions, and coins found in the forum and on the arx testify.21 Current excavations in the Bath Complex have brought to light several second-century brick stamps: Trajanic, Hadrianic, and Antonine, all indicative of repairs to ensure continued use.22 This evidence suggests that there was a need to justify enlarging the Bath Complex at that time.23 Reinforcing this are the latest repairs to the “Capitolium” made under Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus (joint rule 161–169) and under Caracalla (212–217), again attested by brick stamps.24 In addition inscriptions indicate an attempt to restore the forum and to re-establish a viable community at Cosa in the third century A.D., one of which notes repairs to the odeum and the portico under Maximinus Thrax (235–238).25 Life in the town nevertheless continued to decline; J. R. Patterson provides several reasons for this, including its location on a waterless hilltop and, at the end of the Republic and early Empire, the growth of large estates owned by absentee landlords who had little interest in Cosa’s civic activities.26 The spread of malaria along the coast of Etruria, apparently beginning in the late Republic, probably played a role as well.27 Life continued at a very low ebb through the fourth and into the ffth centuries A.D. as coins, a few sherds of African Red Slip ware, and African lamps show.28 Only the Atrium Publicum and the Shrine of Liber Pater, the latter newly built into the old southeast entrance to the forum, continued 14

This dump, which we assume holds material from the destruction caused in the pirate raid, contains various materials predating ca. 70 B.C. See the comments of R. Taylor 2002, 66, 73–77.

22

15

Brown in Brown et al. 1960, 127–40.

24

16

Brown in Brown et al. 1960, 137.

17

Brown in Brown et al. 1993, 237–41.

18

Fentress in Fentress et al. 2003, 34–38.

19

Fentress in Fentress et al. 2003, 55–58, noting other damage; and Collins-Clinton 2000. On the earthquake see Guidoboni 1994, 191–92 no. 089 (a serious quake with much damage). 20 Brown in Brown et al. 1993, 241–44, with incorrect restored section in fg. 77; Collins-Clinton 2000; Fentress et al. 2003, 56–61; Bace 1983, 75–76, inscription no. IIA2, gives a slightly different reading than that of F. E. Brown in Brown et al. 1993, 243. 21 See Bace 1983 for the brick stamps and inscriptions and Buttrey 1980 for the coins.

De Giorgi 2015 and Scott et al. 2015, 15, 16–18.

23

On this see Scott et al. 2015, 18, where he stresses the second-century building and restoration projects.

Brown in Brown et al. 1960, 139; Bace 1983, 61, 146, 149–50; Scott et al. 2015, 17.

25

Fentress 1994; Fentress in Fentress et al. 2003, 63–69 with earlier bibliography. On the odeum and portico see Bace 1983, 76–78, inscription nos. IIA3 and C70.523.

26 Patterson 2006, 97–100; Fentress in Fentress et al. 2003, 138–43. See also Vaccaro 2011, 16–17. 27

R. Sallares, Malaria and Rome: A History of Malaria in Ancient Italy, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2002, ch. 7: “Tuscany,” esp. 192–98; Cosa is mentioned in this context (198).

28 Fentress in Fentress et al. 2003, 69–71 and 138–43 gives the most recent assessment of this period. Most of the coins were found in the Shrine of Liber Pater; see Collins-Clinton 1977. See further below, p. 40.

THE SCULPTURES: PUBLIC SPHERE

5

in use. Later, the Middle Ages saw periods of activity from the sixth century A.D. to 1329, when the site was fnally abandoned.29 In the sixth century new attempts were made to settle on the arx and in the forum. A small church was built behind the scaenae frons of the odeum, and shops were added to the front of the former basilica next to the old comitium. At the same time the arx was fortifed, and a military outpost with a stable and granary was constructed. In the tenth century a tiny church was built into the cella of Temple B on the forum, and adjacent to it was a cemetery. On the arx a church was constructed in the late tenth or eleventh century next to the “Capitolium” around which was another cemetery. The Eastern Height was also fortifed, and a settlement of huts was succeeded by a masonry tower in the twelfth century. These lasted only a short time. During the thirteenth and early part of the fourteenth centuries the Eastern Height became the castle of the Lord of Ansedonia, who was driven away in 1329 by the Sienese.30 After that Cosa slept undisturbed among the tangles of brush and wild olives. Only in the eighteenth century did a single farmer come to till the soil on the hilltop. Above a stretch of an ancient road he built his farmhouse, whose shell still remains incorporated into the modern complex housing the museum, storerooms, and workrooms of the excavation.

The Sculptures: Public Sphere The sculptures include pieces from both the public and private spheres. From the public sphere are a large lion of Vulci tuff, possibly a guardian fgure found at the entrance to the arx (PS 2) and a Hellenistic torso of Asclepius (PS 1), late Republican and late Hellenistic respectively. Of Imperial date are the torso of Jupiter Capitolinus (PS 3) and six portrait statues (PS-St 1–6), to which only that of Agrippina Minor may have its head (PS-St 3). To PS-St 1, the lower torso of Claudius, belongs a fragment of his forehead executed in the same distinctive marble. This fgure, a togate fgure of Nero (PS-St 2), and Agrippina Minor have been identifed as the three statues that had occupied the niches in the scaenae frons of the early Neronian odeum built into the remains of the basilica destroyed in an earthquake of A.D. 51.31 A fragmentary draped female and pieces of a togatus are Julio-Claudian (PS-St 4–5), and a better-preserved, over life-sized cuirassed fgure (PS-St 6) is Flavian in date. There must have been other portrait statuary at Cosa to judge from the quantity of body parts of different sizes and marbles, especially life- and over life-sized feet, twelve of which have come to light that cannot be associated with their owners. Besides the piece of Claudius’s head, four other portrait heads have survived. The frst two are fragments, identifed from the treatment of their hair as Drusus Minor and perhaps Nero (PSHead 1–2). It is possible that some fragments of Drusus’s statue can be identifed based on size and marble type. A statue of Drusus Minor at Cosa is to be expected since a table support found on the arx and now lost bears an inscription dedicated to him as a patron: “Drusus Caesar, son of Tiberius Augustus and grandson of the divine Augustus.”32 If PS-Head 2 is indeed a head of Nero,

29 See Fentress et al. 2003, chs. 3–5 for a detailed description of the three phases of medieval occupation. On the sixth-century occupation see Cirelli and Fentress 2012, 98–102; on the pottery associated with this period see S. Fontana in Fentress et al. 2003, 307–319.

2003, 120–32. Hobart makes it clear that, until the excavation of the Eastern Height, the “Capitolium” had been considered the castle of the Lord of Ansedonia (p. 132). 31

Collins-Clinton 2000.

30

32

On this see further below, p. 156.

Fentress et al. 1991, 211–14; and Hobart in Fentress et al.

6

ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT

it would belong to the togate fgure from the odeum. The third is a bust of Agrippina Minor made to be ftted into a separate base, and the fourth is a head of Hadrian, PS-Head 3. With the exception of two small altars found in the House of Diana on the forum, decorations for two, possibly three altars have survived (A 3–4, 6). The altars were probably set up on the arx, most likely in the forecourt of the “Capitolium.” These include a double ritual procession—the suovetaurilia (A 3)—and several fragments of a bucranium/garland frieze (A 4); both decorations are Augustan in date. A fragment of a Lares altar (A 5) found in the forum, also Augustan, strongly suggests the presence of an imperial cult.

The Sculptures: Private Sphere The largest group of sculptures consists of those made for private use, based on their small size or their types, such as herms or miniature herm busts. These pieces fnd close parallels among the garden statuary in Pompeii. The statuettes include one of tuff and four executed in Greek marbles dating to the late Republican period (DS-St 1–5). DS-St 2 is one of the fnest pieces of statuary from Cosa: a statuette of Pan moving and twisting with his hands behind his back, carved of Pentelic marble.33 Its late Hellenistic style, along with its Pentelic marble, suggests that it may have been imported from Greece. Two other statuettes carved of a coarse-grained white marble, also in a late Hellenistic style (DS-St 4–5), may also be Greek imports. These three fgures are indications of the increasing prosperity at Cosa in late Republican times, a fact that is borne out in other ways as well.34 All the other examples of domestic sculpture are early Imperial. Of the ten statuettes and fragments, two stand out. One is an under life-sized statue of Bacchus, found in the late antique Shrine of Liber Pater apparently reused as the cult image (DS-St 6).35 The other is a group of Diana and her dog, used as the cult image in a shrine erected in the garden of the House of Diana (DS-St 7). All but two (DS-St 10 and 13) were found in the forum and likely belonged to Cosa’s elite citizens, whose atrium houses occupied three sides of the forum. Four herms were found in the forum (DSHerm 1–4), three in the garden of the House of Diana. Seven of the eight miniature herm busts were also found around the forum (DS-MHB 1–2, 4–8). Only DS-MHB 3, a bust of Eros, was found in the area of houses. Also common in Roman gardens are the oscillum and the pinax, made to hang from the entablature of a portico or to rest on a support within the garden (DS-Osc 1–5). DS-Osc 1, a mask of Papposilenus, and DS-Osc 4–5, two pinakes, were found in the House of Diana. The other two were found elsewhere around the forum.

Furniture and Furnishings This is by far the largest category of stone and marble sculpture at Cosa, comprising table supports and related parts, basins and supports, puteals, and sundials. Only a few clearly belonged to the public sphere: a bath basin found outside the late Republican Bath Complex (B 1), an inscribed basin with its support found on the arx (B 2, 9), a decorative wellhead (P 3) that had belonged to 33

Collins-Clinton, Attanasio, Platania 2008, 25 table 1, no. CO19; 29 table 3, no. CO19; 30 fg. 4, no. 19; 33; 34 fgs. 7a, b.

34

This will be discussed in ch. 2.

35

Collins-Clinton 2001.

FINDSPOTS AND PLACES OF DISPLAY

7

the cistern of the “Capitolium.” Several fragments of other wellheads were also found on the arx (P 4, 7, 8). An inscribed table support, a slab type with a bust of Eros at each end, and a piece of its mate were found near the “Capitolium” (T-Supp 7); this was a dedication by Drusus Minor, whose portrait statue must have stood either on the arx or in the forum. Table supports represent the single largest category of material from Cosa, comprising ffteen pieces: four late Republican and eleven early Imperial, mostly Augustan or Julio-Claudian. Among the late Republican examples, only one, of travertine, is Roman; the rest are executed in Greek marbles and are likely imports. The marble of one (T-Supp 1) has been tested as Parian Lakkoi.36 The others are Pentelic. The early Imperial examples form a good collection of the types analyzed by R. Cohon and C. Moss.37 Eleven table tops have survived of which ten are stone, both round and rectangular, and should be considered late Republican. One (T-Top 6), a round travertine leaf with a raised rim, was found below the foor of the basilica, a fndspot that dates it in the frst half of the second century B.C., before the basilica was constructed. It was broken and perhaps had belonged to one of the atrium houses around the forum, used as fll under the basilica’s foor. It is the earliest dateable piece of furniture from Cosa. Most of the basins are early Imperial and include two hemispherical types (B 4–5) and fragments of fountain basins (B 6–8), two of which were in the garden of the House of Diana. Among the simple, columnar supports (B 9–11) is one (B 10) that is clearly late Hellenistic by virtue of its Pentelic marble.38 A well-preserved pair of supports for a fountain basin (B 12), found in the House of Diana, is also late Hellenistic, as both its Pentelic marble and the Hellenistic style of its bucranium decorations indicate. Of the six mostly fragmentary puteals found at Cosa belonging to the private sphere, fve were found around the forum (P 1, 4–6, 10) and one in a late Republican house, the House of the Treasure (P 2). P 10 is especially interesting because it is a fragment of an unusual six-sided wellhead that matches a six-sided cistern mouth in the Atrium Publicum. P 1–2 are late Republican, the rest early Imperial. Only fragments of two sundials, one of travertine and the other of a fne white limestone, have been found at Cosa. One (S 1) is from the arx, which may well have been its original location. The other was found in the House of the Skeleton. From what we know about the location of sundials in Pompeii, both settings are to be expected.

Findspots and Places of Display There are three main areas where the sculptural material has been discovered: the arx, the forum, and the late Republican houses. Within the blocks of houses (fg. 3), only fragments of fve pieces, all made for private use, have been unearthed: a tuff wellhead and four table tops, P 2, T-Top 4, 7, 8, 11. This is not unusual since these were the homes of the lower class of citizens, who would not have had the means to own imported marble statuary or furnishings. One of these houses, however, the House of the Skeleton, was built around 80 B.C. into the back gardens of several houses that faced the next street.39 It was more elegant than the others nearby in that it had an 36 Collins-Clinton, Attanasio, Platania 2008, 25 table 1, no. CO22; 29 table 3, no. CO22; 30 fg. 4, no. 22; 38–39 and fg. 13. 37

Cohon 1984 and Moss 1988.

38

Collins-Clinton, Attanasio, Platania 2008, 25 table 1, no. CO18; 29 table 3, no. CO18; 30 fg. 4, no. 18; 38 and fg. 12.

39

Bruno in Bruno and Scott 1993, 99–148.

8

ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT

atrium with an impluvium and a fne triclinium with Masonry Style wall decoration facing a large garden. A fragment of a limestone sundial was found in this house but no marble sculpture or other furnishings. Another house, the House of the Birds,40 rebuilt in Augustan times by consolidating two earlier houses into one, also had no marble sculptures. In this area of housing, however, one item of marble was found under the ruins of an eighteenth-century farmhouse built upon a Roman street whose paving stones formed its foor:41 a miniature herm bust, DS-MHB 3, probably found and reused by the farmer, though not necessarily discovered nearby. The arx and the forum both experienced damage from the earthquake documented in A.D. 51 during the reign of Claudius (Tac. Ann. 12.43.1) and from reoccupation and extensive changes from the sixth century to 1329, when the Lord of Ansedonia was driven out. The earthquake caused serious damage in the forum, especially to the basilica, whose northwest wall collapsed outward, causing its superstructure to collapse.42 On the arx, insofar as can be determined, only the roof of the “Capitolium” was damaged.43 The medieval occupations, based on excavations in the 1990s, have been studied by E. Fentress and others.44 Briefy, these are: (1) the sixth-century settlement that involved a fortifed estate center on the arx and a small village with a church in the forum;45 (2) the tenth- and eleventh-century church and cemetery in the forum in and around Temple B, another church and cemetery on the arx, as well as scattered housing outside the forum and earthworks on the Eastern Height;46 and (3) the twelfth- through early fourteenth-century castle on the Eastern Height along with evidence elsewhere on the site.47 It is clear from this and from where the pieces of ancient statuary were found that there was quite a bit of post-antique upheaval, which has affected our attempts to identify their original placement as well as to reconstruct their appearance from their scattered and missing pieces. Pieces of only one statue that must have been erected in the forum date from before the earthquake, the portrait statue of Drusus Minor, as a diagnostic piece of his head suggests, PSHead 1. The younger Drusus, son of Tiberius, was a patron of Cosa according to an inscribed table support found on the arx, T-Supp 7, and now lost.48 Part of his head was found in the forum reservoir, three parts belonging to this statue were elsewhere in the forum, and one piece was found on the arx. The presence of most of this statue in the forum, especially the piece of the head, suggests that the statue had stood there rather than on the arx. All the other portrait heads and headless statues are Neronian or later. The togatus (PS-St 5) and a female statue (PS-St 4) 40

On this see Scott in Bruno and Scott 1993, 161–91.

41 This has been restored and incorporated within the museum complex to accommodate the custodians in charge of the site and its museum. 42 On the earthquake see p. 4 with n. 19 above; see also Collins-Clinton 2000, 102 and Fentress in Fentress et al. 2003, 55. See further below p. 10. 43

Fentress in Fentress et al. 2003, 56; 59–60 with pl. 12 on roof tiles stamped with the name of L. Titinius Glaucus Lucretianus, who was working at Cosa in the 50s. On the tiles see also Bace 1983, 160–62. Bace notes two inscriptions found on the arx that record Titinius’s name: No. IIIB1, two joining pieces (C68.479 and C68.307) found on the west slope of the arx behind the “Capitolium” (99–102) and no. IIIB4,

several fragments of a monumental plaque. Both inscriptions may refer to his work on the arx; see also Fentress in Fentress et al. 2003, 58 no. 3 and 60–61 on Titinius. 44

Fentress et al. 2003, chs. 3 on the sixth-century settlement, 4 on the early medieval settlement, and 5 on that of the twelfth through the fourteenth centuries; also Fentress et al. 1991, 197–230.

45 Fentress in Fentress et al. 2003, ch. 3 with fg. 26 for a reconstruction of the arx at that time and Fentress et al. 1991. 46

Fentress in Fentress et al. 2003, 97–119.

47

Hobart in Fentress et al. 2003, ch. 5.

48

See also below, pp. 135–36 and 155 n. 110.

FINDSPOTS AND PLACES OF DISPLAY

9

were found in the basilica or nearby; the fgure wearing a cuirass (PS-St 6) would also have stood originally in the forum. The inhabitants of the sixth-century settlement eventually constructed a defensive wall around the exposed parts of the arx on the northwest and northeast sides.49 Two over life-sized torsos were built into this wall: the Hellenistic torso of Asclepius (PS 1) and the cuirassed fgure (PS-St 6) were immured just outside the rear cella wall of Temple D. A third, an over life-sized torso of Jupiter Optimus Maximus (PS 3), which would have occupied the central cella of the “Capitolium,” was found at the base of the northeast wall near the gateway to the arx. The frst must have been placed on the arx originally, as well as the third, but the cuirassed fgure had been displayed in the forum since one of its lower legs, its foot, and a part of its other lower leg were found in and near the basilica on the surface.50 The route from the forum to the arx follows a rather gentle slope uphill that would have made transport easier.51 In the forum two imperial portrait statues, PS-St 2 and 3, were built into the party wall between two shops or houses in the south corner of the basilica/odeum.52 Clearly the sixth-century inhabitants of Cosa used these large pieces as convenient building blocks for their walls, a process that occurred over and over in medieval times in both Italy and Greece. Later, in the late thirteenth century, the defensive wall on the arx was reinforced on the northeast side that faces the forum, now badly preserved.53 Also at this time there was a limekiln on the podium of the “Capitolium” that left a residue of yellow mortar. The limekiln had apparently burned a yellowish limestone, presumably the yellowish limestone of the podium blocks of the “Capitolium” itself. This mortar has been associated with that used on the Eastern Height in the late thirteenth or early fourteenth century.54 That there must have been another limekiln at Cosa then, one that produced a grayish mortar, can be deduced from the thick gray mortar used in the poorly preserved thirteenth-century wall mentioned above.55 The use of large pieces of statuary in sixth-century wall construction and the presence of medieval limekilns at Cosa provide an important explanation for the missing and scattered parts of Cosa’s statuary and furnishings in white marble and limestone.56 A number of body parts discovered on the arx can be associated with their bodies found in the forum, based on size and type of marble. A particularly eloquent example is the forehead of Claudius (PS-Head 1), clearly identifable by his hairstyle, that fts the size and especially the coarse-grained marble, unusual at Cosa, of the lower torso from the scaenae frons of the odeum, where the statue had originally stood.57 Another example pertains to the early Imperial decoration of the main altar of the “Capitolium,” which had consisted of a marble frieze depicting a suovetaurilia set around the outside of the earlier altar’s superstructure (A 3a–c). Two sections of this frieze were found on the arx, but one was reused for a medieval grave found in the House of Diana on the forum.58 49

On this wall see Fentress in Fentress et al. 2003, 73–74 with fg. 26; see further Fentress et al. 1991, 198 fg. 1 and p. 206, where it is described as having neatly coursed roughly square facing blocks laid without mortar.

54 Hobart in Fentress et al. 2003, 132, also 126, where she notes the connection between the limekiln and the yellowish mortar used in a wall on the Eastern Height. 55

50

See below, PS-St 6; the marbles of the body and foot have been tested to determine the quarry of origin, and they match.

51

Figure 1, the town plan, shows the gentle slope.

Hobart in Fentress et al. 2003, 132.

56 This and other medieval disturbances also apply to the inscriptions; see Bace 1983, 3–4. 57

On this fndspot see Fentress in Fentress et al. 2003, 75 with fgs. 27 and 28.

On the torso see Collins-Clinton 2000, 106–7; on the type of marble see Collins-Clinton, Attanasio, Platania 2008, 31; also fg. 4 no. 1, tables 1 and 3 no. CO1.

53

58

52

Hobart in Fentress et al. 2003, 132.

Taylor 2003a, 209.

10

ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT

Several pieces had stood on the arx in the late Republic: the over life-sized Hellenistic torso of Asclepius (PS 1), an inscribed basin and its support, both of limestone (B 2 and 8), and an inscribed limestone puteal decorated with a relief (P 3). The wellhead, which had served the cistern beneath the pronaos of the temple, must have been damaged in the pirate raid of ca. 70–60 B.C. and replaced by another, simpler one of marble in the Augustan repairs (P 9). Also found on the arx and most likely displayed there in the early Empire are fragments of altars that would have been erected in the forecourt of the “Capitolium” (A 3–4), the cult image of Jupiter Optimus Maximus that would have occupied the central cella of the temple (PS 3), and the inscribed table dedicated to Drusus Minor in the forecourt (T-Supp 7). The forum has been extensively excavated (see fg. 2).59 In the frst century A.D. during and after the Augustan resettlement, the picture of the forum changed. The basilica collapsed in the earthquake of A.D. 51.60 The fall of its northwest wall sealed the rooms closest to the basilica, among which is a storeroom that belonged to a shop where several small sculptures and decorative pieces in colored marbles were discovered (fg. 4). One of the statuettes is the late Hellenistic Pan (DS-St 2), and one of the decorative pieces is a broken and incomplete platter of lumachella orientale that had been repaired sometime well before the basilica collapsed.61 The platter may also date to the late Republican period. Both the Pan and the platter may have been scavenged from nearby late Republican houses. The basilica did not lie in ruins long, for an odeum was constructed soon after Claudius’s death under the young Nero, as an inscription attests (fg. 5).62 Excavators have discovered two portrait statues built into a wall of a nearby sixth-century dwelling or shop, a togatus (PS-St 2) and a draped woman (PS-St 3), identifed as Nero and Agrippina. Below the central niche of the scaenae frons of the odeum lay a large piece of the torso of a semi-draped male fgure, now interpreted as the divinized Claudius (PS-St 1). The three niches then held a small Julio-Claudian statuary group: the young Nero, Divus Claudius, and his widow Agrippina Minor. In front of the stage two honorary portrait statues had stood, probably representing the dedicator and his wife, PS-St 4–5. No sculptures or furnishings have been found in the area of the comitium and curia, but a miniature herm bust in giallo antico (DS-MHB 1) was found in an Augustan fll under the forecourt of Temple B, suggestive of Augustan repairs and indicative of an early use of this marble in decorative statuary. Across from Temple B is the House of Diana, excavated by Fentress and her team in the 1990s (fg. 6). It was rebuilt during the Augustan resettlement and, in later Julio-Claudian times, the garden was transformed into a luxurious setting complete with a small fountain against the back wall, a shrine dedicated to Diana against the right wall, and a large collection of marble garden statuary (see table 4, p. 33 below, for material from the House of Diana).63 According to the excavators the house collapsed around A.D. 80 and was not repaired.64 During the third century the forum was repaired in an effort to inject new life into the town, called res publica Cosanorum in the epigraphical record.65 One inscription explicitly notes repairs 59

On the forum see Brown et al. 1993 and Fentress et al. 2003 and, for the stratigraphy: http://www.press.umich.edu/ webhome/cosa (accessed 9 August 2017). 60

See above, p. 4 n. 19.

61

Collins-Clinton 2014.

62

Bace 1983, no. IIA2; Collins-Clinton 2000; Gros 2000; and

Fentress et al. 2003, 56–58. See also the comments of Carlsen 1984, 92 with n. 249 and p. 144 with n. 411. 63

Taylor 2003a; Taylor 2003b.

64

Fentress in Fentress et al. 2003, 63.

65 On the repairs and reoccupation see Fentress in Fentress et al. 2003, 63–69.

MATERIALS

11

to the odeum and the portico under Maximinus Thrax.66 Apparently the large reservoir at the west corner of the forum was used as a convenient place to dump accumulated refuse, and many pieces of sculpture and furnishings dating to the early Empire or late Republic were among this material. Since the forum was lined with eight atrium houses, it seems very likely that this material had belonged to the elite families who had lived in these homes (see table 2, p. 29 below, for early Imperial material found in the forum). At the beginning of the fourth century a shrine or priestly meeting place dedicated to Liber Pater was built into the old southeast entranceway (see fg. 10).67 It contained quite a collection of earlier material: an inscribed table support naming Liber Pater (T-Supp 12), an under life-sized statue of Bacchus (DS-St 6), another table support in the form of a herm of Dionysus carved in Greek marble (DS-Herm 1), a miniature herm bust of Hercules in giallo antico (DS-MHB 5), the broken foot of a basin support (B 11), a relief depicting the attributes of Minerva (A 6)—all apparently brought together by the worshippers from various places around town. These were discovered broken into many pieces near where they had been set up. Some are not complete; for instance, the head and arms of Bacchus were never found, though the herm support, T-Supp 1, is complete. This suggests that the shrine was entered and wrecked without having been systematically looted, probably by the Christian settlers of the sixth century. The materials then lay undisturbed long enough for a layer of fne reddish wind-blown dust to settle over everything before the roof and walls fell in, sealing the contents with rubble and roof tiles until they were excavated in 1967/68.

Materials Almost all of the sculptural material and most of the table supports are carved of white or colored marble. Most of the furnishings, including basins and their supports, many table tops and one piece of a table support, two small altars, and two sundials, are either travertine or limestone and date to the second or early frst century B.C. Some pieces are in a fne-textured, gray tuff with a slightly purple tinge that came from nearby Vulci; these are also late Republican: the hindquarters of a lion (PS 2), a piece of a wellhead (P 2), and fragments of hair, possibly from a human fgure (DS-St 1). Among the table tops is one of travertine that was found in a sounding below the foor of the basilica that was constructed ca. 150 B.C., an indication that it was earlier and was used as fll after it had broken—the earliest dateable stone object so far discovered at Cosa (T-Top 6). All but one of these are travertine along with one table support, one sundial, and one puteal. Since the source of travertine was the quarry at Tibur (modern Tivoli) near Rome and accessible by river to the sea for ease of transport, these pieces must have been shipped from Rome,68 probably ready-made. This suggests that they were not inexpensive and were obtained by the more prosperous individuals. All but the sundial found on the arx were certainly domestic. This is a good refection of the prosperity at Cosa in the late second and early frst centuries B.C. A selection of white marbles was tested in 2004 to determine their quarries of origin69 since it is very diffcult to distinguish those white marbles of the same crystalline structure by eye alone, 66

Scott 1981, 309–14.

67

Collins-Clinton 1977.

68 On the transport of stone in general see B. Russell, The Economics of the Roman Stone Trade, Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2013, 139: transport by river and sea was much less expensive than overland. Cosa’s harbor provided an advantage in this respect. 69

Collins-Clinton, Attanasio, Platania 2008.

12

ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT

and some varieties of Carrara marble closely resemble Pentelic. The result is that some that could have been identifed as Carrara marble turned out to be Pentelic. This is best exemplifed by the statuette of Pan (DS-St 1) that is late Hellenistic in style and thus may have been imported ready-made from Athens.70 In the context of Pentelic marble, two examples from the garden of the House of Diana stand out. One is a headless herm of a draped woman (DS-Herm 2).71 The other, a pair of late Hellenistic supports for a water basin (B 10a, b), has not been tested, but the grayish blue streaks are characteristic of a certain grade of Pentelic,72 and the Hellenistic style of the bucrania decorating one end of each indicates a date before the quarrying of Carrara marble for sculptures began in earnest. Some marbles that are clearly not Italian are those with a coarse crystalline structure. Of these, a portrait statue of Claudius with a fragment of its head (PS-St 1) and a table support in the form of a herm (T-Supp 1) exhibit two varieties: the statue is Thasian dolomite,73 and the support is Parian marble from the quarry at Lakkoi.74 Of Parian lychnites marble, the most valued of Parian marbles for its quality and the diffculty of its extraction, are two statues: the Hellenistic torso of Asclepius (PS 1) and the statue of Agrippina Minor (PS-St 3). The frst is clearly of Greek workmanship, as indicated by its method of joining torso to lower body as well as its style. Most of the early Imperial sculptures are Carrara marble, as one would expect in Italy after ca. 20 B.C., when this marble began to be used extensively for sculpture in addition to architecture. The last piece of white marble is rather special: a narrow pillar in Proconnesian marble found in the garden of the House of Diana, DS-Other 11 (fg. 7). It is an early example of this marble imported to Italy in later Julio-Claudian times, when the lavishly decorated garden of the House of Diana was designed. Elizabeth Fentress has most likely correctly identifed the owner of the House of Diana as L. Titinius Glaucus Lucretianus, who was a citizen of Luna closely associated with the court of Claudius and the young Nero. He was responsible for building the odeum into the ruins of the basilica as well as for other projects75 and is also thought to have been closely connected to the marble trade; if so, he would have been able to procure this special piece of imported marble.76 Many pieces are made from colored marbles: mostly giallo antico but also others, including bardiglio, lumachella orientale, pavonazzetto, and one piece of portasanta marble.77 These tend to be decorative and rather small in size. Giallo antico predominates, altogether nine pieces: four miniature herm busts, one hip herm, a base for a table and inlays for another table base, and two small plinths. These, along with two small pieces of pavonazzetto and two in bardiglio, are early

70

Collins-Clinton, Attanasio, Platania 2008, table 1, no. CO19; 29 table 3, no. CO19; pp. 33–34, fgs. 7–8; and p. 53.

71

Collins-Clinton, Attanasio, Platania 2008, fg. 4 no. CO13; tables 1 and 3, no. CO13; pp. 35–37, fg. 11b. 72

Attanasio et al. 2006, 91 and P. Pensabene in De Nuccio and Ungaro 2002, 208.

13; also fg. 4 no. CO22, tables 1 and 3 no. CO22. 75

See Fentress in Fentress et al. 2003, 56–62 with further bibliography. Fragments of roof tiles bearing his brick stamps found on the arx indicate his involvement in repairing the roof of the “Capitolium” under Nero; Bace 1983, 43, 160–62 no. A 22. 76

Collins-Clinton, Attanasio, Platania 2008, 31, 47–48, fg. 22; also fg. 4 no. CO1, tables 1 and 3 no. CO1.

On his connection to the marble trade, based mainly on his hometown of Luna, see Fentress in Fentress et al. 2003, 61 with further bibliography.

74

77

73

Collins-Clinton, Attanasio, Platania 2008, 29, 38–40, fg.

See appendix below for a list.

13

PIECING

Imperial, all found in and around the forum, thus suggesting an association with the owners of the atrium houses there.78 A miniature herm bust, DS-MHB 1, was found under the forecourt of Temple B in an Augustan context.79 Another, DS-MHB 5, is a good example of the discoloration of giallo antico under the heat of a fre that turns pink all but the white parts.80 The single piece of lumachella orientale (DS-Other 8) is the only example of colored marble that is late Republican in date based on circumstances surrounding its fndspot.81 It is incomplete; what is left of it was broken and repaired, a situation encouraging one to believe that it may have been scavenged from a nearby atrium house destroyed in the raid of ca. 70–60 B.C. and not rebuilt.

Piecing Most of the large-scale statuary, along with some statuettes, is pieced together, sometimes in very complicated ways. This is especially true of the Hellenistic torso of Asclepius PS 1, which is made in two main pieces, torso and lower body, in a technique that can best be compared to the way in which column drums are attached to each other in Greek architecture. At the base of the torso are some worked surfaces at different angles to each other that can be interpreted as attachment surfaces for separate pieces of drapery made to hide the horizontal join between the nude upper and draped lower bodies. A broad surface on the statue’s left side is treated to attach a separate upper arm, which has been reattached. The fall of the drapery down the back was also made separately and attached. This elaborate piecing has parallels with the late Hellenistic Poseidon from Melos and the so-called Zeus from the Sanctuary of Hero Basilea at Pergamum,82 which are roughly contemporary with the Cosa fgure. The seated torso of Jupiter Capitolinus (PS 3) also had a separately attached back, both arms, and lower body. Separately made lower bodies in these over life-sized seated fgures, however, are not unusual.83 The two draped female portrait statues, PS-St 3 and 4, exhibit less intricate piecing. Both have cavities to hold separately made heads, a common practice since often the portrait heads were made by different sculptors. The left shoulder and arm of PS-St 3, the statue of Agrippina Minor, was doweled onto her shoulder, and both arms of PS-St 4 were made separately, as the attachment surfaces on both shoulders indicate. In addition, the right hand of PS-St 4 was made separately, presumably of a better quality of marble; this has been found and fts perfectly into the socket made for it. In the lower body of this statue there are also traces of a socket for a separately made left foot. A few female feet have been unearthed that were clearly made to be inserted into cuttings made for them, though it is not easy to distinguish which foot belonged to which statue.84 Some of the domestic sculptures also exhibit piecing. Both arms were attached to the statue of Bacchus found in the late antique Shrine of Liber Pater, DS-St 6. The left arm of a male torso was 78

Pavonazzetto was among the earliest colored marbles imported into Rome, used in the pavements of the Temple of Mars Ultor and the Forum of Augustus; see Gnoli 1988, 169–71. The third piece of bardiglio is the table leaf T-Top 11 from the Augustan House of the Birds.

79

See above, p. 10.

80

This is also true of two fragments of table bases (T-Base 2–3).

81

See above, p. 10 n. 61.

82

On these see below (PS 1, nn. 15–16).

83 See, for example, Niemeyer 1968, 104–6 nos. 83, 84, 87, and 88. 84

See BP 36, 37, 39.

14

ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT

attached to a surface in its shoulder that contains the end of a dowel hole, DS-St 11. Even the small female bust DS-St 5 was made to be attached to its body, and her right arm and top of her head were also attached separately. This statuette is made of a coarse-grained white marble, surely Greek, and may have been imported to Cosa in late Republican times. Even in statuettes such complicated piecing was practiced in late Classical and Hellenistic times.85 Amanda Claridge has concluded that the piecing (or joining) of larger statuary, particularly in Roman times, was due to the smaller sized blocks of marble available then, especially in late Republican and early Imperial periods.86 This would account for the attachment of separate arms or legs and feet that would have extended beyond the confnes of the block, either laterally or forward, or for making large seated or standing statues in two main blocks of marble.

85

Marcadé 1969, 109 esp. on Delos.

86

Claridge 1988. See also M. Stuart, “How Were Imperial

Portraits Distributed throughout the Empire?,” AJA 43 (1939) 615.

2 ♦ The Historical Context

Introduction

T

his chapter will provide a picture of Cosa’s embellishment insofar as the ancient and post-antique disturbances of the town will permit. The frst of these disturbances was the scavenging that doubtlessly occurred after the raid of ca. 70–60 B.C. and that probably lingered even after the Augustan resettlement of the town.1 Later, in the attempt to revive Cosa under the Severans in the third century A.D., the forum was cleaned up, repaired, and debris including sculptures was thrown into the forum reservoir.2 Even later, in the sixth century, some large pieces were built into a new fortifcation wall on the arx, one of which must have come from the forum.3 Agricultural and other activities then and in later medieval times mean that sculptures were moved from their original places of display, heads separated from bodies, and body parts scattered.

The Embellishment of Cosa in the Late Republic After 197 B.C., when Cosa received a second quota of colonists, a century or more of urban development accompanied gradual economic growth and prosperity within both the town and countryside, the ager Cosanus.4 At the foot of Cosa’s hill the increasingly busy portus Cosanus reinforced the vitality of life in the town by the export of wine in amphoras made and shipped locally by the Sestius family.5 Three members of this family are known from Cicero: Lucius Sestius the elder, his son Publius, and his grandson Lucius (pro Sestio 6). The elder Lucius, who served as tribune of the plebs in Rome (91/90 B.C.),6 falls within the present time frame of 125–70/60 B.C. After his tribuneship he chose not to stand for further magistracies, apparently to devote more time to his business concerns.7 1

Collins-Clinton 2014, 76.

2

F. E. Brown, personal communication.

3

On these see above, p. 9.

4

Brown 1980, 66–73; Bruno and Scott 1993, 157; and, most recently, Carandini and Cambi 2002, esp. 103–217.

5 On activity in the port and Cosa’s prosperity see Brown 1980, 58–60, and McCann et al. 1987, 28, 30–33. On the shipping enterprise of the Sestii beginning early in the second century B.C. see especially Will 1987, 170–220 and Will 2001, her latest relevant publication; their amphoras have been found throughout Gaul and in the upper of the two shipwrecks off the Grand Congloué (Will 1987, 175–76 and text fg. IX-1). See also D’Arms 1981, 59–63 on the Sestii, esp. pp. 59–63 on the elder Lucius Sestius. On his amphoras made in the port area see Manacorda 1981, 5–16; on his trade in Gaul see now

F. Laubenheimer, “Amphoras and Shipwrecks: Wine from the Tyrrhenian Coast at the End of the Republic and Its Distribution in Gaul,” in J. D. Evans, ed., A Companion to the Archaeology of the Roman Republic, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013, 97–109, esp.100–101 and Fulton 2018, 194–213, esp. 211, where the author notes that Sestian amphoras were found in another shipwreck off the coast of France at Golfe-Juan (the wreck is referred to as Fourmigue C; it sank ca. 70 B.C.). 6

Cic. Sest. 6. See also T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, New York: American Philological Association, 1952, 2:22 with earlier bibliography and Will 1979, 348; see also the commentary of R. A. Kaster, Cicero: Speech on Behalf of Publius Sestius, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2006, reprinted 2009, 122–25.

7

D’Arms 1981, 60–61, 63 and N. K. Rauh, “Senators and Business in the Roman Republic 266–44 B.C.,” diss., University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1986, 257–59,

16

THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT

In addition to the export of wine and as well as other agricultural products from the ager Cosanus, imports contributed to the activity in the port throughout this period, as evidenced by the presence of imported pottery, including Rhodian amphoras,8 at Cosa. A. R. Scott has noted this activity in her publication of the black gloss pottery.9 Other imported pottery includes Italo-Megarian bowls as well as one fragment of an Attic “Megarian” bowl,10 and some pieces of Eastern Sigillata A.11 These discoveries clearly show the role played by both imports and exports at Cosa’s port, especially during the later second and early frst centuries B.C., a time of increasing prosperity in the town.12 Other indications of private wealth were found among the contents of an extensive dump along the south side of the “Capitolium” and its forecourt. This consisted of varied materials, including terracotta revetments and sculptural decoration from the “Capitolium” and Temple D damaged in the pirate raid as well as materials from nearby houses damaged or destroyed at the same time.13 The dump flled an area that had originally sloped southwest toward the arx wall and was sealed by a layer of beaten earth. The fragments from the temples indicate that this material was gathered after the temples were damaged in the raid and dumped, most likely in preparation for the early Augustan repairs to the “Capitolium” and its redesigned forecourt, when there would have been enough manpower for the project after the raid and abandonment

where he considers that Lucius Sestius’s service as tribune was undertaken more as a means of enhancing his business interests than pursuing a political career, in agreement with J. H. D’Arms. I am grateful to Rauh for pointing this out to me. 8

On the stamped handles see Taylor 1957, 105–7 (Deposit C, one stamp dated ca. 220–180 B.C.), 117–19 (Deposit D, two stamps dating from middle to late second century B.C.), 133–35 (Deposit E, four stamps dated late second century B.C.). On dating the Rhodian stamps, see further V. Grace, “Les timbres amphoriques grecs,” in P. Bruneau et al., L’Îlot de la Maison des Comédiens, EAD 27, Paris: Boccard, 1970, 297; stamps in Taylor’s Deposits D and E can now be dated more securely: for Deposit D, possibly as late as the last quarter of the second century B.C.; for Deposit E, all four stamps are now late second/early frst century B.C. See now Will and Slane 2019, 139–56 . 9 Scott 2008, 207, 209 (on the presence of Campana A and B pottery, both types imported, in Deposit F just outside the southeast end of the forum, and on Campana A especially as an indicator of the “importance of sea-borne trade as opposed to overland trade at this time,” in the early second century B.C.), 98–105 (on the continued importation of Campana A and B in Deposit D down to the pirate raid of ca. 70–60 B.C.). On Deposit D, located along the south side of the “Capitolium” and its forecourt, see further Taylor 1957, 119, who also noted the presence of at least one stamped Rhodian amphora handle. The pottery contained in this deposit “represents an accumulation which started 130–120 B.C.” This date does not confict with the new dating of the Rhodian amphora handle by Bruneau (as above). Deposit D is a large dump of miscellaneous material including much that is not pottery.

10

For the former, on deposits relevant to this time frame, see Moevs 1980b, 171, 211–12 (basilica deposit, an early one; this deposit contained a fragment of an Attic import, no. 69, dating to 175–150 B.C.), 171–75; not all the Italo-Megarian bowls from Cosa would have arrived via sea-borne trade, see pp. 179–80 for those made after the middle of the second century B.C.

11 Eastern Sigillata A (ESA) was produced along the coast of northern Syria beginning in the second century B.C.; see Moevs 2006, 13 no. HB.4 [House of the Birds] and 19–22 with Dump nos. 27–33 [the dump outside the west wall of the arx, the same as Taylor 1957, Deposit E, pp. 133–35]. This deposit consists of at least two dumpings, the earlier in the second half of the second century B.C., the later in the third quarter of the frst century B.C. V. Grace’s new dating of the four Rhodian amphora stamps (Grace [above n. 8] 297) suggests that Cosa’s ESA pottery was imported about the time of its greatest popularity in the last quarter of the second century and the frst quarter of the frst century B.C. It was exported to the western Mediterranean in small quantities, some of which reached Cosa, perhaps earlier than Moevs thought—that is, before ca. 70 B.C.—as K. W. Slane has informed me in an email communication of 29 April 2010. I am grateful to her for letting me know this. On ESA as a luxury item see Wallace-Hadrill 2008, 412. 12

On the increase in public and private wealth at this time both in Rome and other towns in Italy and its relation to the development of a Roman market for works of Greek art see Harris 2015, 399–400.

13

This dump is the same as Deposit D in Taylor 1957; Scott 2008; and Moevs 1980b, 172–74 (there called Cap South).

THE EMBELLISHMENT OF COSA IN THE LATE REPUBLIC

17

of the town.14 In this material was a quantity of painted wall plaster clearly in the First and early Second Styles of Roman wall decoration.15 Moevs has proposed that all of this material may well have come from “the destruction of houses in the vicinity, and of furnishings of those houses at the moment of their destruction.”16 The houses closest to the arx, whose ruins would have been the easiest to access, were the atrium houses lining Street P, the Processional Way between the arx and the forum—that is, the homes of wealthy families who had presumably redecorated some rooms in the latest style of wall decoration.17 By the end of that century, the well-to-do residents in town also began to enlarge their homes and to build new ones, as well as to acquire items of luxury, including small marble sculptures and pieces of marble furniture. The statuette of Pan in Pentelic marble and Hellenistic in style must have come to Cosa at this time (DS-St 2). The House of the Treasure is a good example of a row house belonging to a middle-class family who enlarged their home by acquiring the house next door.18 The construction of the new House of the Skeleton, built around 80 B.C., also fts into this context, though no marble sculpture was found within.19 It had a spacious atrium and a luxurious triclinium with an elegant black opus signinum foor whose central portion is inset with white tesserae and bordered by a wide band of black tesserae edged on both sides with two rows of white ones.20 In addition it has a late First Style wall decoration that includes a garland frieze in which gamboled small winged Erotes.21 This detail, placed at eye level so guests would notice it,22 has parallels on Delos.23 The room overlooked a garden that sloped upward so the diners could enjoy 14

On the repairs to the “Capitolium” and its forecourt see Brown et al. 1960, 127–39. My dating of this dump differs from the offcial attribution of ca. 70–60 B.C., when the town was abandoned. On this see Brown 1980, 73–74 and, most recently, Scott 2008, 177–78. For an alternate interpretation see Taylor 2002, 73–76, where he posits that this terrace was formed at the time of the Augustan repairs to the arx using debris from the raid gathered from all over the town. The later dating of the dump differs from that of Brown, who proposed that the pirates stayed after the raid and attempted to make Cosa a base for future operations (Brown 1980, 73–74). Scott 2008, 177–78 makes no mention of the pirates. 15

I am indebted to Anne Laidlaw, who has shown me this plaster. Most of this was excavated in 1966. On the dating of the beginning of the early Second Style in Rome to ca. 100 B.C. in the House of the Griffns, see now V. M. Strocka, “Domestic Decoration: Painting and the ‘Four Styles’,” in J. Dobbins and P. Foss, eds., The World of Pompeii, New York: Routledge, 2007, 308. 16

Moevs 1980b, 172; further information on pp. 173–74.

17

Fentress in Fentress et al. 2003, 23–25; fg. 10 shows the town plan with the location of the atrium houses along Street P, as well as those around the forum; also the website: http://www. press.umich.edu/webhome/cosa (Part II: The Stratigraphy, p. 1) (accessed 9 August 2017).

18

Scott in Bruno and Scott 1993, 79–97, fg. 24 shows the restored plan; also known as the House of Fulvius.

19

See Bruno in Bruno and Scott 1993, 99–152, fgs. 32–33

for the restored plan and the actual state axiometric plan respectively. 20

Bruno in Bruno and Scott 1993, 131, pls. 48, 76.

21 Bruno in Bruno and Scott 1993, 101–3; for the contribution by Anne Laidlaw, who carefully excavated and pieced a large section back together, see pp. 133–36; this is now on view in the Cosa Museum. See also Bruno 1970. 22 23

Laidlaw 1985, 34.

Bruno in Bruno and Scott 1993, 136–37 and, most recently, Westgate 2000, 397–415 on Delian wall decoration in general, 403–4 on the frieze with garland and Erotes in Room J of the House of the Trident, with earlier bibliography, and 424–26, where she emphasizes the Hellenistic desire to impress guests in their homes by elaborate and expensive pavements and wall decorations. See also Laidlaw 1985, 35. Also regarding a connection with the First Style wall decoration on Delos, Brown in Brown et al. 1960, 103 and n. 65 saw in the First Style decoration of the walls of the three cellas of the “Capitolium” “an early variant, which owes much to the . . . eastern Mediterranean . . . [that is] comparable with Delian examples.” In 1960 the “Capitolium” was thought to have been built close to 150 B.C. However, now that its construction has been dated earlier in the second quarter of the second century B.C. (Scott 1992), this reference to Delian wall decoration requires further analysis. Delos did not become a free port until 166 B.C., and Italian and Roman trade, and especially the traders’ residence on Delos, increased, along with a housing boom, mostly after 129 B.C., when Asia became a Roman province and Delos a convenient stopping point

18

THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT

the view up to a terrace with a pergola on the left opposite a gate opening onto Street M.24 Toward the end of the second century B.C. the owners of the House of Diana, an elite atrium house on the forum, began to transform the kitchen garden at the rear. A niche for a fountain was carved from the bedrock that formed the garden’s back wall toward its left end. It had a masonry frame and a deep, though narrow, basin. The fountain, along with a walkway, gave a more ornamental character to the garden, matching that of the House of the Skeleton with its walkways and pergola, but noteworthy for its earlier date.25 Cosa’s increasing prosperity must have attracted the attention of the pirates who were working their way up the west coast of Italy beginning around 75 B.C.26 Possibly in anticipation of such an attack, the owner of the House of the Treasure had buried under the foor of a room in his house a hoard of 2004 denarii, the latest minted in 72 B.C.27 News of Cosa’s wealth must have made its way among traders and other seafarers sailing to and from the portus Cosanus, eventually reaching the pirates to whom Cosa was a worthwhile target, as the signs of increasing private wealth as well as the general rise in prosperity within the town indicate.28 Any small bronzes or other items of expensive metals, such as jewelry, would have been carried off since nothing of this sort has been found in the excavations.29 Also noteworthy is the fact that no one returned to rebuild soon afterwards.30 The damage was too extensive—and there may have been too few survivors since the pirates would have killed many and taken others as prisoners to sell for ransom or into slavery.31

toward that destination. On this aspect of Delos see Rauh 1993, ch. 1. On the houses on Delos, see Trümper 1998. Thus a connection to Delian First Style wall decoration closer to 175/170 B.C. seems too early for Roman or Italian traders to have knowledge of this. The same holds true for the Masonry Style decoration on the interior of the original curia (Brown in Brown et al. 1993, 23). 24

On the garden see Bruno in Bruno and Scott 1993, 149–52.

25 Fentress in Fentress et al. 2003, 18 (briefy mentioned). The website http//www.press.umich.edu/webhome/cosa//f5_p_ iia2: Republican modifcations to the garden, p. 2 (accessed 25 July 2016), gives a more descriptive treatment of the wall fountain, the probable date for the modifed garden in the late second century B.C., and its relation to contemporary trends in Pompeii. 26

Brown 1980, 74. P. de Souza has gathered and discussed the literary sources for piracy affecting Roman interests in the western Mediterranean in the 70s B.C.; see de Souza 1999, 134–67, esp. 165 on piracy in the West. Of all the sources, only Cicero’s Verrine Orations and his pro lege Manilia are contemporary with the piracy at that time (de Souza 1999, 149). See now P. de Souza, “Rome’s Contribution to the Development of Piracy,” in R. L. Hohlfelder, ed., The Maritime World of Ancient Rome, Proceedings of “The Maritime World of Ancient Rome” Conference held at the American Academy in Rome 27–29 March 2003, MAAR suppl. 6, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2008, 71–96, esp. 71 for a defnition of piracy as “armed robbery normally involving the use of ships” that is not necessarily politically oriented, and pp. 84–88 and 93;

he makes clear that Pompey’s campaign to rid the seas of pirates did not altogether succeed in removing those armed robbers with ships who were only after fnancial gain. See also Scott in Will and Slane 2019, 117–18. 27 Scott in Bruno and Scott 1993, 79, 94; on the hoard see Buttrey 1980, 79–155, p. 82 on the date of the latest coin. Since most of these denarii seem freshly minted, it is signifcant to note both that Rome paid in new coins and the importance of the corn dole; see Crawford 1977, 47. On a shortage of grain in the mid-70s B.C. see further Gruen 1974, 35–36, citing Sallust, Hist. 2.44–46, Maur. 28 Dyson 1992, 83 has commented on Cosa in this context; see pp. 47–49 for the spread of luxury goods and an increasingly luxurious lifestyle in late Republican Italy. 29

During the cleaning of a stretch of the fortifcation wall between the Porta Fiorentina and the Porta Romana a small bronze statuette of a male fgure came to light. Though not offcially published and perhaps not late Republican, it is worthy of mention; see Poggesi 2001. It is now on display in the museum at Cosa.

30 The cumulative evidence of the wealth at Cosa that could have drawn the attention of the pirates marauding up the west coast of Italy at just that time discounts the comment of de Souza that Cosa was “a very defensible site and unlikely to have seemed to pirates to be worth attacking” (de Souza 1999, 165–66). The pirates were apparently not deterred by Cosa’s impressive fortifcation walls. 31

Brown 1980, 74.

THE EMBELLISHMENT OF COSA IN THE LATE REPUBLIC

19

THE ARX32 (fg. 8 plan) After the “Capitolium” and Temple D were built in the frst half of the second century B.C, a holy-water basin was set up, inscribed with the name of the donor, M Tongili, B 2, along with a fragment of its columnar support executed in a matching limestone, B 8.33 Since such basins were necessary for purifcation by water in Roman religious rites, it is logical to place it near the cistern located under the pronaos of the “Capitolium.” Over a drawshaft of the cistern would have been the inscribed limestone wellhead decorated in relief, P 5. The inscription refers to the dedicant, who had fulflled a vow, perhaps to Hercules Argivus, and the relief shows him offering a sacrifce in graeco ritu to Hercules.34 Outside, on the forecourt in front of the “Capitolium,” was a large U-shaped altar made of Vulci tuff.35 Two other pieces also found on the arx may have been displayed there. One is a sundial, S 1,36 the other an over life-sized Hellenistic torso of Asclepius, PS 1.37 Both were reused in the sixth-century A.D. wall around the arx and may very well have been set up on the arx itself, but there is no way to know exactly where. THE FORUM (fg. 2 plan) Near the forum a large piece of a limestone bath basin (B 1) was discovered in Street 5 just outside the Bath Complex, where it must have been used originally. In the forum itself, the public cisterns must have received wellheads at this time, but no fragments directly associated with them have been found. Two pieces of limestone puteals, most likely associated with private houses, were discovered in the forum reservoir (P 5–6). Just outside the forum a piece of another wellhead, this one of Vulci tuff, was found in the sidewalk of Street O along the northwest side of Atrium Building I; it may have served the cistern in a shop facing that street (P 1). By far the greatest number of late Republican furnishings are associated with tables used in a domestic context, and most of these were found in or near the forum. One, T-Supp 1, a table support in the form of a herm made of Parian marble, was a Greek import that exhibits features found on comparable material from Delos. A fragment of a travertine table support is decorated with a Hellenistic style of rosette that has twelve petals, T-Supp 2. The rest are rectangular or round table tops, altogether ten, fve of each and all of travertine. Seven of these were found in or near the forum, suggesting that they were used mainly in the atrium houses nearby. One, a round table leaf, is the earliest; it was found in a dateable context, a sounding into fll under the foor of the nave of the basilica, constructed between ca. 180 and 150 B.C. (T-Top 6).38 The remaining three were found in the blocks of houses, one of which was in the elegantly decorated House of the Skeleton. This suggests that families other than the municipal elites of Cosa could afford such furniture by the late second or early frst century B.C.39 32

For this and the following section on the forum, the reader should check the catalogue for a full description and sources of attribution for the objects indicated in boldface. See table 1, p. 21 below, for a list of the late Republican material. 33

On the gens Tongilia see Bace 1983, 29, 94–96 no. IIIA3; Brown 1980, 45 n. 4 and 73.

34 35

For a brief discussion of Hercules Argivus see P 5, n. 56.

Brown in Brown et al. 1960, 81–84. Traces of its footprint were visible at the time of excavation. On this see further pp. 174–75 below.

36

For examples set up near temples in Pompeii, see S 1, n. 6.

37

Collins-Clinton 1993.

38

On this fndspot see Taylor 1957, 91–94 Deposit B and Moevs 1973, 21. On the dating see Scott 2008, 111 and n. 3. 39 The prosperity of the owner of this house, as well as that of Q. Fulvius, the owner of the House of the Treasure where the hoard of denarii was found, has been noted by R. T. Scott in Bruno and Scott 1993, 157.

20

THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT

In addition to the parts of tables, with a few exceptions the other stone furnishings are also mostly domestic in purpose: basins and their supports, one of the two sundials, S 2, found in the House of the Skeleton, and two small altars from the House of Diana (A 1–2). Table 1 makes clear the distribution of the late Republican material around the town. An intact basin support of Pentelic marble (B 9, whose type has been considered Sullan and which may be late Hellenistic) was found in Atrium Building I. Two parts of a three-legged table deserve special attention, a lion’s head broken from the top of a support (T-Supp 3) and a stretcher (T-Supp 4). The lion’s head is Pentelic marble, and the stretcher, inscribed with the Greek letter Κ, is possibly also Pentelic with a similar crystalline structure and a warm tonality, an identifcation reinforced by the kappa. Though they may have been part of the same table—their sizes are compatible—they were not found together; the head came from Atrium Building I and the stretcher not too far away in Atrium Building IV, to which it may have belonged. To these two may be added three pieces also in Greek marble. They include the heads of two female statuettes in a coarse-grained Greek island marble (DS-St 4–5) and the statuette of Pan in Pentelic marble (DS-St 2). Pan exhibits a late Hellenistic style, and the female head, DS-St 5, has close late Hellenistic parallels in its form and piecing as well as the stylistic treatment of the hair and face.40 Pan was discovered in a room of a shop next to the northwest wall of the basilica, whose collapse in A.D. 51 sealed the room until it was excavated in 1952. It is very possible that it and the platter of lumachella orientale, DS-Other 8, which was found with it, were both scavenged from the ruins of nearby late Republican atrium houses.41 The most important feature that emerges from the distribution of the late Republican furnishings and sculpture is that so many were found in the forum (table 1). Most of this is private in nature and must have originally decorated the atrium houses of Cosa’s elites around and near it.42 Furthermore, the testing of the marbles determined that the quarry of origin for three pieces is Pentelic marble: the small lion’s head from the fancy three-legged table and the Pan, both in a late Hellenistic style, as well as the futed support for a basin (B 9). This indicates that these pieces may have been made either in Rome by an Attic workshop or in Athens and imported ready-made. The marble of the table support in the form of a herm (T-Supp 1) tested as Parian, the marble preferred by late Hellenistic workshops on Delos. The herm has other close affnities with Delos, especially in its unusual form, which is not common among Italian table supports in the form of herms. The heads from the female statuettes, carved of a coarse-grained Greek island marble, possibly Parian, could point toward a Delian origin as well since so many small-scale sculptures, suitable for private houses, were made on Delos,43 and many of these statuettes were pieced together of separate parts.44 The frieze from the walls of the triclinium of the House of the Skeleton with Erotes running through a garland adds another Delian feature. COSA AND OVERSEAS TRADE The use of Parian marble, the small scale, and the piecing are all characteristics of late Hellenistic sculpture on Delos, and Cosa is not the only site in central Italy to have received statuary and 40 The head in relief, DS-St 3, from the House of Diana, a late Classical Greek piece, is a special case because it was found in a late Julio-Claudian context and may have been obtained by the owner of that house at that time; on the owner, who was apparently a contractor, see Fentress in Fentress et al. 2003, 58–62. This may also apply to the pair of supports for a water basin of Pentelic marble in a clearly late Hellenistic style, B 10a, b.

43 On sculpture workshops on Delos see Jockey 1995, 87–93, esp. 92–93 on the increased standardization by the early frst century B.C. that is connected to the demand for small-scale pieces for domestic use, and to “a probably Roman clientele” (90). See also Agnoli 2002, 18–19. One might think of the “Roman clientele” as not necessarily restricted to those residing on Delos.

41

Collins-Clinton 2014, 76, also noted above, p. 11.

44

42

See Fentress in Fentress et al. 2003, 23–26 with fg. 10.

On the complex piecing even of statuettes found among those preserved on Delos, see Marcadé 1969, 109.

21

THE EMBELLISHMENT OF COSA IN THE LATE REPUBLIC

Table 1. Late Republican Material Cat. No.

Material

Area

Findspot

A 1 Small round altar

Limestone

Forum

House of Diana

A 2 Small round altar

Porous limestone

Forum

House of Diana

B 1 Public bath basin

Limestone

Near forum

Street 5, next to Bath Building

B 2 Inscribed labrum

Limestone

Arx

B 3 Basin or bowl fragment

Vulci tuff

Forum

B 8 Support fragment

Limestone

Arx

B 9 Columnar support

Pentelic marble

Forum

Atrium Publicum Room 4

B 10 Fountain supports

Pentelic marble

Forum

House of Diana

DS-St 1 Locks of hair

Vulci tuff

Houses

Near House of Skeleton

DS-St 2 Pan

Pentelic marble

Forum

Atrium Publicum Room 22

DS-St 3 Female head

Greek marble

Forum

House of Diana

DS-St 4 Female head

Greek marble

Forum

Shrine of Liber Pater, doorway

DS-St 5 Female bust

Greek marble

Forum

Shrine of Liber Pater, doorway

PS 1 Torso of Aesclepius

Parian lychnites

Arx

Medieval wall

PS 2 Hindquarters of lion

Vulci tuff

Arx

Near medieval gate

P 1 Puteal fragment

Vulci tuff

Near forum

Street O, Shop 25

P 2 Puteal fragment

Vulci tuff

Forum

Reservoir

P 3 Puteal base fragment

Vulci tuff

Forum

Reservoir

P 4 Puteal base fragment

Vulci tuff

Houses

House of Treasure

P 5 “Capitolium” Puteal I

Limestone

Arx

In or near “Capitolium”

P 6 Puteal shaft fragment

Limestone

Forum

In front of curia

P 7 Puteal fragments

Limestone

Forum

Reservoir

P 8 Puteal rim fragment

Limestone

Forum

Reservoir

P 9 Puteal fragments

Travertine

Arx

Behind “Capitolium”

P 10 Puteal rim fragment

Travertine

Arx

Behind “Capitolium”

T-Supp 1 Bearded herm

Parian 2 marble

Forum

Shrine of Liber Pater

T-Supp 2 Rosette

Travertine

Forum

Near entrance

T-Supp 3 Lion’s head

Pentelic marble

Forum

Atrium Publicum Room 16

T-Supp 4 Stretcher with K

Greek marble

Forum

Atrium Building IV

T-Top 1 Rectangular leaf

Travertine

Forum

Atrium Publicum, Room 21

T-Top 2 Rectangular leaf

Travertine

Near forum

Street O, outside Room 26

T-Top 3 Rectangular leaf

Travertine

Forum

Outside basilica

T-Top 4 Rectangular leaf

Travertine, gray, marble-like

Houses

House of the Skeleton

T-Top 5 Rectangular leaf

Travertine, gray, marble-like

Forum

Atrium Publicum

T-Top 6 Round leaf

Travertine

Forum

Basilica, below foor

T-Top 7 Round leaf

Travertine

Houses

Cesspool of house on Street M

T-Top 8 Round leaf

Travertine

Houses

Construction fll, House of Birds

T-Top 9 Round leaf

Travertine

Forum

In front of Atrium Building VI

T-Top 10 Round leaf

Travertine

Forum

Reservoir

S 1 Part of base, lower dial

Travertine

Arx

Medieval wall, near Temple D

S 2 Part of lower dial

Limestone

Houses

House of the Skeleton

Atrium Publicum Shop 5

22

THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT

furniture from there. Most important is the discovery of a cache of statuettes and furnishings from a Roman villa in Fianello Sabino in northern Latium, most of which are late Hellenistic in style and date, ranging from the late second to the early frst centuries B.C.45 All are Parian marble, all are under life-sized, and all exhibit varying degrees of piecing. These are early, if not the earliest, examples of the Roman desire to decorate their villas with new marble statuary and furniture,46 even before Cicero began to ask his agent in Athens to send statues to decorate his villa in Tusculum, as his letters to Atticus show. Also attributed to Delos are a few statues in Parian marble, mostly under life-sized, from the Sanctuary of Fortuna Primigenia at Praeneste.47 Besides the statuettes and furniture from Cosa and the late First Style wall decoration that have ties to Delos, a certain pattern of mosaic pavement dating to the late Republican period has been found in the House of the Cryptoporticus at Vulci. This is a checkerboard design, formed of individual black and white stone tesserae, a pattern that occurs in several late Hellenistic houses on Delos.48 The mosaic in the House of the Cryptoporticus, a large atrium house, is located in the bath area that was part of the frst phase of its construction, dated by the excavators between the end of the second and the early frst centuries B.C.49 It forms the threshold (Room 45) between the caldarium and the apodyterium. The presence of marble statuettes and furniture of Greek origin is a clear indication of the degree of private wealth accruing in late Republican Cosa. Certain types of imported pottery, especially some black gloss ware and Eastern Sigillata A, which must have been luxury items, and wall decoration in late First and early Second Style reinforce the increasing private wealth over the course of the second century B.C., culminating at the end of the century and continuing into the frst. This refects the extent to which the infux of private luxury in Rome was affecting Cosa. The process began when Rome came into direct contact with Greece and the Greek world and with the arrival of Greek art in Italy as booty, beginning in the late third century B.C., when Rome expanded her territory into Magna Graecia (Tarentum in 209 B.C.) and Sicily (Syracuse in 211 B.C.) and then overseas into Macedonia, Achaia, and Asia in the second century.50 The luxurious decoration of the atrium houses of Roman upper classes was symbolic of their social standing, power, and wealth as 45 Vorster 1998, 18–45, 53–59, 65–69 cat. nos. 1–13. Also from this cache is a late Hellenistic table support in the form of a lion’s leg for a three-legged table, Vorster 1998, 48 and 72 cat. no. 38, whose form resembles the one from Cosa, T-Supp 3.

in Carandini 1985b, 1:84 and fg. 98 showing an example from the house behind the French School on Delos. At Settefnestre it appears in cubiculum 55, where it defnes the location of the two beds. 49

46

By “new marble statuary and furniture” I mean to distinguish these from the statuary and furniture that came to Italy earlier as booty from the Roman wars in Greece.

47

Agnoli 2002, 15–19, 60–65 cat. no. 9, 67–70 cat. no. 16, and 78–80 cat. no. 16.

48

Bruneau 1972, 63 lists twelve examples, some merely fragments, from six houses; on the houses see now Trümper 1998, cat. nos. 1: House behind the French School, 2: House B west of the Establishment of the Poseidoniastes, 22: House of the Hill, 26: House IC in the Stadium Quarter, 35: House of Hermes, and 80: House of Dionysos. Of these Trümper’s nos. 26 and 35 were owned by Italians. The checkerboard motif has also been found in the villa of Settefnestre in the ager Cosanus, but it may date later than 70 B.C.; see De Vos

50

Bianchi 1997, 839–42, fg. 3.

For the ancient sources, some of which mention statuary and elegant furniture, see Pollitt 1966, 32–48, 63–64, 81–84. See also most recently E. Dubois-Pelerin, Le luxe privé à Rome et en Italie au Ier siècle après J.-C., Naples: Centre Jean Bérard, 2008; M. M. Miles, Art as Plunder: The Ancient Origins of Debate about Cultural Property, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008, esp. 60–104, 152–56, 187–88, 207–10, 220–26; Wallace-Hadrill 2008, esp. ch. 7; Welch 2006, 91–161; and E. Zanda, Fighting Hydra-like Luxury: Sumptuary Regulation in the Roman Republic, London: Bristol Classical Press, 2011, 15–18. M. Torelli (“The Romanization of Italy,” in Tota Italia: Essays in the Cultural Formation of Roman Italy, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999, 8–9) specifcally notes that the local aristocracies of Latin colonies refected the luxuria that had developed in Rome after her conquests of Greece.

THE EMBELLISHMENT OF COSA IN THE LATE REPUBLIC

23

we now know it existed at Cosa among her municipal elites, albeit to a smaller scale in proportion to Cosa’s smaller size and more limited prosperity. In this context it is signifcant that the importation of the statuettes and furniture corresponds to the dates of two well-known shipwrecks carrying works of art from Greece to Italy, the Antikythera and Mahdia wrecks. The latter went down ca. 100 B.C., 51 that is, before the attack on Cosa; the former a little later.52 They testify to the market in Rome and Italy for works of Greek art and other luxury items.53 In addition, the specialized artisans who decorated the walls of the wealthier homes in the latest styles in Rome apparently also decorated the villa at Settefnestre near Cosa.54 Although the foundation of Settefnestre is controversial, the offcially published construction of 50–40 B.C. is probably too late. Suggested start dates range from the late second/early frst century B.C. to 70/50 B.C.,55 based on fnds of Campana A black gloss pottery.56 Although there is no trace of First Style wall decoration anywhere in the villa, certain pavements could well belong to a probable earlier phase in the interior decoration, particularly those of the atrium and the peristyle. The latter consists of a ground of rectangular white limestone tesserae laid two-by-two in a basket-weave pattern interspersed with larger rectilinear pieces of colored limestones or imported colored marbles, including lumachella orientale, as well as small rectangular ones.57 This design has parallels in the frst half of the frst century B.C., such as that in the Villa of the Mysteries in Pompeii.58 Furthermore, the mosaic pavement of the atrium has a black background of small tesserae interspersed with small white tesserae and, near the impluvium, some larger irregular pieces of colored marble, also including lumachella orientale.59 A good parallel for this type of pavement belongs to a house beneath the Ludus Magnus in Rome dated to ca. 70 B.C., 51 On the Mahdia wreck see the papers on specifc topics in Hellenkemper Salies 1994.

Ostia to Porto Santo Stefano at the north end of Argentario, beyond Cosa, in his 29-foot sailboat in about fve to six hours.

52

55 For an earlier dating see R. J. A. Wilson, “Vivere in villa: Rural Residences of the Roman Rich in Italy,” JRA 21, 2 (2008) 483, where he states that the villa must have been established in the late second or early frst century B.C., citing the work of Dyson 2002, 224–25; A. Marzano, Roman Villas in Central Italy: A Social and Economic History, Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 30, Leiden: Brill, 2007, 138 also agrees with Dyson. Others who advocate a start date for Settefnestre earlier than 50–40 B.C. are Rathbone 1981, 20, 21 n. 47 (ca. 70–60 B.C.), Carlsen 1984, 51 (80–50 B.C.), and F. Guidobaldi and F. Olevano, “Sectilia pavimenta dell’area vesuviana,” in P. Pensabene, ed., Marmi Antichi II, Studi Miscellanei 31, Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 1998, 226 (70–mid-frst century B.C.).

On the wreck from Antikythera see Weinberg et al. 1965; P. C. Bol, Die Skulpturen des Schiffsfundes von Antikythera, Berlin: Mann, 1972. Also see now the papers in N. Kaltsas, E. Vlachogianni, P. Bouyia, eds., The Antikythera Shipwreck: The Ship, the Treasures, the Mechanism, Athens: Kapon Editions, 2012. A revised date near 60 B.C. is based on the coins; on these see P. Tselekas, “The Coins,” pp. 216–26; the coins were not found until 1976 (216); P. Bouyia’s paper “Maritime Commerce and Luxury in the Age of Cicero,” pp. 287–92, provides a concise summary of the trade in sculpture and other items of luxury. 53

On the market for works of Greek art at this time see Harris 2015, 400–401.

54 M. De Vos in Carandini 1985b, 1:81–82 and ff. with references, thinks that the artisans who installed the mosaic pavements and who decorated the walls of Settefnestre came from Rome, where very similar Second Style wall decorations and the same types of mosaic pavements have been found in the homes of Roman aristocrats, who wished to have the same luxurious appointments in their country villas. She goes on to cite similar decorative complexes of walls and pavements elsewhere in central Italy. As for statuary, the discovery of a cache of sculptures associated with a late Republican villa at Fianello Sabino applies to this situation as well (see Vorster 1998). It might be useful to remark at this point that the journey by sea from Ostia to Cosa takes just one afternoon, as Vincent Bruno and I discovered in 1969 when we sailed from

56

See M. L. Gualandi in Carandini 1985b, 3:128–38.

57

On this pavement see De Vos in Carandini 1985b, 1:82 fg. 97.

58 Dunbabin 1999, 94 and fg. 51. The greater regularity in the cut and placement of the rectangular white tesserae at Settefnestre would point toward a later date in the chronology of this type of pavement; De Vos classifes this mosaic as “among the latest . . . of this type” (in Carandini 1985b, 1:83). 59

On this pavement see De Vos in Carandini 1985b, 1:75, fg. 83; lumachella orientale is listed among the colored marbles used in the frst phase of the construction of the villa on p. 80.

24

THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT

where pieces of lumachella orientale were also used.60 These pavements could point more toward a foundation date of ca. 70 B.C. Since lumachella orientale was a colored marble rarely used this early, it could well indicate close connections between Cosa and Rome, even as early as ca. 70 B.C. All of this is an eloquent sign of the spread of luxuria throughout central Italy at this time. Cosa’s prosperity derived from the agricultural products of her territory, mostly wine as well as olive oil and grain. The production of wine was apparent soon after the deduction of new colonists after 197 B.C., as shown by two surface surveys, especially in the fertile land of the Valle d’Oro in the southern part of the ager Cosanus.61 The surveys, one led by S. Dyson,62 the other by the Anglo-Italian team that excavated the villa Settefnestre,63 show the locations of farms and, later, villas dated by the presence of black gloss pottery. The evidence for wine as a cash crop rests on the fragments of amphoras also found on farm and villa sites in the surface surveys, especially in the second half of the second century B.C. This is when the production of wine on a commercial scale for export increased, based on the local manufacture of transport amphoras of the Dressel 1 type.64 This type frst appeared around 130 B.C. and soon led to a “boom in production” of wine in the ager Cosanus.65 The late second century B.C. was also when the villae rusticae owned by Cosa’s municipal elites began to appear, also focused on the production of wine.66 The rise of these villas may be associated with the completion of the building projects in town by the mid-second century B.C., which were presumably fnanced by the same wealthy families who resided in town and whose farms must have already contributed to their prosperity.67 The construction of their country villas also corresponds chronologically with the luxury items already described, especially the furniture and sculptures in Greek marble found in close proximity to their town houses around and near the forum.68 Other signs of wealth have been found elsewhere in town. As discussed above, the House of the Treasure, the House of the Skeleton, and the House of Diana are clear signs of other prosperous families. The owner of the frst, where a hoard of 2,004 denarii was found,69 is thought to have made his fortune from the sale of grain, one of the cash crops produced by the villas and farms in the ager Cosanus.70 Much has been written on the role of a town’s municipal elites both within their towns and in their relationship with the countryside.71 Only a little, however, is known of the wealthy families 60

Collins-Clinton 2014, 77 with further references.

61

Attolini et al. 1991, 144.

62

Dyson 1978, 251–68.

63

Carandini and Cambi 2002, esp. 137–54.

64

Attolini et al. 1991, 145–49 with bibliography. The author focuses on these and mentions two kilns that produced the amphoras, one at the mouth of the Albegna River near Albinia north of Cosa and the other in the portus Cosanus. The latter produced amphoras bearing stamps of the Sestius family, which is known to have owned property in the ager Cosanus. See further below.

65

Morley 1996, 132. See also Will 1987, 174–77 and 182–84: referring to Will’s Type 4, which corresponds to the Dressel 1 type (182).

66

Regoli 2002, 145–46 and Attolini et al. 1991, 145. See also N. Purcell, “The Roman villa and the Landscape of Pro-

duction,” in T. Cornell and K. Lomas, eds., Urban Society in Roman Italy, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995, 151–79 and Morley 1996, 132. J. Carlsen has stressed “the fundamental importance of local landowners to the existence of a town” and to its prosperity (Carlsen 1984, 55). By the second quarter of the frst century B.C. new villas owned instead by wealthy aristocrats from Rome began to appear once the upheavals in Etruria had ceased (Regoli 2002, 149). 67

See also above, p. 16 n. 9.

68

This reinforces the comments of Dyson 1992, 77, 78 relating to a town’s municipal elites. 69 Buttrey 1980, 81–88 (text, where he suggests that this was payments for shipments of grain to Rome), 91–144 (catalogue). 70

On the possibility of other sources of his wealth, see Carlsen 1984, 45.

71

Rathbone 1981; Carlsen 1984; and Dyson 1992, 77, 78.

THE EMBELLISHMENT OF COSA IN THE LATE REPUBLIC

25

at Cosa since epigraphical evidence, sparse and fragmentary, provides only a few names.72 One in particular is that of M. Tongilius, who dedicated a water basin in the area sacra of the arx in the second century B.C. (B 2). According to Brown he may have been a local magistrate.73 Several brick stamps labeled GAVI in retrograde have been found on the arx, in the forum, and elsewhere; these have been dated to the frst century B.C.74 A Publius Gavius, mentioned by Cicero, Verr. 5.61.158–62, as Cosanus municeps, may be a relative of the Gavius who produced Cosa’s brick stamps.75 A fragment of an inscribed limestone base for a small statue mentions the name of a [Cal]purnius T(iti) f(ilius),76 and another fragment probably from Cosa mentions Titia L(uci) f(ilia) in the context of the matronae and magistrae presumably of Mater Matuta. Titia may be related to the Titii whose amphora stoppers bear the stamp of L(uci) Titi C(ai) f(ili) and which were found in Sestius amphoras discovered in the Grand Conglué shipwreck, dated to 110–80 B.C.77 They could thus date to the early frst century B.C. The name Calpurnius may relate to that stamped on an amphora handle from the House of the Skeleton at Cosa, L(uci) Calp(urni), which is also late Republican.78 Another local landowner is a member of the Sestius family known from Cicero (pro Sestio 6): Publius Sestius, son of the elder Lucius Sestius.79 Recently F. Olmer has suggested that Publius must have inherited his property from his father, Lucius,80 who preferred to devote his efforts to his business after his tribuneship in 91/90 B.C.81 This makes sense considering that the manufacture at Cosa of amphoras stamped with the Sestius logo had reached its peak by then. Furthermore, an earlier member of the family who may have resided near Cosa may be implied by a graffto, M.SE, scratched on the shoulder of a broken amphora of “Sestius” clay found at Cosa; could it be a reference to the Sestius family?82 The amphora is a late Greco-Italic type (Will’s Type 1d) that dates to the early second century B.C., a type that was quite common in both the town and port of Cosa. The graffto, if it does in fact refer to the Cosan Sestii, could relate to an M. Sestius of Fregellae, who was known on Delos as early as 190 B.C. (IG XI.4.757).83 After Fregellae was destroyed in 125 B.C., that Sestius family may have relocated to the ager Cosanus to establish its wine shipping enterprise there.84 Wine shipped in amphoras made locally by the Sestius family was Cosa’s major export. These were stamped with the Sestius logo, SES often with a symbol such as a trident or an anchor.85 Over 500 were found during the excavation of Cosa’s harbor,86 and another large quantity from the town.87 In addition a dump containing sherds of Sestian amphoras has been discovered near the harbor, 72

On these see most recently Regoli 2002, 148.

defense was in 56 B.C. 80

Olmer 2003, 180–81.

81

See above, p. 15 n. 7.

82

Will 1987, 172–73; the amphora is Cosa inv. no. C65.397.

Bace 1983, 28–29, 158; see also Manacorda 1980, 176 and Regoli 2002, 148 with further references.

83

Will 1987, 173.

76

Bace 1983, 91 no. IIIA2, found on the surface of Street O near the entrance to the forum.

84

Olmer 2003, 180–81. Both M. Sestius of Fregellae and the Cosan Sestii later on had trade relationships with Delos.

77 Bace 1983, 94. On Titia L f see also Regoli 2002, 148.

85

Manacorda 1981, 8–10.

86

Will 1987, 185: Amphora Types 4a and 4b in Sestius clay.

87

Will and Slane 2019.

73

See further Brown 1980, 45 n. 4; also Bace 1983, 29, 94–96. 74

Bace 1983, 156–58.

75

78

Bace 1983, 94.

79

On the elder Lucius Sestius see above, p. 15. Publius’s

26

THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT

suggesting the existence of a kiln.88 E. L. Will has written extensively about these amphoras, most of which were sent to Gaul, beginning as early as the end of the third century B.C. and throughout the second and into the frst centuries B.C.89 Also near the harbor were ponds used as fsheries to support the production and shipping of garum, the popular Roman fsh sauce.90 Fishing would have been an important source of income, especially for the residents of the town, as a large quantity of bronze fshhooks discovered in one of the houses adjacent to the House of the Treasure attests.91 It is tempting to consider the elder Lucius Sestius as having a hand in the importation of those marble statuettes and furniture that may have been executed abroad since Sestian amphoras have been found in the Athenian Agora, some in a context dated between 150 and 100 B.C.,92 as well as on Delos.93 But, although the Sestius shipping enterprise was active during the second and the early frst centuries, it was surely not the only one operating in the ager Cosanus.94 The Domitii Ahenobarbi, known to own land in its northern area and elsewhere near Cosa,95 may have played a role as well. The Ahenobarbi are thought to have owned a workshop with kilns on the Albegna River near its mouth at the modern town of Albinia.96 Many if not most of the amphoras made at this workshop were found in the Auvergne area of Gaul; F. Olmer has noted that the Ahenobarbus family had close ties to Auvergne and that this may account for the “extraordinary” number of amphoras made at this kiln found there.97 This kiln functioned from the second half of the second century B.C. into the frst century A.D. The Albegna River formed the northern boundary of the ager Cosanus, and the location of the workshop near both the Via Aurelia and the Tyrhennian Sea was advantageous to the shipping of its products, mainly amphoras for wine and fsh sauce produced in the area, by both land and sea. Nevertheless, Cosa’s position on the sea along with two senatorial landowners in the ager Cosanus, who had connections to Rome in the late Republic down to about

88

Manacorda 1978, 122–31 publishes some with stamps; see also Manacorda 1981, 4–5.

32–33, 41–44 and Collins-Clinton 2014, 73–80. On the elder Lucius Sestius in this context, see also D’Arms 1981, 59–63.

89

Will 1987, 171–77.

94

90

Will 1987, 173–74.

91 These have not been published. They were excavated by the author and others in 1966. 92

On this context see S. I. Rotroff, Hellenistic Pottery: The Plain Wares, The Athenian Agora 33, Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 2006, 347 Deposit C 9:7. Another, fragmentary amphora that has “Cosan clay” and also found in the Athenian Agora may be mentioned though it may not be Sestian; see Will 1956, 238–39 with fg. 83, amphora SS 6814, and E. L. Will, “The Roman Amphoras from Manching: A Reappraisal,” Bayerische Vorgeschichts-blätter 52 (1987) 35. On its context see Rotroff, as above, p. 365 Deposit M 20:1; see also J. W. Hayes, Roman Pottery: The Fine-ware Imports, The Athenian Agora 32, Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 2008, 301, where he dates this context to the frst quarter of the frst century B.C. I thank K. W. Slane for the references to the contexts in the Athenian Agora. 93

Will 1979, 339, 346–47; Will 1987, 176; Will 2005, 259; and Will (as above) 35. For a more detailed discussion of the connection between Cosa and both Athens and Delos at this time, see Collins-Clinton, Attanasio, Platania 2008,

On the complexities of “networks of production, transportation, and consumption” in the late Republic see Fulton 2018, 194–213.

95 See most recently Carlsen 2006, 105–9 with earlier bibliography; also Harris 1971, 265 with 295 n. 1. They apparently acquired the land in the time of Sulla, who defeated Marius in 87 B.C. and who provided land to his veterans afterwards; see Dio Cass. 41.11.2. 96 See most recently L. Benquet, D. Vitali, and F. Laubenheimer, “Nouvelles données sur l’atelier d’amphores d’Albinia (Orbetello, Italie): campagnes de fouille 2003–2006,” in F. Olmer, ed., Itinéraires des vins romains en Gaule IIIe–Ier siècles avant J.-C.: confrontation de faciès, Actes du colloque européen organisé par l’UMR 5140 du CNRS Lattes, 30 janvier–2 février 2007, Lattes: UMR 5140 du CNRS, 2013, 513–29. Ownership of the workshop by the Ahenobarbi is based on their property holdings in that area of the ager Cosanus; see Manacorda 1981, 46. 97

Olmer 2003, 206–7; also pp. 170–71. Although the amphora stamps found at the kiln do not specifcally point to those of the Ahenobarbi, they would have concealed their role in this commercial activity, not deemed appropriate for aristocratic families, by means of an elaborate system of stamps with two letters, none of which would implicate them.

THE EMBELLISHMENT OF COSA IN THE EMPIRE (AUGUSTUS–HADRIAN)

27

70 B.C., would easily ensure that this small town in central Italy at this time would absorb the latest fashions in both its public and private spheres.

The Embellishment of Cosa in the Empire (Augustus–Hadrian) After the disaster of 70–60 B.C. Cosa lay quiet for several decades, disturbed only by survivors from the countryside and occasional scavengers picking through the wreckage. Homes were burned and lay in ruins, as excavation has shown; the roof of the “Capitolium” was destroyed, and Temple D was damaged beyond repair; and presumably there was damage to the buildings around the forum as well. Not until after the middle of the century was there any attempt to revive the town. Unfortunately, literary sources do not give any information as to the source of this resettlement. All that can be deduced from pottery fnds is that at some point between 40/30 and 20/10 B.C. activity resumed.98 Signs of rebuilding have been noted by E. Fentress in a series of soundings at street intersections and elsewhere scattered about the site. These indicate that several insulae along the Processional Way (Street P) and near the forum were rebuilt.99 Excavations in the forum have shown that fve of the eight atrium houses around the forum, Atrium Buildings I–V, were rebuilt, and on the arx the “Capitolium” was repaired and received a new walled forecourt.100 FINDSPOTS VS. PLACES OF DISPLAY101 Not everything found on the arx was originally displayed there, and, occasionally, things found elsewhere had originated on the arx.102 An example of the latter is the three pieces of a double suovetaurilia (A 3a–c) that had decorated the superstructure of the original “Capitolium” altar after it was restored and reset on the pavement of the new forecourt during the Augustan resettlement.103 Two of these relief segments were found on the arx, whereas the third was reused as a grave marker discovered in the House of Diana on the forum.104 The cuirassed fgure (PS-St 6) is an even more striking example of how parts of the same statue were discovered in different places. The torso was built into the sixth-century wall adjacent to Temple D.105 It clearly belongs to a lower right leg broken from its foot; the two join, even though they were found in different places in the forum. The marbles of the torso and its right foot match. In addition, a piece of a left lower leg in the same size and marble, apparent visually, must have belonged to the same fgure. The two lower legs were found in the northeast aisle of the basilica, the right foot at the entrance to the forum. Based on the discovery of the pieces in the basilica, this statue must have stood there originally and not on the arx. The scattering of the leg pieces is a good indication of the disturbances, primarily agricultural, in the Middle Ages, when the forum, arx, and Eastern Height were occupied during the sixth through the fourteenth centuries.106 98 Most recently Fentress in Fentress et al. 2003, 32–34; also Scott in Bruno and Scott 1993, 186–87 on pottery that dates the construction of the House of the Birds to 40–20 B.C., early in the Augustan reoccupation. 99

Fentress 1994, 210–12, fgs. 1–2.

102

103 Brown in Brown et al. 1960, 127 and fg. 100; on the original altar see pp. 81–84. See also below, pp. 176, 177, and A 3, for a possible interpretation. 104

Taylor 2003a, 209.

105

For more on the fndspot see above, p. 9.

106

Discussed above, pp. 7–11.

100

Brown in Brown et al. 1993, 238–41 on the houses around the forum; Brown in Brown et al. 1960, 126–40 on the “Capitolium.” 101

See table 3, pp. 30–31 below, for a list of Imperial material and its fndspots.

See pp. 7–11 above.

28

THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Another example of separate parts of the same sculpture found on the arx and in the forum is the bust of Agrippina Minor (PS-Head 3). Her head was found behind the “Capitolium” on the surface, and it clearly joins the bust, discovered in Room 12 of the Atrium Building I in a fourth–ffth century A.D. context. Interestingly a fragment of a life-sized portrait of Nero (PS-Head 2) was also found just behind the “Capitolium” on the surface. This head must have belonged to the togate statue from the scaenae frons of the Neronian odeum.107 The relationship of this head to a statue originally displayed in the forum may also point to somewhere in the forum for the display of the bust of Agrippina, perhaps Atrium Building I, where the bust itself was discovered. Two more examples point toward medieval disturbances within the forum, most likely from agricultural activity. One is a table support in the form of a herm (T-Supp 11) whose head, found in the basilica, joins the shaft that was found in the garden of the House of Diana. The other consists of two pieces of a rectangular fountain basin (B 6a, b); one piece was found in the garden of the House of Diana near the fountain niche, the other at the southeast end of the forum portico. Since their marbles and profles match, they may have belonged to the same basin. THE ARX Three over life-sized torsos were also discovered on the arx, built into the sixth-century wall behind Temple D. One, probably originally placed on the arx, is the Hellenistic torso of Asclepius, discussed above.108 The second is a torso of the cult image of Jupiter Optimus Maximus made for the restored “Capitolium” perhaps in the time of Augustus (PS 3). Unfortunately, no other pieces of this statue have been found, nor has any trace of cult images of Hercules and Minerva been discovered. The upper body of the third is that of the cuirassed fgure (PS-St 6), several pieces of which were found in the forum, where the statue was most likely originally displayed. Also associated with the Augustan “Capitolium” is a new marble wellhead for its cistern (P 11). It replaced the old limestone one that must have been damaged in the pirate raid and repeats the same inscription found on the earlier puteal, an interesting example of the strength of religious continuity.109 Scattered about the forecourt of the “Capitolium” were several pieces of a garland suspended from bucrania that had originally belonged to an altar that must have stood near where the pieces of its frieze were found (A 4a–f). The marble frieze must have revetted a core of masonry. Also displayed in the forecourt of the “Capitolium” was a pair of slab-like table supports, one of which bore an inscription dedicated to Drusus, son of Tiberius (T-Supp 7).110 THE FORUM Most of the objects discovered in 1973 when the forum reservoir was emptied are early Imperial (see table 2). According to the excavator, Frank Brown, this material represents the tidying up of the forum in preparation for the third-century repairs under Caracalla.111 Almost all are private in nature, including a marble basin, two pieces of domestic statuary, a herm, and a table support, presumably associated with the few atrium houses that were reconstructed during the Augustan resettlement: the House of Diana and Atrium Buildings I–IV. The one public piece is a fragment of an over life-sized 107

On this statue and the odeum see Collins-Clinton 2000.

108

See above, “The Embellishment of Cosa in the Late Republic,” and PS 1.

109

As remarked by Bace 1983, 97. See also pp. 3–4 above.

110 For the inscription see Bace 1983, 74–75 with earlier bibliography and below, T-Supp 7. 111

Brown in Brown et al. 1993, 245 and Fentress 1994, 212–15.

THE EMBELLISHMENT OF COSA IN THE EMPIRE (AUGUSTUS–HADRIAN)

29

Table 2. Objects Found in the Forum Reservoir Cat. No.

Period

B 4 Hemispherical basin

Early Imperial

BP 47 Foot

Early Imperial

BP 48 Foot

Early Imperial

DS-St 9 Hercules tunicatus

Julio-Claudian

DS-St 12 Head of Attis

Early Imperial

DS-Herm 4 Hip herm

Early Imperial

PS-Head 1 Head of Drusus Minor, fg.

Julio-Claudian

P 2 Fragment of puteal

Republican

P 3 Fragment of puteal

Republican

P 7a, b Fragment of puteal

Late Republican

T-Supp 5 Table support

Augustan

head of Drusus Minor, noted above, recognizable from the locks of hair framing his forehead (PSHead 1). Although this head must relate to the above-mentioned pair of table supports erected in the forecourt of the “Capitolium” and dedicated to him (T-Supp 7), the head’s fndspot indicates that Drusus’s portrait statue must have stood somewhere in the forum. A few early Imperial pieces were found in two shops associated with Atrium Building I, Rooms 22 and 24 (see table 3). All but one was found in Room 22, a storeroom behind a shop on the remnant of Street 7. This room was buried by the collapse of the northwest wall of the basilica in the earthquake of A.D. 51 and excavated in the 1950s. It contained mostly ceramics (table ware and lamps) as well as glass ware, iron tools, stone weights, and other small objects. It also contained the late Hellenistic statuette of Pan and fragments of a platter in lumachella orientale, which must have been scavenged from late Republican houses destroyed in the raid of ca. 70 B.C. The early Imperial material includes three plinths in colored marbles (giallo antico and pavonazetto) and a small herm bust in giallo antico attached to a small support of slate, all of which belong to the private sphere. These must have been awaiting sale, perhaps to families dwelling in the nearby restored atrium houses. The three most important areas where early Imperial material was displayed are the basilica, the odeum built into the remains of the basilica early in the reign of Nero, and the garden of the House of Diana across the forum from the basilica/odeum. The small odeum occupied the aisles and nave of the old basilica; it had a triple-bayed scaenae frons opposite a bank of seats resting on three vaulted supports, of which only the base has survived.112 Each niche of the scaenae frons contained a statue: a togate fgure of Nero (PS-St 2), Divus Claudius wearing a hip-mantle (PS-St 1), and a draped fgure of Agrippina Minor as the priestess of Divus Claudius (PS-St 3); see fg. 9 for a reconstruction.113 The lower torso of Claudius, made to ft into a separate lower body that has not survived, was found in situ on the ground below his niche. The other two fgures were discovered built into the wall of a medieval structure adjacent to the southeast side of the seating block.114 The Neronian repair of the basilica is recorded in a fragmentary inscription,115 and its later Severan repair 112

See Brown in Brown et al. 1993, 208 plan X. No pieces of its architectural decoration have been found.

113

Collins-Clinton 2000.

114 115

This is shown in Brown in Brown et al. 1993, 208 plan X.

Bace 1983, 75–76 no. IIA2 and Brown in Brown et al. 1993, 243. Bace presents a slightly different reading.

Table 3. Imperial Material Cat. No.

Material

Area

Findspot

A 3 Suovetaurilia

Carrara marble

Arx & forum

A 4 Bucranium/garland

Carrara marble

Arx

A 6 Minerva attributes

Carrara marble

Forum

Shrine of Liber Pater

B 4 Hemispherical basin

Carrara marble

Forum

Reservoir

B 5 Hemispherical basin

Carrara marble

Houses

House of the Birds

B 6 Fountain basin

Carrara marble

Forum

House of Diana, & forum portico

B 7 Fountain basin

Bardiglio

Forum

House of Diana

B 11 Basin support fragment

Bardiglio?

Forum

Shrine of Liber Pater

DS-St 6 Bacchus

Carrara marble

Forum

Shrine of Liber Pater

DS-St 7 Diana

Carrara marble

Forum

House of Diana

DS-St 8 Half nude female fgure

Fine to medium grain

Forum

SW side of comitium/curia

DS-St 9 Hercules tunicatus?

Medium grain

Forum

Reservoir

DS-St 10 Sarapis enthroned

Carrara marble

Arx

W side of Temple D

DS-St 11 Male torso

Fine to medium grain

Forum

Late wall on SW side, entrance road

DS-St 12 Attis head

Carrara marble

Forum

Reservoir

DS-St 13 Male head

Carrara marble

Arx

W slope, near small house

DS-St 14 Child’s face

Carrara marble

Forum

Entrance road

DS-St 15 Right hand

Carrara marble

Forum

Sidewalk in front of Shrine of Liber Pater

DS-Other 1 Krater rim

Pentelic?

Forum

Above fallen NW wall of basilica

DS-Other 2 Miniature feline leg

Fine to medium grain

Forum

House of Diana

DS-Other 3 Old man relief

Carrara marble

Forum

SW aisle of basilica

DS-Other 4 Round plinth

Carrara marble

Houses

Outside House of Skeleton

DS-Other 5 Round plinth

Giallo antico

Forum

Atrium Building I, Room 22

DS-Other 6 Round plinth

Giallo antico

Forum

Atrium Building I, Room 22

DS-Other 7 Square plinth

Pavonazetto

Forum

Atrium Building I, Room 22

DS-Other 9 Platter?

Lumachella orientale

Forum

Atrium Building I, Room 22

DS-Herm 1 Male herm

Carrara marble

Houses

House of Diana

DS-Herm 2 Female herm

Pentelic marble

Houses

House of Diana

DS-Herm 3 Female herm, fg.

Carrara marble

Houses

House of Diana

DS-Herm 4 Hip herm

Giallo antico

Forum

Reservoir

DS-Herm 8 Phallus

Carrara marble

Houses

Behind farmhouse

DS-MHB 1 Dionysus

Giallo antico

Forum

Beneath pronaos of Temple B

DS-MHB 2 Dionysus

Giallo antico

Forum

Atrium Building I, Room 22

DS-MHB 3 Eros

Carrara marble

Houses

Inside farmhouse

DS-MHB 4 Warrior

Carrara marble

Forum

Outside NW wall of basilica

DS-MHB 5 Hercules

Giallo antico

Forum

Shrine of Liber Pater

DS-MHB 6 Silenus

Giallo antico

Forum

Atrium Building I, Room 24

DS-MHB 7 Bust

Carrara marble

Forum

Center of forum

Table 3. Imperial Material (continued) Cat. No.

Material

Area

Findspot

DS-MHB 8 Bust

Carrara marble

Forum

House of Diana

DS-Osc 1 Papposilenus

Carrara marble

Forum

House of Diana

DS-Osc 2 Tondo

Carrara marble

Forum

Outside N corner of basilica

DSc-Osc 3 Tondo, fg.

Carrara marble

Forum

Behind Shrine of Liber Pater

DS-Osc 4 Pinax

Carrara marble

Forum

House of Diana

DS-Osc 5 Pinax, fg.

Carrara marble

Forum

House of Diana

PS-Head 1 Drusus Minor?

Medium grain

Forum

Reservoir

PS-Head 2 Nero?

Carrara marble

Arx

Behind “Capitolium”

PS-Head 3 Agrippina Minor

Carrara marble

Arx & forum

Head: Behind “Capitolium”; Bust: Atrium Building I, Room 12

PS-Head 4 Agrippina Minor

Pentelic?

Forum

Atrium Building VI

PS-Head 5 Hadrian

Fine to medium grain

Arx

Not known

PS-St 1 Claudius

Thasian dolomite

Arx & forum

Lower torso: Odeum scaenae frons; Head fg.: Pronaos of “Capitolium”

PS-St 2 Nero

Statue: Carrara marble Head tenon: Pentelic?

Forum Forum

Built into late building in basilica; SE end of nave of basilica

PS-St 3 Agrippina Minor

Parian spilychnites Feet: Pentelic?

Forum Forum

Body: Built into late building in basilica; In & near basilica

PS-St 4 Draped female

Carrara marble

Forum

Outside basilica; hand in basilica nave

PS-St 5 Togatus fragments

Carrara marble

Forum

Nave of basilica

PS-St 6 Cuirassed fgure

Carrara marble

Arx & forum

Body: Medieval wall behind Temple D; Lower leg & foot: NE aisle of basilica & NW end of forum entrance

PS 3 Jupiter Capitolinus

Parian Lakkoi

Arx

Medieval wall behind Temple D

P 9 “Capitolium” puteal

Medium grain

Arx

2 pieces: S side of “Capitolium” & its forecourt

P 10 Hexagonal fragment

Medium grain

Forum

In front of House of Diana

T-Supp 5 Slab type, fragment

Travertine

Forum

Reservoir

T-Supp 6 Lion griffn

Pentelic

Arx

Near NW arx wall & entrance

T-Supp 7 Inscribed slab type

Carrara marble

Arx

N of “Capitolium” & in Via Sacra

T-Supp 8 Winged goat

Fine to medium grain

Forum

House of Diana

T-Supp 9 Feline foot fragments

Pentelic

Arx

Forecourt of Temple D & N of “Capitolium”

T-Supp 10 Griffn paw fragment

Carrara marble

Forum

S corner

T-Supp 11 Herm Dionysus

Bardiglio

Forum

Head: near SE tribune of odeum; Shaft: House of Diana

T-Supp 12 Inscribed monopod

Carrara marble

Forum

Shrine of Liber Pater

T-Supp 13 Columnar type

Bardiglio

Forum

House of Diana

T-Supp 14 Tripod leg

Carrara marble

Forum

House of Diana

T-Supp 15 Stretcher

Carrara marble

Forum

House of Diana

T-Top 11 Rectangular top

Bardiglio

Houses

House of the Birds, atrium cistern

32

THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT

is also recorded in an inscription.116 Interestingly, a fragment of the forehead of Claudius (PS-Head 1), executed in the same coarse-grained white marble as his torso,117 was found on the arx, inside the pronaos of the “Capitolium” on the surface. Also found in the odeum or just outside are a draped woman and presumably her husband (PS-St 4 and 5 respectively), both badly broken and preserved only in pieces. Just the upper body, lower legs, and right hand of the woman are preserved. Her upper body and lower legs were found outside the basilica/odeum, and her hand, which fts into the cutting on her chest, was found in the nave. Only the feet on a plinth and the right upper arm of a togate fgure are preserved, both pieces found in the nave of the basilica. Their workmanship in late Claudian or early Neronian times indicates that the fgures were originally displayed in the odeum and likely represented its dedicator and his wife. THE HOUSE OF DIANA The House of Diana, or Atrium Building V, is one of the two completely excavated atrium houses on the forum that was rebuilt during the Augustan resettlement.118 Its garden has proven to be a treasure trove of marble sculpture and furniture as it eventually flled with statuary and fountain basins that recall the best-known gardens in Pompeii just before the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius in A.D. 79;119 see table 4 for a list of this material. Excavated in 1996–97 by E. Fentress and her team, the garden presents a picture of the vicissitudes of its life from its Augustan phase through the garden’s dismantling in the Flavian period.120 The garden retained the appearance it had at the end of the second century B.C. with a fountain in the rear, southwest wall and trees planted nearby until, in the Augustan period, it began to take on a more ornamental aspect with walkways and fower beds.121 However, at this time the owner made a signifcant alteration to the rear of the house by adding a portico, Room Q, overlooking the garden. The rear wall of the triclinium, Room K, was removed so the portico could cross in front of it and behind the tablinum, thus opening the triclinium to a view of the garden. Two columns supported the architrave of the portico, so that the mask of Papposilenus, DS-Osc 1, and the two pinakes, DS-Osc 4 and 5, could hang in the three intercolumniations.122 The three-legged table, one of whose supports was found behind the tablinum, T-Supp 14, could have stood in the portico.123 Later, in the post-Augustan period, perhaps ca. A.D. 20–40, the owner of the house must have realized that the new triclinium, now open toward the garden, was cold in the winter, so he had a protective wall facing the garden constructed with a door opening onto the shortened portico.124 This wall had a distinctive gray mortar, so that its remains were readily identifable upon excavation where the wall eventually 116

Bace 1983, 76–78.

117

This was tested as Thasian dolomite; see Collins-Clinton, Attanasio, Platania 2008, 29 table 3, no. CO1, and 31.

118

The other is Atrium Building I, the Atrium Publicum proper; see p. 29 above for the Imperial fnds discovered there. 119 Such as those in the House of the Golden Cupids (VI.16.7, 38) and the House of the Vettii (VI.15.1). 120

Fentress in Fentress et al. 2003, 32–55.

121

Fentress in Fentress et al. 2003, 34–36 and the website:

http://www.press.umich.edu/script/press/special/cosa/f5_p_ iiia/html, pp. 2–3 (accessed 27 July 2016). See above, p. 18, for a detailed description of the late second-century B.C. garden. 122 Taylor 2003b, 53. See also fg. 16 in the website: http:// www.press.umich.edu/script/press/special/cosa/f5a_p_iiia. html (accessed 27 July 2016). 123 A good example for this placement is the three-legged table at the edge of the garden portico in the House of the Vettii in Pompeii (VI.15.1). See also the comments of Taylor 2003b, 52. 124

Fentress in Fentress et al. 2003, 37–38.

THE EMBELLISHMENT OF COSA IN THE EMPIRE (AUGUSTUS–HADRIAN)

33

Table 4. Objects Found in the House of Diana Cat. No.

Findspot

Period

Inv. No.

Late Republican A 1 Small round altar

Garden aedicula

C9689

Late Republican

A 2 Small round altar

Augustan wall fall

C9631

Late Republican

DS-St 3 Female head

Garden, near aedicula

C9674

Late Classical

B 10a, b Water basin supports

Garden aedicula

C9610, C9611

Late Hellenistic

Near fountain niche

C9676

Augustan/Julio-Claudian

B 7 Fountain basin fragment

Near fountain niche

C9708

Augustan/Julio-Claudian

DS-St 7 Statue of Diana

Garden aedicula

C9603 + frags.

Julio-Claudian

DS-Other 2 Miniature feline leg

Room H, wall fall

C9670

Julio-Claudian

DS-Herm 1 Draped male herm

Garden aedicula

C9617

Julio-Claudian

DS-Herm 2 Female herm

Garden aedicula

C9618

Julio-Claudian

Early Imperial B 6 Fountain basin fragment

DS-Herm 3 Female herm fragment

Garden aedicula

C9687

Julio-Claudian

DS-Herm 5 Herm shaft?

Garden aedicula

C9680

Julio-Claudian

DS-Herm 6 Herm shaft?

Garden aedicula

C9716

Julio-Claudian

DS-Herm 7 Herm shaft?

Garden aedicula?

C9622

Julio-Claudian

DS-Herm 8 Herm shaft?

Garden aedicula?

C9620

Julio-Claudian

DS-MHB 8 Headless bust

Augustan wall fall

C9673

Augustan

DS-Osc 1 Papposilenus

Garden aedicula

C9613

Augustan

DS-Osc 4 Pinax

Garden aedicula

C9662, C9663

Augustan

DS-Osc 5 Pinax fragment

Near fountain niche

C9688

Augustan

T-Supp 8 Winged goat

Garden aedicula

C9605

Augustan/Julio-Claudian

T-Supp 11 Herm of Dionysus, shaft

Garden aedicula

C9612

Julio-Claudian

T-Supp 13 Columnar table support

Garden aedicula

C9601

Julio-Claudian

T-Supp 14 Tripod table support

Room Q

C9715

Augustan/Julio-Claudian

T-Supp 15 Stretcher

Near fountain niche

C9713

Augustan/Julio-Claudian

collapsed outward into the garden. A little herm bust, DS-MHB 8, whose head had broken off, was found in the debris. This wall, then, gives a terminus ante quem for the execution of the herm bust, which would not have been reused in the wall had it not lost its head, thus providing a useful criterion for dating the appearance of these small busts to the Augustan period.125 This wall also reinforces the Augustan date for the three oscilla that decorated the new Augustan portico with its three intercolumniations before that wall was built. The greatest changes took place in the Claudian and Neronian phases of the garden, when a small, distyle temple-like shrine to Diana was erected with its back against the northwest wall of the garden.126 A stairway placed in the west corner ascended to a doorway in the same wall, opening onto the Southwest Annex of the forum, which gave access to the intersection with the Processional 125 See also the head of another miniature herm bust found in an Augustan context, DS-MHB 1.

126

A reconstruction is now on view in the Cosa Museum.

34

THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Way, Street P, and thence to the arx. This door must have facilitated direct access to the shrine.127 An inscription, perhaps set above the shrine’s entrance, states that the “path to her temple lies open,” undoubtedly a reference to damage by the earthquake of A.D. 51, when the northwest wall of the basilica fell.128 Its cult image was a version of a well-known statuary type of Diana as Huntress with her dog sitting at her feet, DS-St 7. Also during this time the garden itself was transformed.129 The fountain niche was reworked into a grotto. One fragment each of two rectangular water basins, B 6–7, was discovered near this niche, although it no longer functioned as a fountain. The basins could have been placed over the gutter alongside the portico to receive rainwater falling from its roof.130 Similar water basins are placed in just the same way over the gutters in the peristyle garden of the House of the Vettii in Pompeii (VI.15.1).131 The garden itself was flled with statuary:132 a herm wearing a chlamys, a draped female herm, both headless, and a fragment of a similar female herm, DS-Herm 1–3 respectively; an unusual and fnely executed table support in the form of a winged goat, T-Supp 8; and a plain columnar table support in bardiglio, a bluish-gray marble streaked with white, T-Supp 13. Several other pieces were executed in the same marble, notably the shaft for a table support in the form of a herm of Dionysus, whose head was discovered across the forum in the basilica/odeum, T-Supp 11. In addition, three, or possibly four, plain pillars with a shallow tenon at the bottom and fat tops may have served as shafts for herms surmounted by separate heads, perhaps in a different marble for coloristic contrast, DS-Herm 5–8. Herms were a popular element in garden decoration, as those in the peristyle garden of the House of the Golden Cupids in Pompeii (VI.16.7, 38) demonstrate.133 It is noteworthy that some of the pillars in that garden are also bardiglio marble and that they support separate heads in different marbles that take the form of miniature herm busts that do not always ft the dimensions of the tops of the pillars. This treatment of garden herms must have been popular at that time; certainly the use of different marbles would have added coloristic accents to the garden décor.134 Although the arrangement of the garden statuary cannot now be determined, R. Taylor has attempted to hypothesize a basic reconstruction, placing two of the herms, most likely the draped females that are appropriate for such a female deity as Diana, on either side of her shrine.135 Although the House of Diana began to collapse by ca. A.D. 80,136 the garden with its shrine seems to have been used for a while longer, almost to the end of the second century according to ceramic evidence.137 As the garden gradually fell into disarray, several pieces of its sculpture and furniture were collected and haphazardly placed inside the shrine, where they remained when the 127 On the shrine see Fentress in Fentress et al. 2003, 40–43; Bodel in Fentress et al. 2003, 45–51; and the website: http:// www.press.umich.edu/script/press/special/cosa/f5_p_iv.html (accessed 27 July 2016).

133

128 Bodel in Fentress et al. 2003, 45, 49 and Fentress in Fentress et al. 2003, 57–58. On this earthquake see also Guidoboni 1994, 191–92 no. 089.

134 See also DS-MHB 2 of giallo antico found in Room 22 of a shop behind Atrium Building I, where it had been attached to a black slate post.

129

135

Taylor 2003b, 52–54.

136

Fentress in Fentress et al. 2003, 63.

On the garden at this time see Fentress in Fentress et al. 2003, 38–44.

130

See Taylor 2003b, 52–53 for alternate locations.

131

See PPM 5 (1994) 520 fgs. 90–91 for views of this garden showing the placement of the peripheral water basins.

132

For these see Taylor 2003a.

On this garden see Seiler 1992, 116–33 for its sculptural decoration. Jashemski 1993, 159–63: the bardiglio pillars correspond to nos. 4, 12, 15, and 16; the bust for no. 12 is fg. 188.

137

http://www.press.umich.edu/script/press/special/cosa/ f5_p_v.html: Phase V, The Garden, where its gradual destruction is described (accessed 27 July 2016).

THE EMBELLISHMENT OF COSA IN THE EMPIRE (AUGUSTUS–HADRIAN)

35

shrine collapsed, sealing them within.138 By the end of the second century the house and its garden had completely disappeared, left to the mostly agricultural activities of later times. THE IMPERIAL CULT Epigraphical evidence for an imperial cult at Cosa has been known for some time. The decisive piece of evidence is an inscription published in CIL XI, 2631 that records a dedication to the emperor Augustus by a magister Augustalis: Imp(eratori) Caesari Augusto Pl[---] P. f. Statius (?) ma[gis]ter Augustali[s] posuit.139 The inscription was located in the nearby town of Orbetello in 1821 and is now lost.140 Since many inscriptions of clearly Cosan origin have made their way to Orbetello, there is no reason to question a Cosan origin for this one as well. The title of magister Augustalis applies to the Augustales, a civic organization established early in the reign of Augustus to serve the interests of its members’ towns. It consisted primarily of wealthy freedmen, chosen by the decurions of the town to support it fnancially in various ways: sponsoring games, improving infrastructure such as paving streets, or dedicating statues or altars to divinities or the emperor, as seen in the inscription above.141 The title of magister Augustalis is an early phase of the more common ones of Augustalis and sevir Augustalis, also pertaining to the Augustales. Signifcantly, all the dated inscriptions recording this offce are Augustan and come from towns in Etruria, including this one from Cosa.142 Recent studies have concluded that the primary purpose of the Augustales was not to look after the imperial cult, as the name suggests,143 but was to serve their town in ways that, as former slaves, they were not able to do.144 This does not preclude, however, the Augustales from supporting the imperial cult in whatever ways they could, again as the inscription above indicates. The other piece of evidence is a fragment of an upper corner of an altar preserving parts of two sides and the upper molding, A 5.145 On one side is the top of a laurel tree rendered in a lively and sensitive style that is Julio-Claudian if not specifcally Augustan. The motive of the two laurels is a frequent emblem of Augustus during his reign, appearing on his coinage, and refers to those authorized by the 138

See Fentress et al. 2003, pl. 10. Table 4, p. 33 above, notes the pieces found in the garden aedicula.

139

gustales,” ANRW II, 16, Berlin: De Gruyter, 1978, 1287–89 and S. E. Ostrow, “Augustales along the Bay of Naples: A Case for Their Early Growth,” Historia 34 (1985) 64–72. On the whole, the term magister Augustalis does not survive the reign of Augustus.

Transcription that of Manacorda 1979, 95 no. 2. See also L. R. Taylor, The Divinity of the Roman Emperor, Middletown, CT: American Philological Association, 1931, reprinted Chico, CA: Scholars Press, n.d., 280 and Bace 1983, 44 n. 30, 193 no. 1.

143 Laird 2015, 6–7, contra D. Fishwick, The Imperial Cult in the Latin West, Leiden: Brill, 1991, 2.1:609.

140

The inscription was already lost when volume XI of the CIL was being compiled (Manacorda 1979, 73).

144

141

145 It was found in the large square reservoir at the west corner of the forum, which was flled with refuse from the forum when the forum was repaired during the Severan attempt to revive the town according to the excavators.

142

On the Augustales see most recently Laird 2015, esp. 6–15.

L. R. Taylor, “Augustales, Seviri Augustales, and Seviri: A Chronological Study,” TAPA 45 (1914) 231–38. On the offce of magister Augustalis see also R. Duthoy, “Les *Au-

Laird 2015, 6–15 with earlier bibliography. See also Hemelrijk 2015, 202 n. 72.

36

THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT

senate and placed one on either side of the door of Augustus’s house on the Palatine in 27 B.C.146 They most often appear on altars used in the cult of the Lares compitales and the Genius Augusti,147 usually on the lateral sides, fanking a Lar. This may well have been the case with the fragment from Cosa since the laurel is tall enough to reach the upper molding and does not appear to have been a branch held by a Lar, another motive that is sometimes found on these altars. Parallels for this composition exist on the sides of two altars: the Altar of Manlius from nearby Caere and an altar from Soriano, near Viterbo.148 In the frst, the Lar on each side stands on a base-like piece of rocky ground that appears to foat between two tall, slender laurel trees that reach to the top of the feld and above the head of each Lar. The tops of the laurels, flling the upper left and right corners, closely resemble the treatment of the Cosa laurel, suggesting a similar date for the execution of both.149 Though less well executed, the altar from Soriano exhibits a very similar composition on its lateral sides.150 Although only the top of a carefully executed laurel and a part of the upper molding of what must be an altar are all that is preserved of the fragment from Cosa, the laurel is nevertheless its defning characteristic and, as such, indicative that the altar pertains to the cult either of the Lares compitales (or Lares Augusti, that is, the “August Lares”)151 or the Genius Augusti. It is tempting to link the altar and the inscription mentioned above (CIL XI, 2631) as mutually supporting each other. Together they could be understood as signaling a cult of the emperor at Cosa during Augustus’s lifetime, each in its own way. In addition to the inscription noted above, two others allude to an imperial presence at Cosa; both have been published by Vincenzo Saladino.152 One is a fragmentary travertine stele mentioning Lucius Caesar, Augustus’s adopted son and grandson, as a patron of Cosa. The frst four lines, as restored by Saladino, read as follows: L(ucio) Caesa[ri, Aug(usti) f(ilio),] divi [n(epoti), auguri,] co(n)s(uli) des(ignato), [principi] iu[ven]t(utis), patro[no] [---]us iter [---].153 This is dated between 2 B.C., when he assumed the toga virilis and became consul designate and princeps iuventutis, and A.D. 2, when he died. This stele was not found during offcial excavations 146 A. Alföldi, Die Zwei Lorbeerbäume des Augustus, Antiquitas 3, Bonn: Habelt, 1973, 4–17; for the coins see p. 16 and pls. II 5–7, 9–12, III 1–4.

emperor but rather to C. Manlius himself. Recent scholarship has considered the inscription as a later addition. See Gradel 2002, 251–60 with bibliography.

147 The basic studies on these altars are H. Hänlein Schäfer 1996 with further bibliography and M. Hano, “A l’origine du culte impérial: les autels des Lares Augusti. Recherches sur les thèmes iconographiques et leur signifcation,” ANRW II, 16, 3, Berlin: De Gruyter 1986, 2333–81.

150

148 On the Altar of Manlius see most recently Gradel 2002, 251–60 with fg. 11, 1. It is cited here only for the compositions on its two lateral sides. 149

The Altar of Manlius, found in the theater of Caere, has an interesting history. Briefy, its refned technical execution suggests that it was made in Rome, probably in Augustan times; its inscription shows that it was not dedicated to an

Rome, Conservatory Museum, inv. no. 3352, formerly in the Palazzo Chigi in Soriano, Augustan; see Hänlein Schäfer 1996, 96 no. 10, classifed as perhaps a compital altar in the absence of an inscription. The front depicts a sacrifce of a bull, however, presumably to the Genius Augusti. Its provenance is unknown. 151

As Gradel 2002, 122 makes clear.

152

Saladino 1977, 142–51.

153 Saladino 1977, 143–45 no. 2 and n. 9, fgs. 2–3. See also Papi 2000, 14, dated between 2 B.C. and A.D. 2.

THE LATE EMPIRE (SEVERANS–LATE ANTIQUITY)

37

and is now in the museum at Orbetello, where a catalogue card preserves the notation that it may be from the arx of Cosa. The other is an inscribed, slab-like support for a table that was found to the north of the “Capitolium” (T-Supp 7). The upper two lines are clear: Druso Caesari Ti[berii] Augusti f[ilio], divi Augusti n[epoti].154 The inscription tells us that the table was dedicated to Drusus the Younger, son of Tiberius and grandson of Divus Augustus, and must date between the death of Augustus and Drusus’s death in A.D. 23. The decoration consists of two winged herms on the ends with the inscription on one broad side and a large palmette on the reverse. Above the wings of the herms on the inscribed side one notes the foliage of a plant growing in an urn, which is fanked by two small birds. Table supports of this type have been studied recently by Robert Cohon in an encyclopedic catalogue of tables with slab-like legs.155 He has noted that the support with herms of Eros belongs to a type used almost exclusively for dedications, especially by client to patron. All are inscribed; most date from Augustan through Claudian times; and some present vegetal decoration, including birds very similar to ours. Saladino, also noting the association of these tables with patrons, has proposed that Drusus, like Lucius, was a patron of Cosa, but this is by no means certain. Although the presence of inscriptions dedicated to members of the imperial family as well as several imperial portrait statues amply demonstrates an imperial presence at Cosa, the statues in themselves were not indicators of an imperial cult and, though the inscriptions mention members of the imperial family, they were not emperors.156 Nevertheless, the several imperial portrait statues found at Cosa do provide ample evidence for an imperial presence at Cosa (PS-St 1–6), one of which is a very fragmentary statue identifed as Drusus Minor on the basis of a fragment of its over life-sized head;157 the statue clearly refers to the table support inscribed with his name.

The Late Empire (Severans–Late Antiquity) Cosa’s decline began in the late frst century A.D. The evidence provided by the survey of the site by E. Fentress between 1990 and 1993, which was designed to understand more clearly the continuity of life at Cosa in the Imperial and later periods,158 has reinforced the evidence of a steady decline derived from the earlier excavations. Around A.D. 80, the House of Diana collapsed, although its garden with the shrine of Diana was visited for a while longer until its abandonment sometime before 154

Saladino 1977, 148–51 no. 4, fg. 5; Brown et al. 1960, 139. Lost; inv. no. CB 1430. The transcription is that of Saladino 1977, 150. See also Cohon 1984, 405–7 no. 272 and Collins 1970, 191–94 no. 37.

155

Cohon 1984, 123–34. See also Eck and von Hesberg 2004, 172, 174, 175, 183–84 A6, who have a different interpretation of these supports.

156 N.B.: This now contradicts certain aspects of my paper, “Evidence for an Imperial Cult at Cosa,” delivered at the annual meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, 30

December 1987; see Collins-Clinton 1988, 270. In addition, the over life-sized seated fgure found on the arx (PS 3), originally thought to be an imperial fgure represented in the guise of the Capitoline Jupiter (Collins 1970, 69–75 no. 6, fg. 15), is now identifed as the cult image of Jupiter in Cosa’s “Capitolium” on the basis of traces of a beard on the chest. 157

PS-Head 1. It was found in the forum reservoir, suggesting that the statue had been displayed in the forum.

158 Fentress 1994; Patterson 2006, 6, 40, 76–77, 92–101, 275 on Cosa; and Cirelli and Fentress 2012, 97–113.

38

THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT

the end of the second century. At that time many pieces of sculpture and furniture were jumbled together inside the shrine.159 In the second century the Bath Complex received repairs to its roof, as brick stamps of Hadrian and the Antonine emperors testify.160 In the early third century an effort was made to revive the town, reorganized as the res publica Cosanorum: this included insulae near the northeast gate, houses behind the public buildings on the northeast side of the forum, a restored portico on the forum, repairs to the odeum, a mithraeum built into a chamber beneath the curia, and a shrine to Liber Pater.161 An inscription of Maximinus Thrax (r. 235–238) found in 1970 southwest of the Bath Complex records the restored portico and odeum.162 Other epigraphical evidence dating to the reigns of Caracalla (r. 211–217) and Decius (r. 249–251) has also been found at Cosa.163 Roof tiles with stamps from Caracalla’s reign attest repairs to the roof of the “Capitolium.”164 In addition, inscriptions of Gordian III (r. 238–244), Claudius (r. 268–270), Aurelian (r. 270–275), and Probus (r. 276–282), found in nearby Orbetello, may have come from Cosa.165 Except for the inscription of Maximinus Thrax, these do not record building projects. Evidence from coins, lamps, pottery, and glass ware traces the decreasing population in the town.166 No new stone sculpture dating to the second and third centuries has been found, an indication of a decrease in wealth as well as in population. Not until the late ffth or early sixth century did two new settlements appear. In the forum a tiny village sprang up that featured a small church behind the scaenae frons of the odeum as well as granaries. On the arx was another small settlement that eventually became a castrum fortifed with new walls into which three large pieces of statuary were built (PS 2–3, PS-St 6).167 By the beginning of the seventh century Cosa was abandoned.168 THE SHRINE OF LIBER PATER: ITS PLAN AND THE FINDS (fg. 10 plan) The Shrine of Liber Pater, which fourished from the late third century until the Christians at Cosa destroyed it in the late ffth, contained a collection of marble sculptures and furniture of much earlier 159

Fentress in Fentress et al. 2003, 51, pl. 10, 63 and website: http//www.press.umich.edu/webhome/cosa//f5_p_v_.html on the garden (accessed 26 October 2016).

160 Scott et al. 2015, 14, 17–18; another Hadrianic brick stamp was found in 2014 (De Giorgi 2015, 128–29). 161 Fentress in Fentress et al. 2003, 63–69; Fentress 1994, esp. fg. 4; Bace 1983, 59–62. 162

Scott 1981, 309–14 and Bace 1983, 76–78 no. IIA3. The inscription dates to 235.

163

Bace 1983, 59–62.

164

Bace 1983, 61 with n. 9; Brown et al. 1960, 139.

165

Bace 1983, 62.

166

Coins: Buttrey 1980, 33–34, 47–49 (second century, altogether 45 coins), 50–52 (third century, altogether 35 coins). Lamps: Fitch and Goldman 1994, 14–17 (chronological

range during the Empire, esp. p. 16 on the third century), 83–206 (catalogue of Imperial lamps showing sharp dropoff in the quantity of third-century lamps found). Pottery: J. R. Patterson (Patterson 2006, 212) notes little pottery from the late second and third centuries beyond the forum with reference to Fentress 1994. See also Hayes 1972, 35, 42, 48, 51, 208–9; 199 for African Red Slip Ware at Cosa, mostly third century with some second century; 318 for fragments of Çanderli Ware; and 416. On African Red Slip Ware, increasingly rare at Cosa, see also Vaccaro 2011, 44–46 with further bibliography. Glass: D. F. Grose, The Hellenistic, Roman, and Medieval Glass from Cosa, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2017, ch. 2: “Dated Deposits of Glass,” pp. 7–15, esp. Deposit X, Forum Cistern (SW Extension) below the fallen vaulting, fourth through midffth century, pp. 12–13. 167

On the late Roman settlement see most recently Cirelli and Fentress 2012, 97–102 with bibliography; also Vaccaro 2011, 50–52.

168

Cirelli and Fentress 2012, 102.

THE LATE EMPIRE (SEVERANS–LATE ANTIQUITY)

39

Table 5. Objects Found in the Shrine of Liber Pater Cat. No.

Description

DS-St 6

Statue of Bacchus

DS-St 4

Female head

DS-St 5

Female bust

T-Supp 1

Table support in the form of a herm

DS-MHB 5

Miniature herm bust of Hercules

B 11

Fragment of columnar basin support

A6

Relief with attributes of Minerva

date (table 5 and fg. 11).169 With one exception these were taken from private houses, presumably within the town, since almost all are good examples of domestic sculpture. The exception is the piece of a frieze depicting the attributes of Minerva that may have decorated an altar on the arx (A 6).170 The deity worshipped in the shrine is identifed by its cult statue as Dionysus and by an inscribed table support recording a gift to Liber Pater, an Italic-Roman divinity closely associated with Dionysus: [L]ibero / Zoe / Mater / D[onum] P[osuit]. This shrine occupied the former entryway at the short, southeast end of the forum, opposite the formal entrance with its imposing triple arch.171 The entryway was transformed into an exedra-like space, perhaps in the third century, by the construction of new rear and right side walls with a doorway in the center of its rear wall. The front still opened onto the portico with its original single column; later, the doorway in the rear wall was walled up (fg. 12).172 Its façade was closed much later by a fimsy wall with reused sill blocks for its doors in order to provide privacy for the ceremonies observed inside.173 A T-shaped partition wall at the left, built in the same fimsy masonry, separated a long, narrow room from the rest of the interior. Opposite the end of this wall a semicircular pedestal, again of hasty construction, was built against the rear wall. The center of the shrine was the most sacred. A rectangular pedestal in the center of the rear wall served as a base for the cult image found on the foor in front of it. On either side are the stumps of short walls that must have held columns supporting an aedicula that framed the statue.174 In the center of the shrine in front 169 Collins-Clinton 1977. See also Nielsen 2014, 112–41, esp. 124 for Cosa, where the shrine is called a cult and initiation room for “mysteries of a highly syncretistic kind” that survived offcial acceptance of Christianity until abandoned in the early ffth century A.D. It housed an altar and banqueting facilities as well as serving as a “safehouse” for a collection of sculptures from private residences. Nielsen stresses that these spaces tended to be modest, were often placed in private residences, and that provisions for dining were typical of all the buildings discussed. 170 For the relevance of Minerva to the cult of Dionysus see Collins-Clinton 1977, 27–29. 171

Brown in Brown et al. 1993, fg. 40 provides a plan of the forum ca. 180 B.C. showing the original Southeast Entryway with its single column in line with the façades of Atrium

Buildings VII and VIII on either side of the entryway. 172

Brown in Brown et al. 1993, 245 dated the construction of the two later walls to the third century; the left side wall belonged to the original construction of Atrium Building VIII next door. See also Fentress in Fentress et al. 2003, 63 and fg. 34 on this as part of a continuous third-century wall along the portico that hid the ruined atrium houses behind it.

173

For details of the construction of exterior and interior walls and the masonry installations see Collins-Clinton 1977, 9–13.

174 This may be reconstructed based on various examples, especially in Pompeii, such as a very similar aedicula in the House of Loreius Tiburtinus Pompeii (II.2.2); Jashemski 1993, fg. 81. This is part of a fountain set between two masonry couches at the end of a water channel.

40

THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT

of the cult image is a rectangular altar, whose form we can restore on the model of masonry altars in houses in Pompeii.175 At the right is the foundation for a masonry dining couch whose fulcrum was separated from a small space in the front corner that had a bench on two sides.176 In front of this was a pedestal, perhaps used for dining utensils. The description of the interior not only provides the setting for the sculptures and furniture found inside but also gives an idea of how the shrine was used. It was divided into three sections (see plan fg. 10): on the left a pantry or closet, in the center the aedicula framing the base for the cult image with the altar in front, and a couch and additional seating for dining on the right. The pantry or closet must have had wooden shelves for the drinking cups and ritual wine vessels used in the banquets, for their fragments were found on the foor below. These together with the dining couch stress the drinking parties so dear to Bacchic devotees. The marble sculptures and furniture were found in the central area. Just inside the door and against the partition wall a table support in the form of a herm (T-Supp 1 and fg. 11) greeted the worshippers. Beyond that, also against the partition wall, stood the table support with the inscription to Liber, discovered smashed into pieces (T-Supp 12 and fg. 11).177 Just beyond that lay the relief depicting the attributes of Minerva (A 6 and fg. 11). The semicircular pedestal opposite the end of the partition wall must have held a supply of lamps for the nocturnal celebrations since their fragments were found nearby, and closer toward the center of the room a large number of small bronze coins were discovered on the earthen foor. These coins suggest that an offertory box was also set on that pedestal.178 Dating from the reign of Licinius II (317–324) to Valentinian III (425–455),179 they give an idea of when the shrine fourished. The under life-sized statue of Dionysus lay broken and headless between the statue base and the altar; its head was never found (DS-St 6 and fg. 11).180 A recent study of rooms or buildings for mystery groups and other religious associations of Dionysus includes the shrine at Cosa.181 These tend to be small and often located in private homes. The one at Cosa was built in late antiquity, apparently for the steadily dwindling worshippers of Dionysus/Liber Pater who had seen the handwriting on the wall, as it were, and installed their cult place in a suitable structure easily accessible for their seasonal activities and communal dining.182 Its small size is a sure indication of the small size of the Bacchic group. The domestic nature of the

175

A good example with plaster pulvini is near the lararium of an unnamed house in Region I (I.11.15); Jashemski 1979, fg. 186.

176

Parallels for these may be found in Pompeii, many in private residences, where masonry couches were found outside in their gardens; a good example is the outdoor triclinium in the large vineyard across from the amphitheater (II.5); Jashemski 1979, fgs. 298 e, 300, 315. Masonry dining couches are also found in mithraea, including the one at Cosa that was built into one of the rooms in the cellar of the curia (Brown in Brown et al. 1993, 244, incorrectly dated to the second century; on this see Fentress 1994, 213). A parallel for the benches next to the fulcrum of the couch is also in Pompeii, the House of the Cryptoporticus (I.6.2/16); Jashemski 1993, 34 no. 30 and fg. 34. 177 On this sort of damage see Sauer 1996, 37–38. The broken condition of this votive table support is a good example of this sort of destruction of pagan material by Christians.

178

That such boxes in temples, θησαυροί, were used in Classical antiquity, see Sauer 1996, 22. Sauer goes on to discuss the treatment of coins in fourth-century mithraea destroyed by Christians (pp. 32–35): they were not taken but deliberately scattered on the foor “because they [the Christians] did not want to take coins dedicated to a hated god” (33).

179

Collins-Clinton 1977, 15, 86–89 nos. 75–103 and Buttrey 1980, 72–74, coins from the sanctuary.

180

See Sauer 1996, 37–45 on damage to pagan monuments.

181

Nielsen 2014, 124, where Cosa’s shrine is considered a cult and initiation room for “mysteries of a highly syncretistic kind,” the latter based on the appliques on the ritual vessels marked by snakes and other creatures.

182

70.

Fentress 1994, 215, 217; Fentress in Fentress et al. 2003,

POSTLUDE

41

cult image and the table support in the form of a herm of Dionysus could well have been brought in for safety from nearby houses; the inscribed table support could indicate that it had been a votive offering by an earlier group for its meeting place, also probably in a private home.183

Postlude The embellishment of Cosa with sculpture and furnishings of stone and marble began with the high point of the town’s prosperity in the late Republic, when Cosa became an example of Roman town planning, however rustic, and a center of seaborne trade focused on her port. The material that has survived from that time was mostly domestic in nature, of which a few pieces could have been imported from Greece. After the destruction sometime between 70 and 60 B.C. at the hands of marauding pirates, Cosa was resettled early in the reign of Augustus; houses were rebuilt, and the arx and forum underwent repairs. The “Capitolium” received a fne marble cult image of Jupiter. Several portraits of members of the imperial family were erected in the forum, including a trio of Divus Claudius, his wife and priestess of his cult, Agrippina Minor, and his adopted son and new emperor, Nero, all placed in the niches of the scaenae frons of the new odeum built into the ruins of the old basilica destroyed in an earthquake in A.D. 51. Most of the marble sculptures and furnishings of this period, however, were excavated in and around the forum and most likely had belonged to the atrium houses facing it. After the Severans no further sculptural embellishment was made despite the attempt at revival at that time. Only in the later third century were some pieces relevant to the worship of Dionysus/Liber Pater gathered together and installed as a small shrine built into an existing structure at one end of the forum. It survived until the ffth century, when it was destroyed by Christian iconoclasts. After that, large pieces of statuary were reused to serve as building blocks, and other pieces of marble and limestone were burned for lime to be used in mortar. Agricultural activity of the villagers residing around the forum uprooted and scattered smaller pieces of sculpture and furniture from their original places of display in the early Imperial atrium houses there. Today the ruins lie among the trees of an olive orchard, the land beneath adorned with colorful wild fowers.

183 The relief with the attributes of Minerva is now considered part of an altar, perhaps erected on the arx and associated with the “Capitolium” (see below A 6). It would have been

reused in the shrine because of its allusions to its rather Bacchic/Orphic associations with Dionysus (Collins-Clinton 1977, 27–29).

PART II

Catalogue

T

he catalogue is organized as follows: Public Statuary, including Portrait Heads and Portrait Statues; Domestic Sculpture, comprising Statuettes, Herms, Miniature Herm Busts, Oscilla, and Other Decorative Pieces; then other categories of objects, most of which belong to the private sphere: Tables, Altars, Basins and Their Supports, Puteals, and Sundials. Within each category the objects are listed chronologically (late Republican or early Imperial). Each category has an introduction that provides information on that material at Cosa along with brief comments on precedents. The introductions to some categories, such as Altars and Puteals, are more archaeological than art historical since the pieces in those categories are not well preserved. Archaeological evidence for altars at Cosa is discussed briefy in order to provide information regarding their form, cubic or U-shaped; this would relate to what relief decoration has survived. As for puteals, or wellheads, these were necessary to protect the public or private cisterns on which Cosa relied so heavily for the collection of rain water in the absence of easy access to aquifers on Cosa’s waterless hilltop. Here the draw shafts for the cisterns in private residences and certain public buildings are described in order to ascertain whether, for private houses, there might have been a standardized diameter; this turned out not to be so insofar as excavation has shown. The objects are numbered consecutively only within their respective categories. All measurements are in meters. “Right” and “left” refer to the object’s right or left, unless otherwise noted. In the interest of clarity concerning the fndspot of those pieces found in the basilica/odeum, the shorter term “basilica” is often used.

3 ♦ Public Statuary

Introduction

T

he statuary made for public display at Cosa comprises, for the most part, portrait heads and statues of imperial personages as well as a few unidentifed individuals, male and female. In addition are two impressive late Republican pieces, one a life-sized lion of Vulci tuff that may well have served as guardian of the Sacred Way leading to the temples on the arx, PS 2, and the other an over life-sized torso of Parian marble that had belonged to a statue of Asclepius, PS 1. This was made of two large blocks of marble joined through the hips in the Greek manner; one wonders how such a large statue had come to Cosa when there was no sanctuary of Asclepius anywhere nearby. The third large torso must have belonged to the cult image of Jupiter enthroned within the central cella of the “Capitolium” after it was repaired in Augustan times, PS 3.1 Among the portrait statues three stand out: a nuclear Julio-Claudian dynastic group of the Divus Claudius fanked by his widow and priestess of his cult, Agrippina Minor, on his left and the young Nero, the new emperor and son of Agrippina Minor, on his right (PS-St 1–3). They had stood in the triple-niched scaenae frons of an odeum constructed in the ruins of the basilica destroyed in an earthquake (see fg. 9).2 They are headless, and their identifcation rests on the basis of an inscription recording the restoration of the basilica.3 Two others, a togatus and a draped female, are fragmentary; they were found in or near the basilica/odeum (PS-St 4–5). Various body parts indicate that other togati and draped women had also been displayed in the forum. Of these the most outstanding is a fragment of an over life-sized head of Drusus Minor, PS-Head 1, to whom a cult table had been dedicated and presumably set up in the forecourt of the “Capitolium.”4 The head was found in the forum reservoir, suggesting that the statue had originally stood in the forum.5

Public Statues PS 1: Over Life-Sized Torso of Asclepius Late Hellenistic, ca. 150 B.C.

Figs. 13–20

CC 548. Torso and piece of its left shoulder found in 1950 built into sixth-century wall around arx near west cella wall of Temple D. Torso: Parian marble from the Marathi quarry (lychnites). 1

No pieces of the cult images of Hercules and Minerva have come to light. 2

On this see above, pp. 5–6, 10, 29.

3

Collins-Clinton 2000, 102–3.

4

On the inscribed table, see T-Supp 7.

5

For these see below, n. 49 (PS-Head 1).

46

PUBLIC STATUARY

Left shoulder and arm: fne- to medium-grained white marble with a streak of mica, Pentelic. H. 0.74, L. from sternal notch to navel 0.47 m. Restored original H. 2.10–2.20 m.6 Torso lacks its head, both arms, drapery at back, and small pieces of separately attached drapery at lower edges. Front of neck broken away through dowel hole, proper right arm broken off below armpit leaving traces of fngers on hip. Large piece of right hip broken away and reattached. Large chip in right shoulder, minor chips on fesh and drapery. Surface not especially weathered. White stains on front, back blackened in places; traces of mortar; lime encrustations, especially on back; root marks. Collins 1970, 23–24, 38, 59–64 no. 4, fgs. 10–11; Collins-Clinton 1993, 257–76; Ridgway 2000, 169; Collins-Clinton, Attanasio, Platania 2008, 25 table 1, no. CO16; 29 table 3, no. CO16; 40–41; fg. 14. This statue was originally assembled of two main pieces, torso and lower body, attached through the drapery at the hips, where small pieces of drapery were added to hide the join. The draped left shoulder and arm were also worked in separate pieces intricately attached by dowels along that side of the torso (fgs. 13, 17–19). A large piece of that shoulder survives and has been reattached. The draped back was made separately as well and attached; fg. 14 shows the attachment surface.7 Enough is preserved to enable a reconstruction of the pose of this heroically proportioned fgure carved in a lively Hellenistic style. The torso bends sharply to its right so that its right shoulder is lowered and its left raised. This means that the fgure stood with his weight on his right leg. The fex of the right neck tendon indicates that the head turned to its left, away from the weight leg. Thus the statue must have assumed a chiastic contrapposto stance with dual viewpoints, from the front and from a slightly oblique angle that would have allowed a full view of the face. His right arm must have been bent at the elbow to judge from the angle preserved in the remnant of his upper arm and by the imprint of his right hand on that hip, placed so that the thumb points backward. Reconstructing the draping of the himation is more diffcult. The attached piece of his draped left shoulder shows that one end fell forward and down that side (fgs. 13, 17). In back the himation must have swept diagonally down toward his right hip, where it was drawn across his body low on the hips since his right hand rests on bare fesh (fgs. 14, 16). It then fell across his lowered left arm, held in place by the missing hand. Shallow folds cover the outer shoulder and upper arm held close to the body, while more plastically rendered folds indicate that the inner edge of the himation was folded over upon itself at least twice, with the edge folding diagonally inward, covering the armpit. This fall of drapery is cut horizontally through the bottom for the attachment of another piece, now missing. The heroic size, the partial nudity, the position of the right hand on the hip, and the fgure’s stance suggest an identity as Asclepius, whose traditional imagery shows him wearing a himation and standing with his right hand on his hip. This healing deity was very popular from the late ffth century B.C. on, and the statuary types representing him are correspondingly many. The pose of the Cosa torso belongs to the Este type, which originated in the frst half of the fourth century B.C. and was very prolifc over a

6

See Collins-Clinton 1993, 257 and 273 n. 4.

7

The description and discussion below is a brief version of that in Collins-Clinton 1993.

PUBLIC STATUES

47

long period.8 In this type Asclepius stands with his weight on his right leg and leans on his staff on his left. The leftward lean balanced by a rightward displacement of the hips results in a dynamic movement in the torso. The drapery and position of his left arm in the Cosa torso are different, however, and best seen in a variant known as the Velia type, named after a statuette from Velia in Lucania.9 In this type Asclepius leans rather differently on his staff, so that the resulting system of folds over his left shoulder and arm presents the quiet effect seen in the Cosa torso. In this variant the staff, instead of being held under the armpit, simply supports the left elbow and does not disrupt the folds descending from the shoulder. Enough is preserved in the attached piece of the left shoulder and drapery to show the quiet, almost vertical downward fall of the front end of the himation. The treatment of the neck for the attachment of a separately worked head suggests that the head was originally carved in one piece with the torso (fg. 20). The attachment surface has two levels; the fat portion is now broken away in front to reveal a cylindrical dowel hole. This surface is smoothed and pitted slightly with a point. At the back of this surface is a badly chipped broken area jutting upward. The back of the neck is thickened and shows a roughly picked surface with horizontal striations. This suggests either that the back of the head and neck were purposely left unfnished or that this area was reworked at a later time. In this area are rectangular cuttings for two clamps.10 These most likely indicate that the head had broken off and was either repaired or replaced. The head must have been large and unwieldy enough to require support from the back when the torso was repaired. This suggests a head with long hair and most likely also a beard, as the shape of the break in the neck suggests. The bit of marble projecting from the proper right side of the neck, visible from the front, cannot belong to the mantle, which clearly fell diagonally down the back, leaving the entire right shoulder and arm uncovered. The hair was trimmed in such a way as to leave the sides of the neck clear. A good idea of how this treatment of the hair, as well as that of the beard, would have looked may be seen in the torso of Asclepius from Munychia in the Piraeus, now in the National Archaeological Museum in Athens.11 The complex assembly of this statue from several separate pieces of marble, including the method of attaching the torso to the lower body, merits close attention. The major join across the hips is straight and horizontal and must have cut along the upper edge of the himation around the right hip and through the missing drapery on the left side. The attachment surface is fat and fnished with a claw chisel (fg. 15).12 The rear half was pitted with a large point, the front half left plain; there is no anathyrosis. A roughly picked indentation extends from the proper right side toward the center, where there is a large, square dowel hole; the indentation may correspond to the channel for pouring the lead needed to secure the dowel in the lower body. Arrangements for the ftting of the separately made back with the left shoulder, arm, and related drapery of the upper body are especially complicated. A simplifed description will be given here.13 8

On the images of Asclepius in general see LIMC 2 (1984) 1:863–97 with bibliography (B. Holtzmann); for the Este type see pp. 886–89 nos. 320–78. On Hellenistic cult images of Asclepius see also D. Damaskos, Untersuchungen zu hellenistischen Kultbildern, Stuttgart: F. Steiner Verlag, 1999, passim.

9

LIMC 2 (1984) 1:888 nos. 355–60 (Holtzmann); the statuette from Velia is no. 356.

m. The second, more carefully worked slot near the proper right shoulder is 0.06 long by 0.02 wide and 0.023 m deep. There are four tiny holes for pins at the bottom of this cutting. 11

Inv. no. 258; LIMC 2 (1984) 1:887 no. 346 (Holzmann); Kaltsas 2002, 260–61, no. 543; see also Collins-Clinton 1993, 260, fg. 6.

12

This is known only from a photograph.

13

See Collins-Clinton 1993, 261–62 for details.

10

The shallow roughly worked cutting in the center back has a round hole for attachment, perpendicular to the bed of the slot, with a diameter of 0.023 and a depth of 0.063

48

PUBLIC STATUARY

Figures 17–19 show the attachment surfaces for the draped left shoulder and upper arm and those for separate pieces of drapery now missing. The largest of these, for the preserved shoulder and drapery (fg. 18), is smooth and pocked with holes made by a large pick. It contains two large dowel holes. Below is a much smaller surface, fnished with a claw chisel and offset from that above so it tilts more downward; in its center is a dowel hole. Just below this is a very small, deeply countersunk surface, and toward the navel is another below a very battered lump of drapery; both these small surfaces are smooth-picked. Facing toward the back and below the large surface for the draped upper arm is another attachment surface, very roughly picked. The remnants of several shallowly drilled holes are preserved here. All these surfaces must refect the attachment of separately worked pieces of the elbow and related drapery that fell between arm and body, covering the elbow and forearm. The inner attachment surface of the left shoulder and drapery is worked like that on the torso (fg. 19). The bottom is cut horizontally where it would meet the missing drapery below. Behind the outer edge of this piece and facing obliquely toward the back another, narrow attachment surface, smoothed with a claw chisel, has a dowel hole at the top, just visible in fgure 16. The back, except for the right shoulder, is worked fat for attaching the himation (fg. 14). The sloping edge indicates the direction in which it fell toward the hip and hand. The plane is vertical, but it slants inward toward the left, where a roughly picked projecting ridge forms an edge, widening toward the bottom, that overhangs the inset attachment surface below it. Finished with a claw chisel, this surface has a round dowel hole in the center and fve small holes for pins along both left and right edges. In the middle of the lower edge is a vertical cutting for a clamp in whose end is a round hole still preserving traces of the iron dowel. This clamp must have assisted in fastening the separate upper back to both the torso and lower body. At the lower right, corresponding to the level of the hand on the hip, there is yet another small, fat attachment surface, set well behind the hand and probably related to the drapery behind the hip. Although remarkable in its intricacy, the piecing used in this torso does have some close parallels in three standing, partially draped and well over life-sized male fgures, all Hellenistic works dating to the second century B.C.: the Asclepius from his sanctuary at Munychia, already mentioned above,14 the Poseidon from Melos,15 and the “Zeus” from the Sanctuary of Hera Basilea at Pergamum erected under Attalus II (159–138 B.C.).16 All three were made of two main pieces of marble, torso and lower body, attached through the hips in a straight, fat manner resembling that of securing two column drums in Greek architecture. The Poseidon from Melos is meticulously published in this respect.17 The surfaces joining torso to lower body show anathyrosis, a rectangular dowel hole in their centers, and a pour channel in the lower body going toward the back from a corner of the hole.18 In the torso are traces of shallow tooling along a line corresponding to the pour hole in the lower body, just as in the Cosa torso. In addition, both the Poseidon and the “Zeus” show a carefully executed method of attaching separate pieces of drapery at key points along the seam of this join 14

N. 11. The height of this torso is 1.0 m.

15

National Archaeological Museum, Athens, inv. no. 235; H. 2.17 m. See most recently Ridgway 2000, 167, 169–71 with nn. 61, 64 and Kaltsas 2002, 290–91 no. 611, both with bibliography.

16

Archaeological Museums, Istanbul, inv. no. 2767; H. 2.31 m. For bibliography see Collins-Clinton 1993, 264–65 and Ridgway 2000, 149–50 with n. 14, 167, 169, 171, 230. For other examples see Collins-Clinton 1993, 266–68, also n.

23 on p. 274. 17 J. Schäfer, “Der Poseidon der Melos (Athens, NM. 235),” AntP 8 (1968) 55–68, pls. 38–41. See Collins-Clinton 1993, 274 n. 18 for the Asclepius from Munychia. For the “Zeus” from Pergamum see the excavation report: A. Ippel, “Die Arbeiten zu Pergamon 1910–1911, III: Die Einzelfunde,” AM 37 (1912) 316–25. 18

Collins-Clinton 1993, fgs. 12–13.

PUBLIC STATUES

49

in order to hide it.19 This explains the separate, small attachment surfaces tilted at different angles at the base of the Cosa torso, where the himation over the hips was pulled toward the proper left. The separate treatment of the back of the Cosa torso has few parallels. The closest is a torso of a draped woman from Pergamum in the Staatliche Museen, Berlin.20 Another is a standing male fgure in a hip-mantle from the odeum at Cos.21 All these are Hellenistic statues dating to the second century B.C. In fact, it is the column-drum method of joining torso to lower body that provides the main criterion for considering the Cosa torso as Hellenistic and dating to the same period.22 Although Roman sculptors also made large standing fgures from two main blocks of marble, the Roman method of joining was very different. The well-known Augustus from Thessalonica is a good example, for it also wears its mantle wrapped around the hips, though in the hip-mantle style.23 This attachment method may be termed a contoured mortice and tenon technique, for the top of the lower body is concave, with its edges following the contours of the mantle. The bottom of the torso is convex and has a large rectilinear tenon that fts into a corresponding hole at the base of the concavity in the lower body.24 The edges closely match the contours of those of the lower body and sink below the edges of the mantle so as to hide the join. The treatment of the musculature of the Cosa torso confrms the Hellenistic attribution based on the piecing technique. Below the feshy breasts and well-developed pectorals the ribcage is alive with rippling modulations; curves abound: below the breasts, in the ribcage, along the curve from the neck to the navel, even in the indented waist. Despite all this activity, the torso presents a self-contained and upright composition, enclosed left and right by the curves of the original bent right arm and the drapery moving from the left shoulder toward the navel. The vertical upper left arm further closes the composition on that side. Within the overall composition there is a careful balance of opposites: between the vigorous rendering of the musculature and drapery and the quiet fall of the drapery along the proper left side, between the bent right arm and relaxed left arm, between the self-contained torso and the outward turn of the head. The movement, plasticity, and pictorial contrasts are well within the “baroque” tradition of Hellenistic sculpture, a phase that lasted throughout the second century B.C. and best exemplifed by the well-known frieze depicting the Battle of Gods and Giants from the Altar of Zeus at Pergamum (ca. 180–160 B.C.). On the other hand, the juxtaposition of these “baroque” qualities with the static tranquility found in the stance and in certain passages of the preserved drapery hint at a certain tension between the “Hellenistic baroque” and the Classical—a tension that indicates the Cosa statue’s place on the threshold of a renewed classicism. The coexistence of these two stylistic features in the same fgure is also found in the statues of Aphrodite and Poseidon from Melos, dated ca. 150–110 B.C.25 A date around this time also seems reasonable for the Cosa torso. How and when the statue arrived at Cosa is an unanswerable question. Since no sanctuary of Asclepius exists anywhere near Cosa, it is unlikely that it would have been made for Cosa in Rome 19 For the Poseidon see Collins-Clinton 1993, 264 and fgs. 10–11; for the “Zeus” see pp. 264–65.

23

20

Collins-Clinton 1993, 266 and fg. 15 with bibliography.

21

24 See PS 3 below for the lower torso of a male statue made to join a separate lower body.

Collins-Clinton 1993, 266 with bibliography.

22

For further discussion citing other examples see Collins-Clinton 1993, 267–68.

Thessalonica Museum, AA 55 (1940) 265–66, fgs. 71–73; Niemeyer 1968, 102–3, cat. no. 76, pl. 24, 3.

25 On these statues see now C. Maggidis, “The Aphrodite and the Poseidon of Melos: A Synthesis,” ActaArch 69 (1998) 175–97, esp. 194–97.

50

PUBLIC STATUARY

by a Greek workshop using its familiar marbles and techniques of piecing.26 One possibility, though not provable insofar as Cosa is concerned, is that it arrived in Italy, at least, with booty brought by victorious generals during the conquest of Greece throughout the second century B.C.27 Of these, only L. Mummius is known to have dedicated statues in towns that had been allies in his campaign.28 There is no evidence to confrm this possibility for Cosa, however.

PS 2: Hindquarters of Lion Late Republican, mid-second century B.C.

Figs. 21–25

CC 547. Found in 1950 on arx near north jamb of Roman gate on surface well above paving of Roman road. Vulci tuff (nenfro). As preserved: L. 0.47, H. 0.45, W. 0.30 m. Preserves hindquarters of lion; some of tail chipped off near rump; much of left fank and both legs and paws missing. Flanks broken into several large pieces, some of which do not join the main body. Surface worn. Brown 1960, 153–54; Jehasse 1976, 1:489 n. 1, 490, fg. 10. This life-sized lion crouches as if to spring forward, its hindquarters raised. Six pairs of stylized, slightly curved clumps of fur with raised tips, the “back-mane” as W. L. Brown terms it, are preserved along the spine, ending where the tail begins (fg. 21). Originally these must have continued along the entire back from the mane to the tail.29 Each clump contains several narrow, parallel ridges separated with a groove to give a sense of texture. With the exception of the forwardmost pair as preserved, the roots of each clump overlap, eliminating the spinal groove.30 The tail is held close between the legs and curls up, doglike, along the right fank (fgs. 22–23). Doglike also is the hollow between the edge of each fank and the ribcage (fgs. 21, 22, 24). The muscular fanks show several raised blood vessels. The crouching pose, the muscularity, and prominent veins are reminiscent of

26

As B. S. Ridgway 2000, 169 has suggested.

27

For a discussion of this and other possibilities see Collins-Clinton 1993, 270–72 with earlier bibliography; see now M. Tarpin, “Les manubiae dans la procédure d’appropriation du butin,” and S. Holz, “Praeda und Prestige—Kriegsbeute und Beutekunst im (spät-)republikanischen Rom,” in M. Coudry and M. Humm, eds., Praeda, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2009, 81–102 and 187–206 respectively. For sanctuaries of Asclepius on mainland Greece, see now J. W. Riethmüller, Asklepios: Heiligtümer und Kulte. Studien zu antiken Heiligtümern, Heidelberg: Verlag Archäologie und Geschichte, 2005.

28 On this see now L. Yarrow, “Lucius Mummius and the Spoils of Corinth,” Scripta Classica Israelica 25 (2006) 57–70; also Wallace-Hadrill 2008, 131–33 on the dedication from Pompeii, where he stresses that it “implies a direct Pompeian

involvement in the campaign” (133). On when Mummius’s dedications likely took place see A. Martelli, “Per una nuova lettura dell’inscrizione Vetter 61 nel contesto del santuario di Apollo a Pompei,” Eutopia. Rivista di studi sull’Europa antica 2, 2 (2002) 76–77. 29

Jehasse 1976, 489 n. 1 includes the Cosa lion with four others from various places in Etruria that share the extension of mane-like locks along the top of the back.

30

A lion from Cesi, now in Terni, has a back-mane almost identical to that of the Cosa lion, especially in the overlapping of the roots of each, although each clump curves outward more dramatically; see E. Galli, “Il Leoncino di Sigillo,” StEtr 17 (1943) 147–48 with n. 35, pl. 14, 2 (back), 3 (head). This lion was standing though its legs are missing; it has a long, lean body, and it appears less muscular than the Cosa lion.

PUBLIC STATUES

51

the well-known bronze Chimaera from Arezzo, now in Florence, National Archaeological Museum, dating to ca. 400 B.C.31 This, in turn, suggests that the Cosa lion was also shown in a similar pose, the tufts of its back-mane in lower relief to suit a stone statue. The lion from Cosa belongs to a group of monumental Etrusco-Roman stone lions used as guardians of tombs or public buildings dating from the fourth century B.C. through the late Republic.32 Brown has noted that the back-mane of the Cosa lion closely resembles that of a lion from Cesi whose body appears, from photographs, to have a similar doglike hollow between the fanks and ribcage.33 This lion has been grouped with some others by Jehasse, who considered them to date in the late Republican period.34 The similar treatment of the back-mane in both the Cesi and Cosa lions, along with the expressive Hellenistic crouching pose of the Cosa example, points to a late Republican date for the lion from Cosa.35 Although the lion was not mentioned by A. Hus in his paper on the art of Vulci after the archaic period, it seems certain that it was made there by virtue of its material—nenfro is a type of tuff quarried near Vulci—and its form and style based on Greek models.36 Although the excavators originally thought that the lion was brought to its fndspot at the entrance to the arx from elsewhere, probably because many Etrusco-Roman lions have been found in funerary contexts, this may not necessarily be true. It is possible that it was found near where it had been set up at the entrance to the area sacra on the arx, possibly in the mid-second century B.C. after Temple D was constructed and the terrain terraced down to the ancient wall below at Street P, the Processional Way leading to the forum.37 Lions had a long history as guardian fgures in the ancient Mediterranean area from Mycenaean to Roman times, protecting public buildings as well as tombs.38 The Cosa lion fts this picture well.

PS 3: Torso of Jupiter Capitolinus Augustan

Figs. 26–30

CA 8. Found in 1948 just north of gateway to arx built into base of northeastern stretch of the sixth-century arx wall on its east (town) side. Fine- to medium-grained white marble, Parian Lakkoi. H. 0.75, L. navel to sternal notch 0.42 m. 31 See most recently B. Cohen, “The Chimaera of Arezzo,” AJA 114, 3 (July 2010) with bibliography; http://www. ajaonline.org/online-review-museum/365 (accessed 20 December 2017). 32

The major publication remains that of Brown 1960, along with Jehasse 1976. See the list in Brown 1960 et al., 149–54.

33 Brown 1960, 154. See photographs in Galli (above n. 30) pl. 14, 2–3. 34 35

Jehasse 1976, 489.

Brown 1960 et al., 154 allows for a date later than the fourth century B.C. On the Hellenistic crouching pose see Jehasse 1976, 489. The crouching pose is uncommon among Etrusco-Roman monumental stone lions, which

either stand on all fours or lie down. Those that preserve their feet show that they rest on a plinth. 36

A. Hus, “Réfections sur la statuaire en pierre de Vulci après l’époque archaïque,” in R. Chevallier, ed., Mélanges d’archéologique et d’histoire offerts à André Piganiol, Paris: S. E. V. P. E. N., 1966, 665–76, esp. 672–74. The author includes only those stone sculptures actually found in Vulci. Cosa, however, is located nearby within the former Vulcian territory. By the same author, see also Vulci étrusque et étrusco-romaine, Paris: Éditions Klincksieck, 1971, 133–34, 141. 37 See Fentress et al. 2003, 31–32 on the results of the excavation adjacent to Temple D. 38

Jehasse 1976, M490.

52

PUBLIC STATUARY

Separately attached head, lower body, and drapery at back missing. Broken away are most of left side, right arm near armpit, and front of neck. Chipped all over; surface weathered, black stain at lower front; lime encrusted. Collins 1970, 20, 23, 24, 27, 34, 38, 69–75 no. 6, fg. 15 (with incorrect identifcation); Collins-Clinton, Attanasio, Platania 2008, 25 table 1, no. CO17; 29 table 3, no. CO17; 49–50 and fg. 24 (with incorrect identifcation). The head was fxed to the torso by an iron dowel, the channel for which can be seen in the break in the front of the neck (fg. 26); this measures 0.11 m long by 0.022 m in diameter at the bottom. The roughly rectangular break extends down the neck to just above the clavicles; this may possibly indicate that the head was bearded. The preserved attachment surface for the head is fnished smooth. The underside of the torso is fnished with the point and claw chisel and treated in a complex manner for setting into the lower body (fg. 30). An essentially fat surface extends back from the front, broken away at the proper left side; on the proper right the surface is convex beneath the missing fall of drapery. The torso is further secured to the lower body by a large rectangular dowel extending upward into the broken left side (fg. 29). The cutting for the dowel measures 0.091 m wide by 0.153 m long. The surface of the back along the left side and bottom is rabbeted for attachment of the missing drapery, shoulder, and arm and is fnished with the point and claw chisel (fg. 28). Photographs of the proper left side taken at the time of excavation show the torso set too rigidly upright; the dowel attaching the torso to the lower body should be oriented vertically since it parallels the rabbeted surface at the back. In the back at a point roughly corresponding to just below the proper left breast is the remains of a square dowel hole angled slightly downward and measuring 0.065 long by 0.071 wide on the one preserved side (visible in fg. 29). This partially draped, over life-sized fgure sits upright and frontal, the exaggerated musculature of chest and abdomen forming a schematic pattern of horizontal depressions crossing the deep groove of the vertical median line. The short, horizontal folds of fesh above the navel where the abdomen tilts forward indicate the seated posture. The fgure wears a heavy mantle across his back, where it falls diagonally rightward from the proper left shoulder to the opposite hip in narrow folds, simply rendered with deep valleys between rather fattened ridges. From the hip it would have passed to the front of the body, following the lower edge of the torso and bunching on the separate lower body in such a way as to hide the join. The slight upward angle of the proper left clavicle indicates that the left arm was raised. The vertical break down the proper left side could suggest that the mantle had hung down that side. The bit of drapery beside the neck that takes a diagonal direction suggests that it may have formed a loop over the shoulder to free a raised arm. The size, its upright, motionless posture, and its frontality suggest that it represents Jupiter rather than a seated imperial portrait statue in the guise of Jupiter enthroned.39 Except for its drapery, the Cosa torso so closely resembles the colossal torso of Jupiter Capitolinus from Pompeii that an identifcation as Jupiter himself is unavoidable. H. G. Martin, in his study of Roman cult images, considers the Pompeian torso as having been made as the cult image for Pompeii’s Capitolium after Sulla’s forces had taken over Pompeii and the city became a Roman colony in 80 B.C.40 He notes as well the coincidence between the rebuilding of this temple after 80 B.C. and that of the Temple of

39 As originally identifed in Collins 1970, 20, 38, 69–75 no. 6. On imperial portraits in the guise of Jupiter enthroned, see Maderna 1988, 24–52, 164–93 nos. IT 1–45, and pls. 5–15.

40 Martin 1987, 142–44, 203, 222–24 no. 9, pl. 21 with bibliography; Martin 1988, 255.

PUBLIC STATUES

53

Jupiter Optimus Maximus in Rome that burned down in 83 B.C. and whose rebuilding was also begun under Sulla and also required a new cult image. This opens the question as to whether the Pompeian torso had copied the cult image in Rome. It most likely did, although literary evidence for the statue in Rome from before the fre of A.D. 69 is inconclusive, and that of Chalcidius, who lived in the fourth century A.D., most likely refers to the image made after the fre in A.D. 80 under Domitian, still surviving in the fourth century A.D.41 The best evidence for the appearance of the late Republican Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome is that on coins with the legend I O MAX CAPITOLINVS, issued during the period of civil wars after the death of Nero in A.D. 68.42 These show a seated fgure with a naked torso, his left arm raised to hold a scepter and his right lowered to hold thunderbolts. Statuary evidence also provides clues, among which are several over life-sized cult images of Jupiter Capitolinus;43 some bronze statuettes are also useful.44 These images date from the later frst century B.C. on, and they present a very consistent iconography that repeats that seen on the coins dating before the fre of late A.D. 69 destroyed the late Republican temple. Jupiter sits upright and frontal with his left arm raised, his hand holding his scepter; his right arm is lowered, as is clear in the Cosa example, his hand resting on his lap holding his thunderbolts.45 Most helpful for envisioning the Cosa torso is the consistent looping of the mantle over his left shoulder and the slight rightward turn of his head, always represented with long, curly hair, beard, and mustache.46 These images also present a consistent structure and rendering of the musculature that matches that of the torsos from Pompeii and Cosa.47 In addition to the close resemblance among these torsos, the Cosa piece offers other details to bolster the identifcation as Jupiter. First, the break in the neck and upper chest suggests that the head was bearded; although now quite worn, the area at the lower front of the neck at the top of the chest is quite broad. Second, the top of the drapery at the back, where long hair could have rested, is also treated roughly, now also quite worn. Last, the lower edge of the drapery in back is cut away 41 Chalcidius, schol. in Platon, Timaeum 337 [361]. On the late Republican image and the literary sources see Martin 1987, 131–35 and Maderna 1988, 27–28. Chalcidius is the only source that describes this as made of gold and ivory by the Greek sculptor Apollonius; see L. Richardson, jr., A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome, Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992, 223–24. On the temple see now LTUR 3 (1996) 148–53, s.v. Iuppiter Optimus Maximus, Aedes (S. De Angeli). 42

Maderna 1988, 27–32, who cites a coin of Galba that shows the seated statue with this legend (BMC 307 no. 70, pl. 51, no. 22 and RIC I2, 213 no. 127a, b). See also a denarius of Vitellius with the same legend, BMC 392 no. 118 and RIC I2, 271 no. 56, pl. 30 and pp. 262–63. On this coin see J. Williams, “Religion and Roman Coins,” in Jörg Rüpke, ed., A Companion to Roman Religion, Oxford: Blackwell, 2007, 155–56 and fg. 11.26. Another coin of Vitellius shows Jupiter seated within his temple with the legend below: I O MAX CAPITO; on this see P. V. Hill, The Monuments of Ancient Rome as Coin Types, London: Seaby, 1989, 25, fg. 29 (RIC I1 274 no. 127). On the coins of this civil war period see RIC I2, 262–63, 265. In addition, the reverses of two aurei of Nero show the same image with the legend IVPPITER CVSTOS (BMC I, 209 no. 67, pl. 39, 19 and p. 210 no. 77, pl. 39, 21; also p. clxvi on the dates A.D. 64–68; and RIC I2, 153 no. 52, pl. 18,

ca. A.D. 64–65, and p. 154 no. 63, A.D. 64–67). 43 Martin 1987, 135–44; Maderna 1988, 27–28; LIMC 8 (1997) s.v. Zeus/Iuppiter, pp. 427–28 nos. 39–48 [marble statues], nos. 49–51 [bronzes] (F. Canciani) and Appendix: Capitoline Triad, pp. 461–70 (A. Costantini); Adamo Muscettola 1998. 44 A. Zadoks Jitta, “JVPPITER CAPITOLINVS,” JRS 28 (1938) 50–55; M. M. Morciano, “Il culto capitolino nella sfera del privato,” RM 115 (2009) 57–91 with bibliography. 45 It is clear from the images dating after A.D. 69 that they all reproduce the late Republican image. See Maderna 1988, 27. 46

The torso from Cumae, which preserves the head, gives an excellent idea of its appearance. On this see Adamo Muscettolo 1998, 219–230, esp. 222–24, pls. LV–LVI.

47

Adamo Muscettola 1998, 222–23 gives an analysis that matches the anatomical structure and treatment of the musculature of the Cosa torso, noting that the eyes of the Cumaean torso have been reworked. She dates the Cumaean Capitoline Jupiter to the second half of the frst century B.C. (224).

54

PUBLIC STATUARY

at a level corresponding with the rough surface for the attached drapery; this could suggest that the fgure sat on a low-backed throne. Although the fgure is now displayed sitting rigidly upright, the treatment of the back makes it clear that he had originally relaxed back against his throne. The workmanship is cold and lifeless. The drill, used to render the folds of the drapery, is, however, nowhere obvious. The naked areas were originally smoothed. The fndspot on the arx, built into a medieval wall, indicates that the statue was probably set up there, so it could have been erected in the central cella of the “Capitolium,” most probably during the reign of Augustus soon after the resettlement of the town and after the “Capitolium,” damaged during the pirate raid of ca. 70–60 B.C., was repaired.

Portrait Heads PS-Head 1: Fragment of Over Life-Sized Male Head, Drusus Minor? Julio-Claudian

Figs. 31–32

C73.50. Found in 1973 in the forum reservoir. Medium-grained white marble. Proper H. 0.11, D. attachment surface, back to front 0.163, Diam. 0.215 m. Missing crown of head, face, and much of hair on proper left. Surface of hair badly worn, leaving the grains of marble exposed. Front stained dark brown. Root marks, lime deposits, traces of mortar, tiny pits. Unpublished. Only a tiny bit of the forehead is preserved in front, framed above by a distinctive pattern of ten short, pointed locks (fg. 31). At the left a group of four, clearly separated, point rightward. To the right of these there is a break, then four more locks are preserved, very close together and separated only by incised lines or grooves. These point leftward toward the frst group. At the far left are traces of two more locks, pointing downward. The rest of the hair on the top of the head is shown in loose crescents, shallowly rendered. The workmanship is perfunctory. Marks of a rasp are visible in places. The pattern of forehead locks corresponds to that of Drusus Minor, son of Tiberius and Vipsania Agrippina.48 The two groups of short, pointed locks, as preserved on this fragment, point toward each other on a low forehead above the beginning of the right eyebrow. The locks at the preserved side of the forehead face downward toward the temple. That an honorary portrait statue of Drusus Minor would be displayed at Cosa is to be expected, since an inscribed table support found on the arx records a dedication to “Drusus Caesar, son of Tiberius Augustus and grandson of the divine Augustus.”49 The back of the head has a fat surface for attachment of another piece, a practice common in Julio-Claudian portrait heads (fg. 32). Its plane is not parallel to that of the forehead; rather it slants

48

Boschung 1993, 62–63, sketch 42, Béziers Type, with bibliography. For a list of examples of this type see D. Boschung, Katalog der antiken Skulpturen in Schloss Erbach, Archäologische Forschungen 3, Berlin: Gebr. Mann, 1977, 47 Group C.

49

See T-Supp 7, n. 110. Certain body parts of the same size

and type of marble may belong to this statue, which would have been togate; see BP 4 (neck with tenon found near the arx gate), BP 8 (right shoulder draped in the manner of a togate fgure found on the arx), BP 20 (left hand found in the forum), and BP 33 (right foot wearing senatorial shoe found on the arx).

PORTRAIT HEADS

55

inward toward the top. It was smoothed and then worked over with a medium point in horizontal strokes in order to provide a rough surface for securing the attached piece. The weather-worn top of the head and the tiny pits made by lichens could indicate that the statue had been displayed outside.

PS-Head 2: Fragment of Life-Sized Male Portrait Head, Nero? Ca. A.D. 54–59

Fig. 33

CB 738. Found in 1949 on arx just behind “Capitolium” on surface. Fine-grained white marble. Proper H. 0.133, Proper W. 0.10, Proper D. 0.145 m. Broken on all but one side; most of ear chipped away; worn and weathered. In break at top of head are visible rust stains near traces of iron dowel that extends perpendicularly to the frontal plane. Actual joint surface not preserved. Back of head must have been separately worked and joined by this dowel. Earth stains, root marks, lime deposits, and traces of mortar. Collins 1970, 20, 34, 38, 58 no. 3, fg. 9. Preserved is only part of the left side of the head from the temple and ear toward the back of the head and nape of the neck. The hair is shallowly chiseled in waving, crescent locks lying close to the head. The hair at the back of the head grows low down the neck. The edges of the ear have broken away; in all probability they originally stood out from the side of the head, a trait of certain members of the Julio-Claudian family, especially Nero. Though worn, the workmanship is clearly careful. A cluster of long, thin locks curves toward and then away from the ear. Noteworthy is the way in which the tips of three crescent locks, prominent in the upper right of the fragment, lie above the longer waving locks in such a way that their pointed ends appear to merge with the longer, waving locks in the layer below. These locks, in turn, terminate above another layer whose tips, rendered in somewhat higher relief, curve backwards away from the ear and down the neck. The treatment of the hair is typical of members of the Julio-Claudian family, and a precise identifcation is diffcult without any facial features. Nevertheless, certain details may be diagnostic of the coiffure of the young Nero: the rather long hair manifest in the long waves toward the back of the head, the hair growing low toward the nape of the neck, and the protruding ears. These features appear in the well-preserved head of the young Nero in the Museo Nazionale at Cagliari.50 This head has given its name to a group of portraits considered an “Accession” type that originated around the time of Nero’s accession to the throne in A.D. 54 and used until A.D. 59.51 An identifcation of the Cosa fragment as the young Nero is consonant with the togate statue that stood in the scaenae frons of the odeum along with statues of Divus Claudius and Agrippina Minor.52 The discovery of this fragment on the arx should not be considered a deterrent to attributing this fragment to a statue that had stood in the forum since we know that the discovery behind the 50

Inv. no. 35533; from Olbia. See Boschung 1993, 76 no. Zb, sketch 67, who follows U. W. Hiesinger, “The Portraits of Nero,” AJA 79 (1975) 113–19, esp. 114–15, n. 6; pl. 21, fgs. 33–34.

51

Hiesinger (as above), 118–19. Three other heads belong to this group according to Hiesinger: Mantua, Palazzo Ducale, p. 115, n. 7 and pl. 22, fgs. 35–36; Rome, Museo Nazionale

Romano inv. no. 616, p. 115, n. 8 and pl. 23, fgs. 37–38; and Paris, Louvre no. 3528, p. 115, n. 9 and pl. 23, fgs. 39–40; all with earlier bibliography. These portraits compare favorably with Nero’s coinage issued between A.D. 55 and 59; see esp. p. 118, Coin Type III, pl. 17, fgs. 3–8. 52 Collins-Clinton 2000 and above, pp. 5–6, 10, 28. The size of the head fts the size of the statue.

56

PUBLIC STATUARY

basilica of the foot belonging to the body of a cuirassed fgure built into the sixth-century wall around the arx indicates the transference not only of this statue but also of many other statuary pieces from their original places of display, whether in the forum or elsewhere.53 In another instance, the head of Agrippina Minor, also found on the arx behind the “Capitolium,” joins the bust found in the Atrium Publicum I in the forum.

PS-Head 3: Life-sized Bust of Agrippina Minor Ca. A.D. 50–59

Figs. 34–40

CE 730 (bust, fgs. 38–40) and C67.284 (head, fgs. 35–37). Bust found in 1952 in Room 12 of Atrium Publicum I near surface in fourth–ffth-century A.D. context. Head found in 1967 behind “Capitolium” on surface. Fine-grained white marble with a few gray veins. Total H. 0.445, H. chin to crown 0.23, W. across shoulders as preserved 0.253 m. Head joins bust through neck. Face sheared off; proper left shoulder broken away. Head: very battered and worn, weathered from exposure near surface of soil; large area on back right side stained white and black and pitted. Bust: edges chipped, a few traces of mortar, lime deposits, root marks, not very weathered. Underside of bust slightly concave with bar tenon for setting into base (fg. 40). Tenon begins fush with rear edge, deepening toward front; Max. D. 0.063, average W. 0.081 m. Entire undersurface rough-picked. Collins 1970, 20, 29, 32, 24, 50–55, fgs. 5–7. This faceless portrait bust represents a woman who turns her head a little toward her left (fg. 34). Originally carved from shoulder to shoulder, the bust dips low in front, revealing a deep expanse of bare chest framed by gently undulating folds of a sleeved tunic (fg. 38).54 This is fastened over her right shoulder with a button in the form of a four-petaled fower. From the button to the edge runs a hastily chiseled seam. The folds on this side do not balance what is visible on the right, so that the tunic must have slipped off her left shoulder. The drapery is delicately worked and fnished with the rasp, of which not all traces have been removed. The collarbones are lightly modeled, and the fesh surfaces have been polished. The head is in much worse condition. Of her face only both ears and a portion of her right brow, temple, and cheek are preserved (fgs. 35–36).55 The ears slanting away from the head, the strong jawbone, widely spaced cheekbones, and prominent outer corners of the brows that can be deduced from the remains of the face are all features characteristic of the Julio-Claudian 53 54

See above, pp. 8–9 for discussion of this problem.

A bust with a low-cut décolletage is the late Claudian or Neronian bust of Staia Quinta in Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, inv. no. 1435. See F. Johansen, Catalogue: Roman Portraits, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen: Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, 1994, 196–97, no. 86 and V. Poulsen 1962, 1:117 no. 84 and pl. 151, both with bibliography; the bust is intact. For other busts of similar form, though more fully draped, see Trillmich 1974, 186.

55

Although Agrippina Minor never received a formal damnatio memoriae by the senate, in Rome her statues were damaged or taken down. See A. A. Barrett, Agrippina: Sex, Power, and Politics in the Early Empire, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1996, paperback 1999, 192–93 and n. 30, p. 300 and E. R. Varner, “Portraits, Plots, and Politics: Damnatio Memoriae and the Images of Imperial Women,” MAAR 46 (2001) 68–69, both with sources and further bibliography.

PORTRAIT HEADS

57

family. The identifcation of the portrait, however, must rest upon the traces of the coiffure. In front of her right ear lies a puffy mass of hair punctured by the ends of drill holes that also continue along the hairline toward the forehead. This is all that is left of the curls that must have framed her face, leaving her ears completely uncovered. Behind each ear are the beginnings of two corkscrew locks. The tip of one of these rests on her right shoulder. They were carved free from the neck and show a heavy use of the drill to articulate the twisting strands and to separate the locks from the ears in front and the hair behind. The shallowly worked hair on the back of the head radiates from the crown in waving strands toward the edges of a diadem.56 This is preserved only on the back and on the proper left side of the head, where it widens above the ear (fgs. 36, 37). The rest of the hair is twisted and gathered into a pendant knot that hangs on the nape of the neck (fg. 39). This is tied with a ribbon. The ends of the knot come out in four broad masses, roughly blocked out. The presence of the diadem indicates that this bust represents a member of the imperial family.57 The hairstyle featuring curls framing the face, hanging corkscrew locks along the neck, and a pendant knot behind is typical of feminine hairstyles current during the reigns of Claudius and Nero.58 Unfortunately the curls around the face are mostly broken away, so that one cannot easily reconstruct their exact appearance. Nevertheless, two details are clear enough to focus a fairly certain attribution on late Claudian or early Neronian times: the long corkscrew locks and the curls framing the face in such a way as to leave the ears uncovered. These are characteristic of the portraiture of the younger Agrippina, who married Claudius in A.D. 49 and who was murdered in 59.59 Her portraits, when not wearing a diadem, show several rows of large curls arranged from ear to ear over the top of the head and coming very close to the central part. This curliness is accompanied by a rich and pictorial treatment of both curls and hanging corkscrew locks through an extensive use of the drill.60 These developments can be traced in her portraiture on coins of Claudius and Nero and particularly in her sculptured portraits. The diadem would then place the Cosa bust in the years of her greatest infuence between 50, when she was made Augusta, and 54 or shortly thereafter.61 Two of the best examples of her portraiture dateable between 49 and 54 are one in the Museo Nazionale in Ancona and one in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek in Copenhagen.62 W. Trillmich has 56 The lack of a part on the back of the head is not common, and I have found no parallels for this radiating treatment among portraits of other Julio-Claudian women. 57

On the diadem see now Alexandridis 2004, 49–50.

58

For women’s coiffures of this period see Polaschek 1972, 141–210, esp. 174–85, 206–9 and L. Furnée-van Zwet, “Fashion in Women’s Hairdress in the First Century of the Roman Empire,” BABesch 31 (1956) 26–36. 59

For the hairstyle of the late Claudian period see especially Polaschek 1972, 178–80, 206–9 and Furnée-van Zwet (as above) 2 nos. 24–40 and 10, 21–22. On the portraiture of Agrippina the Younger specifcally see Trillmich 1974, 184–202 and, most recently, Alexandridis 2004, 159–60 cat. no. 107 with bibliography. On Agrippina Minor see now Barrett (above n. 55) and Ginsburg 2006. On her portraiture during the reign of Nero see S. Wood, Imperial Women: A Study in Public Images, 40 b.c.–a.d. 68, Mnemosyne 194,

Leiden: Brill, 1999, 250–52, 297–98; also Trillmich 1974, 194. For coins of Nero bearing her portrait see Trillmich 1974, 191 with nn. 40, 42, 43 and Polaschek 1972, 179, n. 168, both with bibliography. 60

On the importance of the drill in portraits of Agrippina the Younger see Trillmich 1974, 197 with special reference to the corkscrew locks on the neck. 61

On sculptural representations of Agrippina Minor wearing a diadem, especially during her lifetime, see Alexandridis 2004, 49–50 nn. 450 and 460. In the case of Agrippina Minor, the diadem likely refers to her status as Augusta.

62

On the type, named after the example in Ancona: Boschung 1993, 74 no. Xc, sketch 63. For a list of replicas see Fittschen and Zanker 1983, 3.1:no. 5, n. 4. For the Copenhagen head: Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek inv. no. 755: F. Johansen, Catalogue: Roman Portraits, Copenhagen: Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, 1994, 1:150–51 no. 63 with bibliography.

58

PUBLIC STATUARY

distinguished two main types of coiffure in the portraiture of the Younger Agrippina dating to this time based on the ringlets edging the forehead, stopping at the temples, and whether or not the larger curls framing the face cover the ears.63 When such a fringe is present, the ringlets cover the ears. The Cosa portrait does preserve a few small ringlets near the temple on its right side, but the ear is not covered. It thus seems reasonable to consider the Cosa portrait as dating between A.D. 49 and 54 and to associate it with the “Ancona” type.64 Despite its battered condition the bust exhibits signs of hasty workmanship, particularly in the treatment of the tunic, the hair on the back of the neck, which would not have been seen, and the corkscrew locks. The rendering of the ears likewise seems unrefned. These details indicate that the portrait was either not executed by a sculptor of the best quality or was made in a local workshop. The treatment of the hair on the top of the head in waves radiating from a point is unique in imperial feminine coiffures, which have a central part on the top of the head.65 One might consider that the sculptor was more familiar with carving heads of goddesses wearing a stephane than Roman imperial portraits. It merits attention to at least one statuette of Venus who wears a stephane and whose hair on the top of the head radiates outward from a central point toward the perimeter of the stephane. In front of this, toward the forehead, there is a central part, so that the hair looks very Classical when seen from the front.66 Since the Roman feminine diadem resembles the Greek stephane, one might wonder whether the sculptor of the Cosa head was thinking along those lines. Pointing to a possible reference to Venus in the Cosa bust is the low décolletage with one shoulder of her tunic slipping down,67 though this could simply be a reference to her femininity.68

PS-Head 4: Life-sized Head of Agrippina Minor Late Claudian

Figs. 41–44

C73.11. Found in 1973 just inside Atrium Building VI on surface. Fine- to medium-grained white marble with veins of irregular crystalline structure containing some mica (Pentelic?). H. as preserved 0.197, Gr. W. 0.203, H. chin to top of mantled head 0.212, W. of face at level of cheek bones 0.129 m. 63 Trillmich’s two main types depend mainly on the presence or absence of a fringe of ringlets over the forehead; when present, the curled coiffure covers the ears (Trillmich 1974, 188 with n. 22). These types date to the years A.D. 48 [sic]–54 (191). 64

For the Ancona type see above n. 62.

65 I am indebted to Dr. Helge von Heintze for advising me on these points some years ago. On the lack of a part, see above, n. 56. Two other portraits of Agrippina also lack a part on the crown of the head, although the treatment does not resemble that of this bust. One is in the Museo Comunale Archeologico in Milan (Trillmich 1974, 188–89 and n. 23, pls. 40–41), and the other is in the Museo Civico in Chieti, inv. no. 8605 (F. De Ruyt 1982, 24–28 no. 8, pl. 6 [dated 49–52] with bibliography). In both the hair is combed straight down the back of the head in long strands, waving without a part

from behind the curls over the top of the head while retaining a central part through the curls above the forehead. The head in Milan seems defnitely of provincial workmanship. 66

This is a bronze statuette of Venus at her Bath from Colonia Ulpia Traiana; E. Künzl, “Venus vor dem Bade, ein Neufund aus der Colonia Ulpia Traiana und Bemerkungen zum Typus der ‘Sandalenlösenden Aphrodite’,” BJb 170 (1970) 102–62, esp. 108–9 for the head, and fgs. 2, 7–8.

67

See above n. 54. E. Simon, Augustus: Kunst und Leben in Rom um die Zeitenwende, Munich: Hirmer, 1986 sees a reference to Venus, 78, fg. 99, and color pl. 4. See also Alexandridis 2004, 140 no. 58, pl. 11 fg. 3, with no reference to Venus.

68 See Ridgway 1981, 52 regarding the “slipped strap.” On this see further DS-St 5, esp. n. 59.

PORTRAIT HEADS

59

Center front of head battered and abraded away so that uppermost edge of mantle, central portion and part of left side of hair, left side of forehead and brow, most of nose, mouth and chin are missing. Ear lobe and part of neck on left side chipped away. Front surface of neck also missing. All edges of mantle and left ear chipped. In back, surface of mantle badly worn, especially near top. Top of head, front and back, obviously exposed to weathering on surface of ground as traces of lichens and tiny pits associated with them especially obvious there. All surfaces worn and granular, marble splitting, earth stained; a few root marks. Unpublished. This piece represents a veiled female head broken through the lower part of the neck. She turns her head slightly to her right, tilting it as she does so. She has small, deeply set eyes and large, prominent ears. Her hair in front is arranged in four rows of small, tight ringlets, each with a drilled center (fg. 41). Those along the hairline are smaller than the rest and worked in lower relief, becoming gradually thicker from the temples to the ears. Both ears are completely uncovered. The curls on the right side are better preserved and go close to the edge of the palla at the top of the head. The ringlets framing the forehead make her forehead appear rather low. Unfortunately the center of the forehead is broken away, so it is impossible to distinguish the central part. A roughly blocked-out mass of hair can be seen behind each ear, suggestive of long hair on the back of the neck, probably a pendant knot (fgs. 42, 43). There are no traces of curls hanging behind the ears nor of a diadem. At the back, the folds of the mantle are very shallowly rendered (fg. 44). Insofar as one can tell, considering the poor condition, the workmanship is competent. Her better preserved right eye is very carefully done, its inner corner deeply set alongside the nose. The ears, however, seem unrefned; there is no undercutting behind the lower edges. The drill is used sparingly, though coloristically, in the hair and within the ears. The ends of small drilled holes are visible in the inner corners of the eyes and in the corners of the mouth. Without the central section of her coiffure, her nose, and her mouth it is diffcult to make a secure identifcation. On the right side of her head the three rows of large ringlets and the row of “spit curls” framing the forehead as far as the temples with the last one coming loose next to the ear suggest a hairstyle of the late Claudian period. The damage to the central portion of her head and face, however, gives no hint of how close to the central part the curls begin. Nevertheless, the multiple rows of curls with coloristic large drilled centers point toward the coiffure of Agrippina Minor, wife of Claudius.69 The hairstyle that leaves the ears uncovered is close to that of the Ancona type.70 The right eye with the slight bulge at the temple also closely resembles Agrippina’s. Bolstering the identifcation as Agrippina Minor is the treatment of the back, where there are indications of two main folds falling diagonally down toward her back. The treatment is very simple with a minimum of folds. These appear to line up with the diagonal fold on the right side of the back of her statue originally displayed in the right niche of the odeum, PS-St 3, with which this head may be associated. Its fndspot across the forum reinforces this.71 69 I am grateful to Susan Wood for her helpful comments on this portrait head, though the identifcation as Agrippina Minor is my own. 70

On the type see Boschung 1993, 74 no. Xc, sketch 63. For a list of replicas see Fittschen and Zanker 1983, 3. 1:no. 5, n. 4.

71

On the damage to the face: Although Agrippina Minor never received a formal damnatio memoriae by the senate, in Rome her statues were damaged or taken down. Whether this would have occurred at Cosa is not known. See above, n. 55.

60

PUBLIC STATUARY

PS-Head 5: Head of Hadrian Early Hadrianic, A.D. 119–130

Figs. 45–48

Found on the site by local farmers or shepherds, who had it in their possession before presenting it to Frank Brown in 1948, when excavations began. Now in Florence, Polo Museale della Toscana, inv. no. 103678;72 plaster cast at Cosa, National Archaeological Museum. Fine- to medium-grained white marble. Max. Pres. H. 0.266, Max. Pres. W. 0.188, H. chin to crown 0.234 m. Broken through neck; nose and upper edges of ears chipped away. Surface badly scratched, bruised, gashed, nicked, and worn all over. Some nicks and gashes seem fresh. Red stain on proper left cheek, temple, and hair from iron dowel embedded in area of curls in front of ear. Rust stains also on attachment surfaces for curls by proper right ear and for crown of head. Traces of gray mortar. No root marks, not earth stained. Separately attached crown of head missing. Back of head worked fat and deeply scored in horizontal striations for attachment; circular dowel hole in center. Noted by R. T. Scott, Scott et al. 2015, 18, 21. This slightly over life-sized head of Hadrian turns and slightly tilts toward its left (fg. 45). He looks youthful: his facial features are frm and smooth; his curly beard and his moustache are trimmed very short. His eyes are small and widely spaced. The iris is not delineated; the pupils are not drilled. The edges of the lids were originally fnely chiseled, as was also the line separating the upper lids from the fesh under the eyebrows. The surface of the eyebrows has been battered away. The brow is slightly knit together above the nose, causing a pair of shallow furrows. The strands of hair of the moustache and the edges of the lips have also been battered away. It is, nevertheless, clear that the moustache was carefully clipped to form an arc above the lips. Traces of hair appear below the center of the lower lip. Enough of the surface of the beard is preserved to distinguish that it was not very plastically rendered. It appears somewhat lumpy, executed in shallow curls whose short crescent locks, best preserved under his left ear, are lightly chiseled in a classicizing manner. Large curls frame the forehead; they are mostly badly damaged so that the direction in which they wind is not very clear. They appear short and compact, despite the diffculty in distinguishing their precise articulation. A mass of curls at each temple was added separately, as traces of iron dowels show (fgs. 46–47). The attachment surfaces are fat and slightly rasped. On top of the head the hair is combed forward in chiseled undulations, rather summarily rendered. In the back above the neck and behind the ears are crescent locks, some of which terminate in curls (fg. 48). The head exhibits a very judicious use of the drill. Besides the holes mentioned in the hair, the drill was also carefully used to accentuate the tear ducts, the nostrils, and the ear cavities, to separate the back of the ears from the hair, and, in places, to separate the curls from the forehead and temples. Traces of drilled channels are visible at the proper right temple to undercut the hair. There are no other traces of the running drill anywhere. The undercut edges in the center of the forehead seem to have been worked with the chisel. 72 I am grateful to Dr. Francesco Nicosia, Superintendent of Antiquities in Tuscany, who permitted me to examine this head in 1982, and to Drs. Stefano Casciu, Director of the

Polo Museale della Toscana, and Mario Iozzo, Director of the Archaeological Museum, both in Florence, for permission to publish the photographs of the head.

PORTRAIT HEADS

61

Although damaged, enough is preserved of the curly locks framing the face and the face itself to allow an assignment to one of the earliest portrait types according to the classifcation of Max Wegner.73 This is the second earliest, created probably during Hadrian’s second consulate in A.D. 118, and is named after a head in the Vatican, “Chiaramonti 392.”74 The chief criteria are the long hair in pronounced waves on the top of the head, combed forward, and the arrangement and styling of the curls at the forehead and temples, along with certain facial features: small eyes set close together and a frmly closed mouth with thin lips, as well as the gentle depressions below the eyes and those defning the lower edges of the cheeks between the nose and the corners of the lips. Despite the losses in this head, the outlines of the curls and many of the indentations or drilled separations deep within them are still evident. These resemble very closely the arrangement in the Chiaramonti 392 head itself.75 Especially close are the three large curls over the center of the forehead, where a short, deep channel separates the two curls on one side from the third so clear in the Vatican head. In the Cosa hair only a deeply drilled hole remains in the same position (fg. 45). A clear separation also distinguishes the left end of these curls from the next group; this is still clear in the Cosa head. Noteworthy in the Cosa hairstyle are the attachment surfaces for a separate mass of curls at the temples near the ears, visible in fgures 46 and 47. This arrangement may indicate the presence of very plastically rendered curls hanging just there.76 This variation occurs in a few other examples of the Chiaramonti 392 type, although separately attached locks are unusual. The Cosa portrait resembles the Chiaramonti 392 type further in the gentle rendering of the facial features. The furrows below the eyes and alongside the nose are shallow and softly treated, conveying a youthful look. Also characteristic is the treatment of the eyebrows, which are knit together in a look of sharp concentration. The look is restrained, the brow free of furrows. The leftward turn of the head causes shallow wrinkles along the left side of the neck. There are, however, a few features that are not typical of the Chiaramonti 392 type. These are a very lumpy look to the hair of the beard on the cheeks as well as the slight inclination of the head. These details are symptomatic of the portrait type developed next, the “Rollockenfrisur” type.77 Also found in this type are two curls, one behind each ear on the back of the neck, each of which curls strongly away from the ear and away from the direction of the neighboring curls. This detail is very restrained in the Cosa portrait and more developed in the “Rollockenfrisur” types. It does not occur in any of the Chiaramonti 392 examples. Thus the Cosa head should be included in that small group of portraits of Hadrian that exhibit deviations from the Chiaramonti 392 type that appear within the “Rollockenfrisur” type.78 They seem to occur at the discretion of the copyist who, in the case of the Cosa head, may have been trying to introduce in a portrait of the Chiaramonti 392 type some minor details taken from a fresh new development in Hadrian’s iconography. The new “Rollockenfrisur” type was introduced during Hadrian’s third consulate in 73 M. Wegner, Hadrian, Plotina, Marciana, Matidia, Sabina, Berlin: Gebr. Mann, 1956, 56–57.

76 Fittschen and Zanker 1985, 1.1:48, called “hängenden Schläfenlocken.”

74

77

Wegner (as above); see also Fittschen and Zanker 1985, 1.1:48 and n. 13 for numismatic evidence, and, more recently, C. Evers, Les portraits d’Hadrien: typologie et ateliers. Brussels: Académie royale de Belgique, 1994, 225–32.

75

Good illustrations are in Fittschen and Zanker 1985, 1.2, Beilage 24.

K. Fittschen, “Eine Büste des Kaisers Hadrian aus Milreu in Portugal: Zum Problem von Bildnisklitterungen,” MM 25 (1984) 197–207; I owe this reference to U. Hausmann in November 1987. See also Fittschen and Zanker 1985, 1.1:49–51 no. 49.

78

On the blurring of two portrait types see Fittschen and Zanker 1985, 1.1:204–7, and Evers (above n. 74) 226 and 234, C) “Klitterungen” with bibliography.

62

PUBLIC STATUARY

A . D.

119.79 The Cosa Hadrian can then be dated early within the period A.D. 119–130. This dating fts well with that of a fragment of an inscription found on the arx in 1965; it contains just two letters, [N] H, which have been interpreted as referring to the titulature of Hadrian, Traian Hadrianus.80

Portrait Statuary PS-St 1: Fragments of Statue of Divus Claudius Wearing Hip-mantle Early Neronian

Figs. 49–53

CD 975. Lower torso found in 1951 between central piers of scaenae frons of Neronian odeum in nave of basilica on surface (fgs. 49–50). CA 456. Fragment of head found in 1948 inside pronaos of “Capitolium” on surface (fg. 51). Extremely coarse-grained white marble, torso tested as dolomitic Thasian. Torso: H. as preserved 0.40, W. 0.55, D. 0.31 m. Head: Proper H. 0.135, Max. Pres. L. 0.217, Max. Pres. W. 0.129 m. Torso: Broken diagonally across top above waist; remnant of drapery at back broken at proper left. Surface only slightly weathered; earth stained. Head: Battered and worn, weathered and earth stained. Traces of mortar. Torso: Collins 1970, 22, 31, 35, 36–37, 65–68 no. 5, fgs. 13–14; Collins-Clinton 2000—N.B.: the back view in fgure 5 is reversed; Post 2004, 496–97, cat. no. XVII 5, also 350 no. 9, Beilage 1, no. 17; Collins-Clinton, Attanasio, Platania 2008, 31, 47–48, fg. 22, also fg. 4 no. 1, tables 1 and 3 no. CO1. Head: Collins 1970, 20, 22, 34, 38, 56–57 no. 2, fg. 8. A hand that could have belonged to this statue is treated separately at the end of this entry. This torso preserves only the lower abdominal section of a slightly over life-sized male wearing a mantle visible only across the lower back (fgs. 49–50). The large quadrangular tenon below served to join the torso to its draped lower body. In front the attachment surface is convex above the tenon, its upper edge following the contour of the body where the mantle would have covered the join. All joint surfaces are roughly picked. The mantle slants slightly downward across the back toward the right (fg. 50); it then must have swept around the hip and lower abdomen and up toward the left. In both front and back the upward slant toward the left indicates that both ends of the mantle must have hung over a lowered left forearm, leaving both shoulders bare. The bit of the mantle that juts away from the body toward that arm, best seen in back but visible also from the front, confrms this. The musculature exhibits a tautness on the right side, an indication that the fgure stood with his weight on his right leg. In back the drapery is broadly carved with parallel diagonal folds. The idealized musculature is skillfully carved with gentle modulations. The drill is sparingly used, limited, as preserved, only for delineating the drapery from the fesh where the mantle lies against the sides. The fgure belongs to a version of the so-called hip-mantle (Hüftmantel) statuary type in which the fgure wears only his mantle wrapped around his hips in such a way as to leave both shoulders bare, so that both ends fall over his lowered left forearm. This way of wearing the mantle corresponds 79

Fittschen and Zanker 1985, 1.1:51.

80

Scott et al. 2015, 20–21, dated to 123.

PORTRAIT STATUARY

63

to Scheme I in the classifcation of A. Post.81 A good example for comparative purposes is a statue of Augustus from Thessalonica,82 which makes it clear that the end of the mantle that comes from behind wraps around the left arm approximately at the elbow and falls down between the elbow and the body. This statuary type became a popular vehicle for heroic representations of deceased members of the imperial family, especially during the Julio-Claudian period.83 The identifcation of whom this torso represented is based on several factors. First, its fndspot below the central niche of the scaenae frons of the Neronian odeum suggests its date very early in the reign of Nero. A fragmentary inscription found inside the basilica records that the odeum was built soon after it fell, probably in an earthquake of A.D. 51:84 [Nero Caesa]r[[i]], Ti(beri) [Claud]i C[aesar]is Aug(usti) [Ger]manic[i p(atris) p(atriae)] f(ilius), [sua] pec[un]ia restit[uit]. Second, the scaenae frons has just three niches, and the discovery nearby of two other statues of about the same size, a togate fgure and a draped female in the pose of a priestess, suggests that they had occupied the other two niches. Nero became emperor after Claudius died in A.D. 54 and was then divinized.85 This time frame indicates that the fgure in the hip-mantle is Divus Claudius, for whom the statuary type was most appropriate,86 fanked on the right by his widowed wife, Agrippina Minor, priestess of his cult, and by the young Nero on the left.87 The fragment of the head (fg. 51) presents a narrow slice from the crown of the head to the bridge of the nose. It preserves only the fnely chiseled inner corner of a deeply set left eye placed close to the nose. The forehead is rather low and bulges gently above the bridge of the nose. In the forehead are two slight horizontal depressions. The brow over the inner corner of the left eye is slightly knit, adding to the sense of plasticity and softness of the fesh of the forehead. The hair is rendered in short, thick, crescent-shaped locks lying close to the skull. The tips of three tiny pointed locks appear on the forehead above the left eye on the outer edge of the fragment. These short forehead locks, pointing inwards, are diagnostic for the mature portraits of Claudius, and the soft, plastic treatment of the fesh with the wrinkled forehead reinforces this identifcation.88 The 81

Post 2004, 167 fg. 5, 168, 170–211. This is the most common of his six schemes. Post divides this scheme into four categories that could apply to the Cosa fgure depending on its body type, of which three are most likely: those that have a Classical body type of either Polyclitus or Kresilas or a variant; see Post 2004, 280–81, schematic reconstructions in fgs. 19–21. Since so little of the upper body of the Cosa statue is preserved, a more accurate attribution is not possible.

82

Thessalonica, Archaeological Museum, inv. no. 1065. See most recently Post 2004, 441–42 cat. no. VI 17, pl. 25c–d with bibliography and passim. This statue was also made in two main pieces in the same manner as the Cosa fgure. On this see Claridge 1988, 146.

83 For a discussion of this statuary type and its use see Post 2004, ch. 6; see also Collins-Clinton 2000, 108. 84

Collins-Clinton 2000, 102–3 with bibliography.

85

Tac. Ann. 12.69, 13.2, Suet. Claud. 45, and Dio Cass. 61.35. On Claudius’s deifcation before his funeral see D. Fishwick, “The Deifcation of Claudius,” CQ 52.1 (2002) 341–49.

86

The version of the hip-mantle type most suitable for the Cosa statue as the deifed Claudius would then be that in which the fgure raises his right arm to hold a scepter (Post 2004, 281 fg. 21), as in the statue of Augustus from Thessalonica. Post considers the body type of this version as a variant of the Diomedes of Kresilas. 87

Collins-Clinton 2000, 117–23; see p. 29 and fg. 9 for a reconstruction of the arrangement. For the fgures of Nero and Agrippina Minor see below PS-St 4 and 5.

88

For portraits of Claudius see now Boschung 1993, 70–72, Type Vb and sketch 57, with bibliography. His sketch 57 is based on a portrait in Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek, inv. no. 1277; see Poulsen 1962, 92 no. 57, pls. 94, 95.

64

PUBLIC STATUARY

combination of the head’s size and the quality of its marble suggests that it must have belonged to the statue of Claudius since no other pieces of statuary in a coarse-grained marble ftting the size of this statue have been found. The marble of the statue’s torso is also a coarse-grained white marble, tested as Thasian dolomite. The fndspot of the fragmentary head most likely refects the fact that it and the rest of this statue were taken to the arx sometime in the medieval occupation of the site for use as construction material.89 The head must have been broken up, and this fragment survived. One hand likely belonging to Claudius is given below (fgs. 52–53). It is the right size and has the same very coarse white marble as the statue, as determined by eye; it was found in the basilica/ odeum near where Claudius was displayed. CC 888: Right hand found in 1950 in northeast aisle of the basilica on the surface. L. 0.083, W. across knuckles 0.076 m. Fingers broken off unevenly below knuckles; diagonal break at back through hand. Weathered grainy; brownish earth stains on palm, right side, and between fngers; green stain across break of fourth fnger and spots of green along preserved ulnar side of hand. Broken off through wrist; thumb broken off through frst joint; frst three fngers chipped almost entirely away at frst joint, leaving only imprints of object held; little fnger chipped away at knuckle. Both ends of object held broken away fush with hand. Remaining bits of fngers badly battered and chipped; top of hand scarred and pitted. Slightly earth stained brownish; root marks. Unpublished. Preserved are only the knuckles and about half of the hand, broken diagonally from the knuckle of the forefnger back toward the ulnar side of the hand (fg. 52). There is a small dowel hole in the knuckle of the forefnger. The palm shows a wide, curved depression beneath the knuckles, suggesting that the fngers were curled around a cylindrical object (fg. 53). The green stains suggest that the hand had held a bronze scepter, which, in turn, suggests that this hand belonged to a raised arm. A raised right hand holding a scepter would be appropriate for a statue representing the deifed Claudius, just as seen in the statue of Augustus from Thessalonica, mentioned above.

PS-St 2: Togate Figure of Nero Early Neronian

Figs. 54–56

CD 610. Found in 1951 built into party wall between two sixth-century A.D. shops or houses constructed in south corner of basilica along with PS 3, Agrippina Minor (fgs. 54–55). Tenon for portrait head found nearby in southeast end of basilica’s nave (fg. 56). Statue: Fine-grained grayish white marble, Carrara. Tenon for inset head: Medium-grained white marble, probably Pentelic. Statue: H. 1.245, W. between shoulders 0.38 m. Tenon: Proper H. 0.142, W. at top 0.134 m.

89

On this see above, p. 9.

PORTRAIT STATUARY

65

Inset head broken away through base of neck so that only tenon remains, ftting into its cavity. Separately attached right arm missing and joining surface damaged. Entire left arm and edges of drapery on that side broken away. Legs broken off unevenly, left below knee and right through ankle. Alongside lower right leg are traces of support, now broken away. Chipped all over; umbo battered off. Surface not much weathered; earth stained, a few traces of mortar. Lime flm and root marks. Rust stains near remains of dowels. Missing right arm attached by dowel in middle of upper arm. Only part of upper and left side of fat joint surface remains, lightly claw-chiseled and slightly inset. Arm and edges of drapery on left side attached separately by at least two rectangular dowels. Around lower one, near knee, are traces of smooth-picked attachment surface. Second hole is at hip level, around which none of original attachment surface remains. Conical neck socket roughly picked; L. front to back: 0.10, W. at shoulder-line: 0.14, Gr. D. at back: 0.165 m. Tenon worked with claw chisel, chest and lower neck smoothed. Collins 1970, 24, 31, 35, 36–37, 86–91 no. 8, fgs. 19–20; Collins-Clinton 2000; Collins-Clinton, Attanasio, Platania 2008, tables 1 and 3 no. CO26, fg. 4 no. 26, pp. 47–48 with fgs. 21, 23. This slender fgure stands with his weight on his right leg, an unusual stance in togati.90 Only traces remain of the support, usually a capsa or scrinium to hold scrolls, along the edge of that lower leg. His left leg is bent at the knee, which protrudes through the layers of fabric. The right-legged stance presents a fgure that incorporates greater breadth than that of a left-legged stance; this may have required a wider block of marble than usual and would explain the elaborate piecing on the fgure’s left side.91 His left arm was lowered, with the hand likely holding the customary scroll; his right arm was extended. The back is barely fnished; only the major folds necessary to indicate the manner of draping are shown in a broad and shallowly worked manner. This treatment resembles that on the back of Claudius, PS-St 1 above, as well as that of Agrippina Minor, PS-St 3 below. The voluminous toga, worn over a tunic of lighter fabric, is that fashionable during the Empire. It permits the elaborate draping seen here—the balteus, the umbo, and the deep sinus that falls below the knee.92 The tunic clings to the chest and falls from the breast and armpit in folds looped over the rolled balteus on the right hip; below the neck it falls in irregular V-shaped folds. Most striking is the transparency that so obviously reveals the shape of both legs beneath the layers of fabric, almost as though the toga and tunic were wet and clinging. Where the folds are heavier and more bunched together, as below the proper right knee or between the bent left knee and above the right ankle or along most of his left side, they are deeply carved to emphasize their materiality. This treatment creates an active interplay between the body and the drapery and between light and dark. The deeply bunched folds frame dark valleys that contrast with the lighter ridges or the fatter areas pressing against the legs. A similar effect continues in the treatment of the tunic. Stylistically, the contrasts apparent in both tunic and toga give an overall restless effect to the surface, a feature characteristic of the Neronian period.93 The fndspot of this statue so near the scaenae frons of the odeum built into the former basilica as well as both its Neronian style and its size point toward an association with the odeum along 90

Niemeyer 1968, 42. For a more detailed description see Collins-Clinton 2000, 109–11, fgs. 7–8.

92

91

93 For a more detailed analysis of the treatment of tunic and toga and of the style, see Collins-Clinton 2000, 111–12.

Claridge 1988, 149–50.

On the toga see S. Stone, “The Toga: From National to Ceremonial Costume,” in Sebesta and Bonfante 1994, 13–45.

66

PUBLIC STATUARY

with the fragmentary torso of Claudius, PS-St 1 above, which occupied the central niche, and the statue of Agrippina Minor, PS-St 3 below, which occupied the right niche. The discussion of this association is treated elsewhere.94

PS-St 3: Agrippina Minor as Priestess Early Neronian

Figs. 57–64

CD 611. Found in 1951 built into party wall between two sixth-century A.D. shops or houses constructed in south corner of basilica along with PS-St 2, Nero (fgs. 57–58). A piece of the right shoulder, CD 274, and an intact non-weight-bearing right foot, CG 369, may well belong to this fgure; they were found near the surface not far away in the basilica (fgs. 61–62 [shoulder], 63–64 [foot]). Statue: Fine- to medium-grained white marble containing a streak of irregular crystalline structure, Parian spilychnites.95 Shoulder fragment: Fine-grained white marble. Right foot: Fine- to medium-grained white marble. Statue: H. 0.80 m. Shoulder fragment: L. along seam 0.143; Max. Pres. L. 0.154, Max. Pres. W. 0.137, Max. Pres. H. 0.108 m. Right foot: H. 0.084, L. 0.135, Gr. W. 0.095, W. across toes 0.77 m. Missing separately attached head and right shoulder with arm. Left shoulder and arm battered away, and most of left side of back sheared off. Legs broken off unevenly through middle of left thigh and below right hip. Very battered all over; edges of drapery chipped. Surface not weathered but earth stained. Traces of mortar and lime encrustations; a few root marks. Black stains on back. Rust stains around dowel holes and one at bottom of center front. Foot is intact; earth stained, root marks, traces of mortar. Only bottom of socket for inserted head preserved, roughly picked. Quadrangular bedding partially preserved at back of right shoulder for setting of that shoulder and arm. Its broken right edge preserves traces of round dowel hole, Diam. 0.02 m. In back, toward left side, is end of round dowel hole, Diam. 0.021 m, for attachment of drapery at back. Mass of drapery grasped by missing left hand contains trace of round dowel hole for securing that hand. Separately made right shoulder preserves edge of mantle along top and part of buttoned sleeve of tunic. Broken at bottom below shoulder and on one side through dowel hole. Inner side convex with long shallow central tenon for attachment to central core of fgure; along tenon a trace of dowel hole. Joint surface worked with claw chisel. Surface grainy; rust stains around dowel hole, earth stained; traces of mortar. Intact non-weight-bearing right foot tilts slightly inward; it presents the same convex treatment for attachment as seen in shoulder fragment, a detail that encourages association with this statue. Collins 1970, 24, 35, 36–37, 94–100 no. 10, fgs. 22–23; Collins-Clinton 2000; Moltesen 2007, 133; Collins-Clinton, Attanasio, Platania 2008, statue: tables 1 and 3 no. CO23, fg. 4 no. 23, fg. 5 no. CO23, pp. 30, 46–48. 94

See above, pp. 10, 28, and Collins-Clinton 2000, 117–27.

95

Collins-Clinton, Attanasio, Platania 2008, 30.

PORTRAIT STATUARY

67

This slightly under life-sized woman wears a palla over a tunic and most likely a stola. The battered condition makes it diffcult to describe accurately details of both her pose and the draping of her palla; see fgure 59 for an attempted reconstruction. The position of her hips and the corresponding lines of the drapery indicate that she stands with her weight on her left leg.96 She holds one end of the overfold of her palla, which crosses diagonally from her waist to her hip, with her lowered left hand, where part of one fnger remains. Her right upper arm is also lowered and angled slightly away from her body, revealing some folds of her tunic, now rather battered, in the hollow between her breast and arm. Her extended forearm and hand were held away from her body.97 In back the drapery is broadly carved with diagonal folds, a more pronounced one almost vertical as though falling from her head or neck; the others, much shallower and widely spaced, reach toward her hip; there is a slight depression below her buttocks. The treatment resembles that of the male torso, PS-St 1, and the togatus, PS-St 2. The fragment of her right shoulder shows that she wore a gap-sleeved tunic resembling a Greek chiton with elbow-length buttoned sleeves, as shown in fgure 61.98 One button is preserved between two narrow gaps next to the edge of her mantle toward the top along the shoulder and upper arm. Three curving folds fan outward from the small round button. She must have worn a stola, the overdress worn by proper Roman matrons.99 Although there is no sign of its distinctive shoulder straps, the right foot associated with this statue clearly shows the long ruffe, or instita, attached to the hem of the stola, that covers the ankles.100 It is possible that the folds falling from her neckline and shoulder could be seen as showing two different textures, one fner, rendered in very low relief, and falling almost from a point below her shoulders to cover the breasts. If these folds do represent a stola, the gathering at the top would indicate where the straps would be; the difference between the two garments would have been more obvious if painted different colors.101 She wears her tunic and stola girded high on her waist so that the cord, tied in a Hercules knot, a sign of her close marriage tie and of her fertility,102 shows just above the edge of the palla.103 96

The right foot associated with this statue confrms this and suggests that the fgure drew her free leg back and a bit to her right so that her heel was raised. See more details about the foot below.

100

97 Descriptive details given here are taken from Collins-Clinton 2000, 112–13.

Edmondson 2008, 24 and n. 11 has corrected the identifcation of the instita interpreted by J. L. Sebesta, “Symbolism in the Costume of Roman Women,” in Sebesta and Bonfante 1994, 49 as the shoulder straps. Edmonson based his identifcation on a passage in Ovid, Ars am. 1.31–32, where he notes that the instita falls to the middle of the foot. On the foot see further below.

98

101

On the gap-sleeved tunic in Roman dress, see A. T. Croom, Roman Clothing and Fashion, Charleston, SC: Tempus, 2000, 76–78; see also the comments of A. Filges, Standbilder jugendlicher Göttinnen: Klassische und frühhellenistische Gewandstatuen mit Brustwulst und ihre kaiserzeitliche Rezeption, Cologne: Böhlau, 1997, 165–66 with earlier bibliography. 99

On the stola see now Edmondson 2008 and Olson 2008, 27–33, both with bibliography. See also Filges (as above), 160–64 and Collins-Clinton 2000, n. 42. Although C. B. Rose (1997, 75) notes that statues of imperial women in Julio-Claudian groups rarely wear the stola as a sign of “matronly virtue,” there are exceptions: see his n. 52 on p. 255. He adds that the stola is not necessary because the statues are generally associated with divinities. On this see now Ginsburg 2006, 84, who notes that most of these statues of Agrippina Minor are shown as priestesses, not divinities, as is the case with the Cosa fgure, as we will see.

Filges (above n. 98) 160–64 considers whether Roman matrons wore another garment, the peronatris, in lieu of a stola, as an overdress. This is a tantalizing solution to explain the multitude of folds on the bodice of the Cosa fgure. See, however, the remarks of A. Alexandridis 2004, 51 n. 473.

102

J. L. Sebesta, “Women’s Costume and Feminine Civic Morality in Augustan Rome,” in M. Wyke, ed., Gender and the Body in the Ancient Mediterranean, Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1998, 111 with bibliography.

103

On the palla see now Olson 2008, 33–36 with bibliography; also B. I. Scholz, Untersuchungen zur Tract der römischen matrona, Cologne: Böhlau, 1992, 100–104. Revealing the knotted belt is unusual, since it occurs most often when the palla falls to the hips; see J. Lenaghan, “Portrait Statues of Women during the Roman Empire,” diss., New York University, Institute of Fine Arts, 1999, ch. 2.

68

PUBLIC STATUARY

The cord causes slight pouches to form; these arch over the knot and rest on the mantle in small rippling loops. The draping of the palla is complex. The steeply falling fold by her left shoulder and the diagonal folds in back indicate that her head was covered. On her right the palla falls behind her shoulder and must have followed along her upper right arm before being brought around that side, so a thick mass emerges from under her arm above her waist. Once it comes forward from under her arm, this mass dips slightly below her right breast and, just below the knotted cord, the mass breaks into two parts; the upper edge fips over to become the lower edge of one bunch of folds that swoops down towards her left hip. The other bunch of folds continues toward her left side, where they must have been held in place by her lowered upper arm before falling in a gentle curve out to her hand. This rather unique reversal of edges below her right breast forms an off-centered overfold that falls outward over her lowered left wrist, where the two sides of the triangle meet. The preserved fnger seems to indicate that the hand must have been holding some of these folds in place.104 The right foot associated with this statue clearly belongs to a right, weight-bearing leg to judge by its position (fgs. 63–64). It wears an elegant soft leather shoeboot, or calceus muliebris.105 The hem of the long stola would have draped over the instep to fall onto the plinth on the inner side.106 It was clearly made separately and designed so that the hem of the stola would hide the join.107 The stance, the probable position of the arms, the way in which the mantle covers the head so as to leave the left breast uncovered while falling behind the right arm held away from the body, and the draping of the palla in front closely resemble those features of a statuary type of women making an offering. A good parallel for the Cosa statue is the Priestess from the Macellum at Pompeii,108 which gives an excellent idea of the stance of the Cosa fgure, especially in the free leg and foot, as well as of the basic treatment of the overfall of the mantle across the midriff.109 This statue, in turn, is closely related to the Olympia-London Type of draped female portrait statues, as 104 A statue from Formia gives a clearer idea of how this would have worked if she were to lower her right arm; see E. Bartman, Portraits of Livia: Imaging the Imperial Woman in Augustan Rome, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, fg. 44. 105 Olson 2008, 57 with bibliography on p. 130 n. 165; and N. Goldman, “Roman Footwear,” in Sebesta and Bonfante 1994, 116–22. 106

On the stola as long enough to cover the ankles and most of the feet of proper Roman women when in public see Edmondson 2008, 24 and n. 11 and Sebesta (above n. 102) 111–13.

107

Attachment of separately made female feet was a common practice in Greco-Roman statuary when the feet project from the original block of marble or were made of a better quality of marble. See Claridge 1988, 144. The practice was common for draped women in late Hellenistic times, as can be seen in those from Delos; see Marcadé 1969, 109–12 on piecing at Delos; pls. LXV Théa Romé Evergétis, LXVI Cleopatra, LXVI Diodora among others. On these the attached foot is always on a free leg and always in the same position as the Cosa example, though the means of attachment differs.

108

Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Naples, inv. no. 6041; see Collins-Clinton 2000, 113–14 and fg. 12, with bibliography and Alexandridis 2004, 80 n. 764, 211 Anhang 1.2.2 (listed as Livia), and 213 Anhang 1.2.11 (listed as Agrippina Minor) with recent bibliography. See also most recently Armando Cristilli, “Tra evergetismo e culto imperiale: le statue-ritratto dal Macellum di Pompei,” RStPomp 19 (2008) 35–43; also C. Murer, Stadtraum und Bürgerin: Aufstellungsorte kaiserzeitlicher Ehrenstatuen in Italien und Nordafrika, Urban Spaces 5, Berlin: De Gruyter, 2017, 27–29, 152–53 no. 2 with pl. 2a and b.

109

For the stance see also the over life-sized fgure carved in basalt of Agrippina Minor as priestess of Divus Claudius in the Capitoline Museums, Centrale Montemartini, inv. no. 1.882; Aurea Roma: Dalla città pagana alla città cristiana, S. Ensoli and E. La Rocca, eds., Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 2000, 599–600 no. 297 (E. Talamo). Also Alexandridis 2004, 159 no. 106, 259 Anhang 2.2.21 A 7, pl. 26, 2, 4 with bibliography, 79–81 on the Orans Type whose gesture is one of pietas. On the fndspot, see C. Pavolini, “‘Agrippina-Orante’ di Villa Casali e la politica religiosa degli imperatori sul Celio,” in A. Leone, D. Palombi, and S. Walker, eds., res bene gestae: Richerche di storia urbana su Roma antica in onore di Eva Margareta Steinby, LTUR, suppl. 4, Rome: Quasar, 2007, 309–31.

PORTRAIT STATUARY

69

designated most recently by A. Alexandridis.110 This type is a Roman creation that combines the stance and draping of the lower body found in such fourth-century B.C. statues as the “Artemisia” from the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus with the complex draping of the mantle across the midriff of the early Hellenistic “Themis” from Rhamnous by Kairestratos.111 This is a very small group of just four portrait statues that share the same essential stance, the draping of their mantles especially in front, and the positions of their arms.112 The Cosa statue, however, exhibits some differences. The cord girding the tunic, a somewhat different draping of the palla, especially across the midriff, and the lowered position of the left hand pulling the overfold that alters the way it falls from the waist to the left hip—all change the movement and shapes formed by the folds of the clothing compared to other examples of the statuary type mentioned above. A portrait statue from Formia113 shows the same off-centered, triangular “apronlike” effect, produced partly by her lowered left forearm over which the lower edge of the mantle falls and partly by her bent right forearm, which pulls the edge of the mantle upward where it covers her right wrist. In contrast, the Cosa fgure has opened the composition of the upper body by keeping her left breast uncovered and by lowering and extending her right forearm, bringing the edge of the mantle down to waist level. At this point the folds of the mantle under the right arm seem to fip over, so that some folds cross the midbody toward the left, and the rest fall diagonally toward the lowered left hand, which appears to hold the folds in place. Accordingly, the Cosa woman represents a variant of the Olympia-London Type, becoming yet another variation of the Roman new creations that so many types of Roman portrait statuary represent.114 Since the Cosa fgure may well have been offering a sacrifce, she, too, would have represented a priestess.115 The lively treatment of the drapery matches that of the togatus, PS-St 2 above. A series of V-shaped folds cascades from the neck between the breasts; small folds fatten into shallow incisions above the breasts and deepen into deeper folds below. The folds of the stola at the cord and above 110

Alexandridis 2004, 258 Anhang 2.2.20, Olympia-London Type, with bibliography. Cf., however, C. Murer (above n. 108), who instead calls this statuary type the “Hüftbausch-Schema” (152).

the way in which both breasts are covered, the right one by the bent arm, still covered by the mantle, whose hand only emerges. See Alexandridis 2004, 270 Anhang 2.2.26. A good illustration is in Bartman (above n. 104).

111 R. Bonifacio, Ritratti romani da Pompei, Archaeologia Perusina 14, Rome: G. Bretschneider, 1997, 133–34 also discussed this statuary type, naming it the “Artemisia”-“Themis” Type after the relationship to the “Artemisia” and the “Themis.” See also K. Hitzl, Die kaiserzeitliche Statuenausstattung des Metroon, Olympische Forschungen 19, Berlin: De Gruyter, 1991, 64, 66. Hitzl continues the misidentifcation of this statue as Livia, an attribution that goes back to the excavators of the statue in Pompeii; on this see Bonifacio (cited above), 54–55. For a discussion of this statuary type and its ramifcations see also Collins-Clinton 2000, 114–17.

114 Alexandridis 2004, 258 Anhang 2.2.20 (Olympia-London Type), also 258–59 Anhang 2.2.21 (Orans Type).

112 The “name” statues of the Olympia-London Type are (see Alexandridis 2004, 258 Anhang 2.2.20 for these with bibliography): (1) Agrippina Minor from the Metroon at Olympia, (2) a priestess from Atrapalda now in the British Museum, Augustan in date, to which should be added (3) the priestess from the Macellum at Pompeii, Neronian in date, and (4) a headless statue from Cyrene, Trajanic in date, listed by Bonifacio (as above), 134 with bibliography. 113

Formia, Antiquarium. It is related to the Velleia Type in

115

On the statue of Agrippina Minor as priestess of the Divus Claudius, both from the Metroon at Olympia, see Hitzl (above n. 111). On Roman matrons as priestesses see D. Fishwick, “The Inscription of Mamia Again: The Cult of the Genius Augusti and the Temple of the Imperial Cult on the Forum of Pompeii,” Epigraphica 57 (1995) 17–38, esp. 27–30. On portrait statues of priestesses in the Greek and Roman world see Connelly 2007 and S. Dillon, The Female Portrait Statue in the Greek World, New York and London: Cambridge University Press, 2010, esp. 77. Both studies make it clear that the priestess, Greek or Roman, must arrange her mantle in such a way as to free at least her right arm to perform sacrifcial or other priestly actions or to carry an attribute. Connelly on priestly dress, pp. 85–92, concentrates on what they wear, not how they wear it; all her illustrations as well as those in Dillon’s study, however, make clear the several ways the mantle is worn at all periods of time. See also J. Lenaghan (above n. 103) ch. 2; I owe her a debt of gratitude for sharing her unpublished dissertation with me.

70

PUBLIC STATUARY

the palla puff slightly in irregular loops, similar to those at the waist of the togate fgure’s tunic as well as those looping above the upper edge of the mantle at the waist in both the Agrippina Minor from Olympia and the Priestess from the Macellum at Pompeii.116 Drillwork articulates both the gaps in the sleeve of her tunic and the knotted cord below the breasts, where it helps delineate the upper edge of the heavier palla. The narrow lenticular channels down the length of the sleeve and the small drilled holes around the knot provide a vibrant coloristic effect that is close in spirit to that in the statuette of Diana from the House of Diana (DS-St 7) and a table support in the form of a herm (T-Supp 11), both Neronian in date. The drill also deepens the channels of the major folds in the overfold. The palla fattens somewhat over the right hip and more so down her left thigh, suggesting the same degree of transparency must have been true along both legs as that seen in the togate fgure as well as in other similar statues of Agrippina Minor as a priestess.117 Altogether the transparency, the restless surface, the drill work, and the coloristic effects match those of the togatus and indicate that they must be contemporaries, early Neronian in date.118 The fndspot of this statue so near the odeum built into the former basilica, along with both its Neronian style and its size, points toward an association with the sculptural decoration of its triple-niched scaenae frons: a dynastic trio consisting of a portrait of Agrippina Minor as the priestess, faminica divi Claudii,119 of her deceased husband, Divus Claudius, who occupied the central niche and is preserved only by a fragmentary torso, PS-St 1 above, along with the young togate Nero, PS-St 2 above. Agrippina must have stood in the right niche gesturing toward Claudius in the center and Nero in the left niche (fg. 9, reconstruction of the placement of the statues).120 The statuary type used here to represent Agrippina Minor, widow and priestess of her divinized husband, shows her as both a member of the ruling imperial family wearing the clothing appropriate for such a woman in public—the palla covering her head, a long stola covering her feet and ankles in back but not quite in front, revealing her soft leather shoes—as well as a priestess who arranges her palla in such a way as to free her right hand to perform an appropriate priestly gesture. In addition, the artisan who created this novel way of arranging the palla across her body in front has shown incredible virtuosity in visualizing an almost improbable, yet visually exciting, pattern of folds. The identifcation as Agrippina Minor suggests that the draped head, PS-Head 4 above, also identifed as Agrippina Minor and found across the forum might belong to this statue. Its size is compatible, and the shallowly carved folds at the back of the head seem to correspond to those at 116

Olympia: Museum, inv. no. Λ 143; see most recently Alexandridis 2004, 161–62, cat. no. 111, 258 Anhang 2.2.20 no. 3, pl. 26, 3, with bibliography; Pompeii: see above n. 109. 117

See especially two statues: (1) from the Metroon at Olympia, most recently Alexandridis 2004, 161–62 cat. no. 111, pl. 26, 3, who follows Hitzl (above n. 111) 43–46 cat. no. 3, pls. 14c, 15–19, 39b, 40c and (2) the over life-sized basalt statue of Agrippina as priestess of the Divus Claudius cited above n. 115.

118

For a more detailed analysis of the treatment of the drapery and of the style, see Collins-Clinton 2000, 111–13.

119

On this title see most recently Gradel 2002, 67–70; also Hemelrijk 2015, 70. This must also have been the case with the portrait statue of Agrippina Minor from the Metroon at Olympia; see S. Wood, Imperial Women: A Study in Public Images, 40 b.c.–a.d. 68, Leiden: Brill, 1999, 302, also 294–95.

Rose 1997, 148 on the dynastic group in the Metroon, notes that the the statue of Claudius in the guise of Jupiter could have been dedicated after his death even though his portrait represented a life-time likeness; he does not consider the statue of Agrippina Minor as having been erected in the Metroon originally. E. A. Hemelrijk, in her “Priestesses of the Imperial Cult in the Latin West: Titles and Functions,” AntCl 74 (2005) 138 specifcally omits Agrippina Minor. 120

The discussion of this association is treated elsewhere in this volume, see above, pp. 10 and 29, as well as Collins-Clinton 2000, 117–27. To this add the remarks of Alexandridis 2004, 80–81 regarding, in particular, the Orans Type as an expression of pietas, an expression also pertinent to a statuary type representing a priestess making an offering and certainly in the case of the Cosa statue, Agrippina Minor as the priestess of Divus Claudius. On these points see also Moltesen 2007.

PORTRAIT STATUARY

71

the back of the statue. One fold in particular on the right side appears to align with a fold at the back below the shoulder that curves forward just above the hip (fgs. 44 and 58).

PS-St 4: Draped Female, Fragmentary Julio-Claudian

Figs. 65–69

CD 976 (upper body). Found in 1951 just outside west corner of basilica below Level I (fgs. 65–66). C67.589 (lower legs). Found in 1967 on north slope of Eastern Height in heap of stones on surface (fgs. 67–68). CC 881 (right hand). Found in 1950 in nave of basilica on surface (fg. 69). All are fne-grained grayish white Carrara marble, black fecks of graphite in the two parts of the body; the hand is a better quality. CD 976: H. 0.51 m. C67.589: H. 0.57 m. CC 881: L. of hand 0.083, total L. including dowel 0.099, W. across knuckles 0.075 m. CD 976: Broken from lower body just below breasts in front sloping to waist level at back. Left shoulder and arm sheared off. Separately attached head, right shoulder and arm missing. Root marks, traces of mortar, and much lime encrustation, especially on back. Rust stains around dowel holes. Surface chipped and worn; edge of mantle around neck socket battered away. C67.589: Broken at top above knees; most of right leg and both feet broken away as well as much of mantle on proper left side. Surface weathered and badly battered, bruised, chipped, and stained by lichens. Lime deposits on back. CC 881: The hand fts perfectly against the preserved socket in the upper body, its preserved iron dowel ftting into the remains of the hole in the socket. Tips of forefnger, middle and little fngers chipped off; tip of thumb merely chipped; minor chips all over; surface worn and stained grayish brown; root marks. Traces of mortar on underside; lime flm; rust stains at dowel. Collins 1970, 24, 25 with incorrect fndspot, 26, 35 with incorrect fndspot, 101–8 nos. 11 and 12, fgs. 26–27, 29–30. The life-sized woman wears a palla over her tunic and stola. The V-shaped folds of the tunic fall from the neckline, framed on her right by fne, almost vertical folds next to the palla and socket for the hand. These folds would likely correspond to the lighter fabric of the stola.121 The palla wraps from her left shoulder, around the back, and over her right shoulder, covering both breasts with a series of vertical folds. The right end crosses the body below the breasts, falling over the left arm and down that side. The statue is broken too close to its left breast to determine whether the edge of the palla was tucked under the armpit or simply fell over her extended left forearm. Her right arm was bent upward at the elbow and pressed to the body, so that just the separately made hand can emerge from the edge of the palla, where a damaged socket remains for attachment. In the back the place where the right arm projects beyond the line of the body is visible at the lower right. There the folds of the palla divide so that some move toward the 121

On the stola see most recently Edmondson 2008 and Olson 2008, 27–33, both with bibliography.

72

PUBLIC STATUARY

arm and the rest slant down toward the right side of the lower body. In the lower left corner of the back is a trace of a clamp hole. Horizontal folds at the back of the neck and a break in the movement of the folds continuing toward the right shoulder, where a thick fold rests, indicate that the head was not covered. The missing right shoulder and arm were made separately in one piece and joined along the right side by two iron dowels, whose ends are still preserved in the smooth-picked attachment surface. The thick fold of the mantle preserved over the shoulder would hide and protect the join at the top. Her lower legs show that she stood with her weight on her left leg, its outline clearly visible through the layers of cloth. Her right foot was set back, and her knee must have protruded against her garments, to judge from the badly battered condition of that part of that leg. Remains of a socket for attaching a separate left foot are visible below the hem of her tunic. Long curving folds of her palla, also badly damaged, slant between the legs toward her right ankle. Vertical masses of drapery fall from her missing left arm. Beneath the hem of the palla, the lower edge of the tunic ends in several nearly parallel gathers, stiff and deeply rendered. These trail on the ground and over the instep of her left foot. The back is quite fat, the folds of the palla indicated by just a few shallow grooves; those of the tunic are more closely spaced. The effect is simple, almost crude. In profle the fgure is plank-like, lacking bodily depth. The stance and treatment of the drapery in the lower legs resemble those of several Roman statuary types. It is the arrangement of the palla and the position of the right arm held close to the chest with only the hand protruding that provide the criteria by which to identify the statuary type of this damaged fgure. It belongs to one of the three variants of the Velleia Type, as identifed by A. Alexandridis.122 The name statue is a portrait of Agrippina Minor from the large Julio-Claudian dynastic group erected in the basilica at Velleia.123 It gives an excellent idea of the original appearance of the upper body of the statue from Cosa, especially the ways in which the palla falls down the left and right sides to cover both breasts and the bunched folds near the waist lie across the body toward the extended left forearm to fall down that side.124 In comparison with the statue from Velleia, however, the Cosa fgure shows more of her bodice, so that the folds of her stola are visible on her right side; nor has she covered her head.125 The slightly different treatment of her bodice could align the Cosa statue with Alexandridis’s Variant C of the Velleia Type, although it is not possible to reconstruct the precise positioning of her left arm.126 The arrangement of the palla over the chest, covering the arms and often also the breasts and sometimes revealing the stola, expresses the modesty of the Roman matron in her public appearances. The Roman statues must then be examples of a type developed by Roman sculptors in the later frst century B.C. in response to the increasing need for portraying appropriately attired Roman women 122

Alexandridis 2004, 270 for lists and recent bibliography.

123 Now in Parma, Museo Nazionale di Antichità, inv. no. 830. Saletti 1968, 26–30 no. 2, pls. III–VI; see now Rose 1997, 123, pls. 148, 149 and Alexandridis 2004, 162 cat. no. 114 with bibliography (considered Claudian), 270 Anhang 2.2.24 Variant B 1, and pl. 22, 3. 124

It even provides a parallel for the very thin treatment of the body in profle. This is true of all the statues from the Julio-Claudian group from Velleia, even the togati. See Saletti 1968, pls. I–XXXII. The female statues from Velleia also show a similar cursory treatment of the folds of the tunic

under the palla in the back, although those of the palla are in relief compared to those of the Cosa fgure. 125 This is not unusual within this type, where an approximately equal number of fgures cover or do not cover their heads, according to the lists compiled by Alexandridis for those statues that retain their original heads or other signs of a covered or uncovered head; Alexandridis 2004, 270 Anhang 2.2.24. 126 Alexandridis 2004, 270 Anhang 2.2.24. The treatment of the bodice is close to a statue in Rome, Museo Nazionale delle Terme, inv. 121216: Alexandridis 2004, 270 Anhang 2.2.24 Variant C 8 with bibliography.

PORTRAIT STATUARY

73

in public statuary.127 They all maintain certain elements of the classicism of the fourth-century B.C. originals that inspired these Roman creations in the pronounced linearity in the treatment of the drapery, the V-shaped folds cascading between the breasts, and the slender proportions. Stylistically the Cosa statue presents a high degree of transparency in the rendering of the garments clinging to its weight leg. This is a hallmark of Claudian workmanship that reaches a high point later in his reign and in that of Nero; it parallels that of PS-St 2 and 3 above,128 suggesting a late Claudian or early Neronian date for the fgure. This statue, along with the togatus PS-St 5 below, may be associated with a pair of travertine bases found in the basilica/odeum embedded in the foor of the odeum next to the tribunals opposite each corner of the wooden stage of the odeum.129 The bases must have supported these two fragmentary statues, of which the pieces of the togatus were actually found nearby. The two statues may be identifed as portrait fgures of the dedicator of the odeum, L. Titinius Glaucus Lucretianus, and his wife.130

PS-St 5: Fragmentary Togate Figure Julio-Claudian

Figs. 70–74

CC 878 (feet on plinth, fgs. 70–71) and CC 879 (right upper arm, fgs. 72–74): Found in 1950 in nave of basilica on surface. Fine-grained grayish marble, Carrara. CC 878: H. 0.30, W. 0.45, H. of plinth 0.55–0.06 m. CC 879: H. 0.402, W. 0.162, D. 0.16 m. All three pieces have lime encrustations and traces of mortar. Feet with plinth: Broken unevenly at top through lower legs; front of plinth, tips of big toes, and edges of drapery chipped; earth stained, not particularly weathered; rust stain from missing dowel on peak of top near right leg. Right upper arm: Two joining fragments, of which the smaller is at the bottom, joining at dowel hole; broken along left side and bottom through socket for forearm; edges of drapery and socket chipped; large piece of iron dowel remaining in dowel hole, causing rust stains. Collins 1970, 31, 35, 36, 92–93 no. 9, fg. 21 (feet only). 127 On appropriateness, or decorum, in Roman art, see most recently E. Perry, The Aesthetics of Emulation in the Visual Arts of Ancient Rome, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005, chs. 1 and 2. See also G. Davies, “Portrait Statues as Models for Gender Roles in Roman Society,” in S. Bell and I. L. Hansen, eds., Role Models in the Roman World: Identity and Assimilation, MAAR suppl. 7, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2008, 207–20, esp. 215–20 on those statuary types of women in which the arms are held close to the body and the palla is arranged so as to reveal only the hands.

alogue of the Collection of Greek and Roman Antiquities in the Possession of Lord Leconfeld, London: Medici Society, 1915, xvii–xix, 4–5 no. 3. The most virtuoso examples of this drapery style over the legs are the statues of Agrippina Minor from Olympia, made in an Athenian workshop; see Rose 1997, 147–49, pls. 192, 193 and Alexandridis 2004, 161–62 cat. no. 111, pl. 26, 3 (Claudian/early Neronian) with bibliography.

128 Compare the treatment of the lower weight leg under the layers of fabric on a statue of Agrippina Minor in Petworth House, UK, illustrated in W. Eck, Agrippina, die Stadtgründerin Kölns: Eine Frau in der frühkaiserzeitlichen Politik, Cologne: Greven, 1993, fg. 2. This certainly came from Rome or its environs to judge from records in the owner’s family concerning the provenance, and it was most likely made in a workshop in Rome; see M. Wyndham, Cat-

130

129

Brown in Brown et al. 1993, 243; they are shown in the plan on p. 239 fg. 76. Frank Brown had earlier suspected this; see Brown in Brown et al. 1993, 243. See also Collins-Clinton 2000, 227–28 and Fentress in Fentress et al. 2003, 58–61 on the patron of the new odeum. This could apply to the observation by Murer (above n. 108) that honorifc statues of private female citizens could have stood in the forum in a building that had been constructed by a member of her family (72); in this case her husband was the benefactor, below PS-St 5.

74

PUBLIC STATUARY

This life-sized fgure consists of three non-joining pieces, all from the statue’s right side. The feet on the plinth and the right upper arm can be associated mainly by their fndspots and the unusual treatment of their backs. Their size and their marbles also agree. The feet are carved in one piece with the plinth for insertion in a separate base. The weight is on the right foot; the left foot is set a little back with the heel raised and toes pointing outward. Between the feet hangs the left end of the toga, the lacinia, whose tassel trails on the ground. The edge of the lacinia, which is chipped, is undercut for sharper defnition. Above, deeply drilled channels penetrate the vertical mass of folds, to the right of which the toga fattens into a broad concave surface above the left foot, enlivened by small indentations. Only the lowest folds of the other side of the toga appear, curving around the right ankle. These are also deeply drilled, adding to the sense of bulk. The fgure wears soleless senatorial shoes, the calcei senatorii, whose laces are summarily chiseled.131 The support by the fgure’s lower right leg is plain. It and the edges of the plinth are fnished with the claw chisel, the underside left roughly picked. The surfaces of the toga are fnished with the rasp, not smoothed away. The right upper arm preserves just the end of the shoulder and part of an oval socket for a separate outstretched arm. The depth of the socket varies from 0.02 to 0.027 m from the preserved upper edges, and its greatest preserved dimension at its base is 0.09 m. In the center is half of a dowel hole, Diam. ca. 0.018 m, to which a bit of iron adheres. The toga has a seam running down the center, dividing the front from the back, visible in fgure 72. The folds at the back are very shallow; those at the front become increasingly deep as they fall downward. The surface of the toga over the arm is fnished with the rasp, as in that at the feet. At the back of the shoulder a fange projects backward approximately 0. 035 m, framing an incompletely preserved rabbetted surface that repeats that at the back of the feet (fg. 74). The average width of the fange is 0.045 m. Again, as in the treatment of the feet, the effect is that of a fgure in high relief. The back is treated in an unusual fashion. It is fat, very roughly picked and leveled with the claw chisel, and it is set back from the support so that this piece, as it is preserved, seems to be more a high relief than a freestanding statue. It is not clear whether this is the original treatment for joining a separately worked piece of marble to complete the fgure or for attaching it to a surface behind.132 In the back of the support is an oval socket oriented horizontally. The workmanship lacks the high quality visible in the better preserved togatus, PS-St 2. Nevertheless the restless treatment of the toga, the sharp-edged fold in the lacinia, and the drilled masses of the heavier folds match the style of the other fgure and suggest the same date.133 Its right-legged stance mimicking that of the other togatus reinforces a close relationship between the two.

PS-St 6: Headless Cuirassed Figure Flavian 131

On the calceus see Goette 1988, 450–57 with bibliography; see also N. Goldman, “Roman Footwear,” in Sebesta and Bonfante 1994, 116–19. It is possible that these are calcei patricii, whose upper pair of laces is covered by the hem of the toga. Also: New Pauly, Antiquity 2 (2003) 934 s.v. calceus (R. Hurschmann) or Brill Online 2006, http:// referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/ calceus-e224650 (R. Hurschmann); accessed 18 December 2014.

Figs. 75–81a–e 132

An under life-sized fgure of a togate Genius with a cornucopia exhibits a similar treatment, although the back of the fgure is fnished. The back is inset from the edge of the plinth below and the roughly treated tree-trunk support on one side; see H. Kunckel, Der römische Genius, RM suppl. 20, Heidelberg: F. H. Kerle, 1974, 91 no. F I 17 and pl. 42 with bibliography.

133

On this style see above, PS-St 2 and 3.

PORTRAIT STATUARY

75

CC 549 (statue, fgs. 75–77) with CD 188, which joins to CE 15 (lower right leg and right foot respectively, fg. 79), and CD 189 (left lower leg, fg. 80). CC 549 found in 1950 just to west of Temple D built into sixth-century wall around arx. CD 188 found in 1951 near back left corner of basilica near surface. CE 15 found in 1952 at entrance to forum at northwestern end near surface. CD 189 found in 1951 in northeast aisle of basilica in Level I. A fall of drapery, CD? (numerals now obliterated), was found in the nave of the basilica, Level I. Fine-grained white marble with prominent gray veins, riddled here and there with tiny black specks of carbon: Carrara. H. of statue 1.20, L. from sternal notch to navel 0.42, W. across shoulders as preserved 0.50 m. Total H. of foot and lower leg 0.442 m. L. of left lower leg 0.292 m. Separately worked head, most of right arm and hand, and front portion of left forearm and hand missing. Right leg broken away at hem of tunic, left below knee. Much of fall of paludamentum gone. Joining surfaces of both arms heavily battered; some of surface of socket for attaching left forearm remains, roughened with pick and outlined with shallow groove, visible in fgure 75. Front edge of neck socket chipped; upper back across shoulders and surface of right side below arm battered away. Large chip in pteryges in region of right buttock. Folds of tunic below that chip also badly chipped. Tips of pteryges in bottom row across front mostly chipped away. Minor chips in entire surface. Front surface of cuirass corroded and worn, especially relief decoration of cuirass and pteryges. Traces of mortar; lime encrusted, mostly on back. The right foot and lower leg are made of the same marble and must belong to this torso despite the different fndspots. An inset smooth-cut bedding replaces heel of foot and back of the shoe, terminating in an inset cutting. Both pieces weathered and chipped. Most of plinth below foot broken away. Traces of mortar and root marks on both pieces. The lower left leg is also clearly the same marble whose prominent gray vein runs diagonally parallel to those in the torso. It was found with right lower leg CD 188. Also, just as in the right foot and lower leg, there is an identical fat surface at the back, terminating above in a shallow cutting perpendicular to the axis of the leg. It is broken at the top through the calf muscle and at the bottom above the top of the shoe. A trace of a roughly rectangular piece is broken away from the left, or outer, side—perhaps the remains of a strut. A bit of drapery (?) projects from the calf at the top of the piece. Traces of mortar, earth stained, root marks. The fall of drapery consists of two pieces (fgs. 81a, b and c, d). The marble is clearly the same as that of the statue, and the style of carving matches that in the rest of the paludamentum, best seen in the side view (fg. 77). The fndspot is consistent with that of CD 188 and 189. The pieces form a rather long fall of the paludamentum that had draped over the extended forearm on the outer side of the arm so that it had fallen free of the body. Figures 81a and b had belonged to the uppermost section and preserve on one side (fg. 81b) a trace of an iron dowel. Figures 81c and d represent a lower section.134 http://www.cosaexcavations.org/cosa-virtual-museum (3D image): Cuirassed Torso; Hanfmann et al. 1957, 247 n. 196; Vermeule 1959, 54 no. 176 (Cosa inv. no. erroneously given as CC 540), 134

Another piece of a fall of drapery, inv. no. C69.242, is closely related to this one in its marble, its style of carving, and the proximity of its fndspot outside the northeast side of the basilica on the surface. See fgure 81e. It is carved on

all sides, suggesting that it, too, had belonged to free-falling drapery. Its length of 0.495 m also suggests, if it does indeed belong to the cuirassed fgure, that this piece was appropriately heavy and voluminous.

76

PUBLIC STATUARY

pl. 13, fg. 43, also mentioned on p. 44 under no. 82; Collins 1970, 76–85 no. 7, fgs. 17–18; Stemmer 1978, 170 no. 120 (Cosa inv. no. also incorrectly given as CC 540); Vermeule 1980, 6 no. I 176, 34 no. 51, 91; Catani 1981, 93 n. 17, 104; Bol 1992, 370 (K. Stemmer); Denti 1991, 205 n. 29; Trono, G., “Torsi e frammenti di statue loricate del Museo Archeologico Provinciale ‘F. Ribezzo’ di Brindisi,” Taras 16, 2 (1996) 85 and n. 51; Collins-Clinton, Attanasio, Platania 2008, 25 table 1, nos. CO4 (leg with foot) and CO15 (torso); 29 table 3, nos. CO4 and CO15; 50–52 and fgs. 25–26; 53; Scott et al. 2015, 18. This over life-sized fgure stands in a chiastic contraposto with his weight on his left leg; his right arm is raised and his left lowered and bent at the elbow. Over a tunic he wears a metal cuirass molded to the contours of his body.135 The rectangular shoulder strap flling the space between the neck and right armhole is fastened with the usual lion’s head clasp, much worn. The breastplate, ornamented with fgures in low relief, has three rows of elongated tongue-shaped pteryges with no leather straps below. The tips of the pteryges form almost horizontal rows. The paludamentum, or military cloak, is looped over the left shoulder; both ends fall down the back, one of which goes behind the upper arm, then wraps around the left forearm toward the body to fall down the side of the leg. The right foot, which likely does belong, as its size and the quality of its marble indicate, wears the calceus patricius instead of the military boot.136 The two knotted laces are clearly visible in front. The cuirass and drapery on the back of the statue are very simply worked. The statuary type with its positioning of the arms and legs as well as the draping of the paludamentum corresponds to Type VII in K. Stemmer’s comprehensive study of Roman cuirassed statues.137 Stemmer’s study, however, considers only statues wearing a type of cuirass with two rows of pteryges and a row of leather straps, the most common type of Roman cuirass. The Cosa cuirass, with its three rows of pteryges and no leather straps, was not common. Stemmer has distinguished four types of Roman cuirass: (a) three rows of pteryges and no leather straps, (b) two rows of pteryges and one row of leather straps, (c) one row each of pteryges and leather straps, and (d) two rows of leather straps and no pteryges.138 Stemmer’s study comprises his cuirass type b whereas the Cosa statue belongs to his cuirass type a,139 a type of cuirass that has not been studied in detail.140 Within this type there are two versions based mainly on the form of the frst row of pteryges. The frst has short, semicircular pteryges, more like tabs, in the uppermost row.141 The statuary type has a left weight leg, a raised right and lowered left arm, and wears the paludamentum looped over the left shoulder and draped down the left side as in the Cosa fgure. A variant of this type has a right weight leg. The second type, with longer and more tongue-like pteryges, can be subdivided into 135 An excellent description of the Roman anatomical cuirass, or body armor, is given by R. A. Gergel, “Costume as Geographic Indicator: Barbarians and Prisoners on Cuirassed Statue Breastplates,” in Sebesta and Bonfante 1994, 191, 194. 136

Statues of Roman emperors wearing the cuirass occasionally wear calcei patricii. See most recently G. Rocco, La Statua bronzea con ritratto di Germanico da Ameria (Umbria) MemLinc 9, 23, fasc. 2, Rome: Bardi, 2008, 577; also Niemeyer 1968, 51 and Stemmer 1978, 17 n. 62 and 59 n. 178. Stemmer’s catalogue includes only twelve examples; see p. 181, s.v. calcei. On the calcei patricii see Goette 1988, 450–57 with earlier bibliography; see also Stemmer 1978, 181, s.v. calcei and New Pauly, Antiquity 2 (2003) 934, s.v. calceus (R. Hurschmann).

137

Stemmer 1978.

138

Stemmer 1978, 2.

139

See also Polito 1998, 45–47; this type of cuirass corresponds to Polito’s Type A.2.

140

Stemmer 1978, 2 and Bol 1992, 369 (K. Stemmer). Laube 2006 discusses the background of the forms and arrangement of the pteryges in greater detail.

141 See Laube 2006, 119–23 for seven Augustan examples and 124–25 for four Hadrianic examples, all with bibliographies. See also Stemmer 1978, 140 n. 487.

PORTRAIT STATUARY

77

three versions: (1) the Mars Ultor type142 and what can be called (2) the Villa Albani type143 and (3) the Cosa type.144 The type of cuirass with three rows of pteryges and no leather straps is a late Classical Greek type that can be seen in the fourth century B.C. on such works as grave reliefs or grave statues, presumably depicting warriors killed in battle.145 It was revived under Augustus in the classicizing spirit of the later frst century B.C. and was used for the cult image of Mars Ultor in his temple in the Forum of Augustus in Rome.146 Another cuirassed fgure of this type is a late Hellenistic/early Augustan bronze statuette found in Pergamon.147 Although the type of cuirass of these two fgures is the same, the statuary types are not. Except for the right weight leg, which is the same in both, the position of the arms and the draping of the cloak in the Pergamon statue are those of the Cosa fgure. The statuary type of the Mars Ultor type differs in that, although he has a right weight leg, his left leg extends slightly forward, with the foot fat on the ground. The hand of his lowered left arm reaches down to grasp the edge of a shield; the hand of his raised right arm holds a lance. The difference lies mainly in the type of cloak and its draping. He does not wear the paludamentum but, rather, the Greek chlaina.148 One end of this is thrown back over the raised right arm; the other end goes behind the back and wraps around the lowered left arm toward the body to fall between the shield and the leg. The Villa Albani and the Cosa versions of this type share some features not present in the Mars Ultor. The most obvious of these is the cloak, the Roman paludamentum, looped forward over the left shoulder to fall behind the back. In the Cosa statue, one end is visible there, resting on top of a broad expanse of folds that curve down and forward on the left side below the bent arm (fg. 76). The cloak falls over the forearm inward toward the torso, where it must have fallen down the left hip and leg in a heavy, voluminous drape, visually balancing the opposite upraised arm. The characteristics of the Villa Albani type are best seen in the bronze fgure from Ameria.149 Its statuary type has a raised right arm, lowered left arm, and a right weight leg. The extended 142

See M. Siebler, Studien zum augusteischen Mars Ultor, Münchener Arbeiten zur Kunstgeschichte und Archäologie 1, Munich: Editio Maris, 1988, esp. chs. 3 and 4; 196–98 for catalogue of marble statues, nos. A1 (the heroic statue in the Capitoline Museum, Rome, inv. 58)–A5 and B1–B5 (replicas). See also Stemmer 1978, 139–41.

143

Bol 1992, 369–70 (K. Stemmer). This list contains fve examples plus a variant and is based on the cuirassed fgure in the Villa Albani in Rome, inv. 318, which is Flavian in date and restored with a head of Caracalla.

relief from Acharnai dating to third quarter of fourth century B.C. that shows Athena crowning a beardless Ares; see Stemmer 1978, 141 and n. 493, and Laube 2006, 34–35, pl. 10, 2, with bibliography. 146

The best-known copy is the colossal Flavian statue in the Capitoline Museum in Rome, inv. 58; Helbig4 2:46–48 no. 1198 (E. Simon); Stemmer 1978, 140 and n. 489; and M. Siebler (above n. 142) esp. the lists on pp. 196–97. It is generally attributed to the reign of Domitian.

147

144

Bol 1992, 369–70 (K. Stemmer). For more information see below n. 145.

Bergama, Museum, inv. 193. See most recently Laube 2006, 65 and n. 542, pl. 27, 1 with bibliography; also Stemmer 1978, 141 and n. 495.

145

148

Rocco (above n. 136) 579–81; Laube 2006, ch. 3; Stemmer 1978, 132 nn. 404–5, 140; Vermeule 1959, 13 nos. A.6–A.9; and Vermeule 1966, 49–50, pl. 9, fgs. 1–4; also Kaltsas 2002, 198 no. 394; 204–5 no. 410 (Aristonautes), and 267 no. 558: all in Athens, National Archaeological Museum, inv. nos. 737, 3668, and 738 respectively. A relief from the Monument of the Shields in Dion of the fourth/ third century B.C. also depicts such a cuirass; Polito 1998, 46, 82, fg. 12. A version with two rows of long, tongue-type pteryges and no leather straps appears on an Attic decree

This is the stance of the fgure of Ares on the Attic decree relief from Acharnai; see Laube 2006, 34–35, pl. 10, 2. He also wears the chlaina.

149

See Bol 1992, 369 (K. Stemmer) for a list, to which may be added the bronze fgure of Germanicus from Ameria, on which see Rocco (above n. 136) and Laube 2006, 205–7, 227 no. 1, pl. 80 with bibliography. Most recently: J. Pollini, “The Bronze Statue of Germanicus from Ameria (Amelia),” AJA 121 (2017) 425–37.

78

PUBLIC STATUARY

left hand holds a sword, the parazonium. The Cosa version of this type varies only in having a left weight leg.150 The cuirass of the Cosa fgure is elaborately decorated. The shoulder strap contains a very battered human fgure wearing a chlamys and striding toward the right with an object, a club?, on his left shoulder. His right arm is raised. The little fgure has been identifed as a giant, a hunter, or Eros, even though he appears to lack wings; Hercules may be a preferable identifcation.151 The upper central space is, as usual, occupied by a gorgoneion. Here, it is a round-faced, masklike, grinning archaistic type with wavy hair and no wings; a pair of snakes is knotted below the face. The main decoration consists of two winged Victories wearing long chitons heraldically placed on either side of a faming thymiaterion. They throw incense on the fame with their outstretched right hands while holding a bowl in their left hands.152 They stand on scrolls that twine right and left high up both sides of the cuirass. These scrolls are richly decorated with leaves and fowers. The thymiaterion rests on the tips of a pair of split palmettes that artfully surround the depressed navel. These spring from a calyx of acanthus leaves from which also issue the scrolls and, below, an inverted palmette. A variety of motives decorates the pteryges (fg. 78). Only the frst row is embellished both front and back. Here appear lions’ heads, rather abbreviated on the back. On the front, elaborate plant forms, called honeysuckles by Vermeule,153 alternate with anthemia above the hinges, and plant motives hang below the lions’ heads. In the second row, Ammon heads alternate with the honeysuckle design. The third row contains inverted palmettes alternating with honeysuckles. Each pteryx has a simple raised border. Both the decoration of the cuirass and the manner of execution provide the means for dating the statue. Of the portrait statues with a fgure on the shoulder strap, three are Trajanic and one is Flavian.154 The archaistic gorgoneion seems to be the version preferred in the frst century A.D., continuing into the early second century; later, the pathetic, more human, Hellenistic type with wings becomes popular.155 The motive of winged Victories in long skirts on either side of a thymiaterion occurs as cuirass decoration mainly on late Flavian or Trajanic statues, although there are some Claudian examples.156 Beneath the Victories the rich treatment of the central palmettes and of the scrollwork that climbs high up the sides of the cuirass also appears most often on cuirasses 150

See Bol 1992, 369–70 (K. Stemmer) for a list: (1) Paris, Louvre inv. MA 1067 (Vermeule 1959, 44 no. 82 [called a prototype for the Cosa fgure]); Stemmer 1978, 175 no. 344; (2) Rome Capitoline, Salone 32 (Vermeule 1959, 36 no. 28; Stemmer 1978, 160 n. 712 [early Imperial], 176 no. 398); (3) the Cosa fgure; and (4) Fossombrone—note that this is now published: Catani 1981, 87–104 and M. Luni and O. Mei, La Vittoria ‘di Kassel’ e l’Augusteum di Forum Sempronii, Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 2014, 35, fg. 10, 242–44 (M. Gasparini) with bibliography. Note also that no. 2 in this list has just two rows of pteryges and no leather straps, so that it should properly be considered a variant; on this see Stemmer 1978, 2 n. 10, where he considers this cuirass type a simplifed modifcation of his type a.

151

For the identifcation as Eros see Hanfmann et al. 1957, 247, n. 196. Shoulder straps decorated with human fgures are rare. Only three others can be cited: (1) Paris, Louvre, inv. no. MA 1067; Hanfmann et al. 1957, 233, where the fgure is called a giant; and Vermeule 1959, 44, no. 82; (2) Ostia,

Museum, inv. no. 23, Stemmer 1978, cat. no. I, 10 and pl. 6, 3 with bibliography; and (3) Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano, inv. no. 121999A, Stemmer 1978, cat. no. VIIIa, 2 and pl. 72, 2–3 with bibliography, where the fgure is identifed as possibly a hunter. 152

This motive is analyzed by Stemmer 1978, 155. The Cosa example belongs to his Type A, described in n. 651.

153

Vermeule 1959, 54 no. 176.

154

See examples and references listed above, n. 151. Flavian: Paris, Louvre, Stemmer 1978, 7, n. 17; Trajanic: the statue in Ostia is a portrait of Trajan; Cambridge MA, Fogg Museum, and Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano.

155

Hanfmann et al. 1957, 233 and n. 83.

156

Stemmer 1978, 155 and chart opposite p. 152.

PORTRAIT STATUARY

79

of Flavian or early Trajanic date.157 The Cosa cuirass compares most closely to an almost identical statue in the Louvre, which is Flavian.158 As does much Roman cuirass decoration, the Victories and foral designs of the Cosa piece derive from Neo-Attic art, where these motives are found on reliefs, Arretine ware, and Campana plaques.159 The subject matter is skillfully chosen to refect imperial propaganda or simply Roman military power. Here the meaning of the Victories is self-evident; the faming thymiaterion symbolizes the eternal fre and, by extension, eternity. Together, the Victories tending this fre should mean “semper victor.”160 The other decorations convey strength, as do Hercules and the lions’ heads, or serve as protective devices, as do the Medusa head, the lions’ heads, and the Ammon masks.161 The last play a special role as protectors of the Roman army.162 All together the decorations on the cuirass symbolize imperial strength and military power under the Romans. An examination of the manner of execution, particularly of the cuirass ornamentation, corroborates a date in the Flavian or Trajanic periods. Despite their worn condition the decorative elements still preserve remnants of the sharp-edged, delicate rendering found in the treatment of the Neo-Attic designs on cuirasses of this period. The relief is not uniformly low, for the bent knees of the Victories and the lions’ heads in the pteryges are in higher relief. The drill is used sparingly and only to articulate the eyes and mouths of the lions’ heads. The rest is done with fne chisel-work. The original surface of the cuirass is almost entirely weathered away except for a patch on the proper left side where the overhanging paludamentum has provided some protection; here are visible some traces of the rasp. In the drapery the drill is used extensively in rendering the deep channels between folds. Although the workmanship is rather heavy-handed and uninspired, it does convey a certain plasticity and strong contrasts of light and dark, especially in the loop on the shoulder, the skirt of the tunic, and the drapery falling over the left arm. The edges of the garment, visible in the fragments of drapery falling downward, fold over and over to contrast with the deeply carved vertical folds, producing a busy visual effect, which is also at home in this period. The less fnished back indicates that the statue was designed to stand against a wall or in a niche. The large size of this fgure along with its fndspot could indicate that it originally stood on the arx, but the probability that it had stood in the forum must not be ruled out since one foot was found there.163 157

Stemmer 1978, 154 and G. Mancini, “Le Statue loricate imperiali,” BullComm 50 (1922) 176–77.

158

Paris, Louvre, Magazine, inv. no. MA 1067; see references above, n. 150. Stemmer 1978, 7, n. 27 considers it Flavian. Vermeule 1959, 44 no. 82 considers it the prototype for the Cosa fgure. Its head, representing Titus, is a forgery; see G. Daltrop et al., Die Flavier, Das Römische Herrscherbild, ed. M. Wegner, Berlin: Gebr. Mann, 1966, 91 with further bibliography. 159

See Stemmer 1978, 152, 154–55 with bibliography. See also Vermeule 1959, 30. The Victories in long skirts on either side of a thymiaterion are transformations of a short-skirted motive, which itself derives from the Greek kalathiskos-dancers. The long-skirted version becomes dominant by the late Flavian period; see Stemmer 1978,

155, n. 652 with bibliography and Rocco (above n. 136) 629. 160

Stemmer 1978, 155, also 166–67 for his general remarks; also M. Cadario, La corazza di Alessandro: loricati di tipo ellenistico dal IV secolo a.C. al II d.C., Milan: LED, 2004, 146.

161

For the meaning of the designs on the pteryges see Stemmer 1978, 162–66, esp. 165; Vermeule 1959, 31; and Hanfmann et al. 1957, 237, 239. 162

For the Ammon masks see LIMC 1 (1981) s.v. Ammon pp. 677 no. 85c and 686 (J. Leclant and G. Clerk) and M. Verzàr, Aventicum II: un temple du culte imperial, Cahiers d’Archéologie Romande 12, Avenches: Association pro Aventico, 1977, 35–36, 44–45.

163

See above, pp. 8–9, for differing fndspots.

80

PUBLIC STATUARY

It remains to attempt an identifcation of the person represented. C. Vermeule, who included the statue in the frst stage of his project to publish all known cuirassed statues, lists it among statues of Hadrian, although he also considered it a Hadrianic reuse of a Flavian statue.164 His identifcation as a statue of Hadrian, I believe, derives from the head of Hadrian that was discovered before the excavations of the American Academy in Rome began in 1948 (PS-Head 5). Local farmers who had found it on the site presented it to Frank Brown, director of the excavations, at that time.165 Vermeule’s idea that the statue was originally Flavian and reused is based on the close similarity between it and a statue in the Louvre.166 Damage around the neck of the Cosa statue to replace the original head with another might corroborate this. Vermeule’s attribution as Flavian opens the question of identifying who was originally represented. Although Flavian building activity is not documented at Cosa,167 there is epigraphical evidence from that period.168 In addition, Suetonius states that Vespasian was raised on his paternal grandmother Tertulla’s estate in the ager Cosanus. In the same passage Suetonius goes on to say that Vespasian often visited there even after he became emperor and that he had it kept as he remembered it:169 He was reared by his paternal grandmother Tertulla on her estate at Cosa. This is why, even when he was emperor, he often visited his childhood home where the house was kept just as it had been, so that nothing he was used to seeing disappeared. He so cherished his grandmother’s memory that on anniversaries and feast days he always drank from a little silver cup that had belonged to her.170

That Vespasian often visited the estate after he became emperor suggests that he had inherited it.171 It is tempting to use this information as the basis for an identifcation of this statue as a dedication to Vespasian as a “favorite son,” so to speak, perhaps in an attempt to curry imperial favor.

164 Vermeule 1959, 54 no. 176, pl. XIII 43 and followed by Denti 1991, 205 n. 29. 165

The head is now in the Polo Museale della Toscana in Florence; a plaster cast is on display at the Cosa Museum.

166

Paris, Louvre, inv. no. MA 1067; see also above nn. 150, 151. A detail of the front of the torso appears in LIMC 1 (1981) s.v. Ammon p. 677 no. 85c (J. Leclant and G. Clerk). 167

Bace 1983, 146 for the lack of brick stamps from Flavian times.

168

Bace 1983, 45–46. CIL XI, 2632, restored to read … / … [VE]SPASI[AN], is suggestive; it was found at Ansedonia near a city gate; see Manacorda 1979, 95 no. 7. CAE …

169

Suet. Vesp. 2.1. See also Brown 1951, 20; Brown 1980, 73, 75; and Bace 1983, 29–30. On Tertulla see PIR 8,1 (2009) s.v. Tertulla no. 114 and New Pauly Antiquity 14 (2009) 307, s.v. Tertulla (J. Bartels), also Brill Online: http://referenceworks. brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly-tertulla-e1204950 (accessed 12 October 2016). It has been proposed that the villa of Settefnestre in the ager Cosanus, excavated in the 1970s, might be Tertulla’s on the basis of a stone, now lost, inscribed with the words

“DIVO VESPASIANO.” This was seen there by the owner of the property before 1933 (P. Raveggi, “Ville imperiali romane nell’agro Cosano,” Maremma 8 [1933] 5), but see Manacorda 1979, 84–85, nn. 41–42. 170

Suetonius, The Caesars, tr. with introductions and notes by D. W. Hurley, Indianapolis: Hacket Publishing Company, 2011, 305. “Educatus sub paterna auia Tertulla in praediis Cosanis. Quare princeps quoque et locum incunabulorum assidue frequentauit, manente uilla qualis fuerat olim, ne quid scilicet oculorum consuetudini deperiet; et auiae memoriam tanto opera dilexit ut sollemnibus ac festis diebus pocillo quoque eius argenteo potare perseuerauerit” (Suetonius, Vespasian, ed. with introduction, commentary, and bibliography by B. W. Jones, London: Bristol Classical Press, 2000, 1).

171 See Tac. Hist. 2.78.2 for an allusion to the estate as “his” in a context just before he became emperor in A.D. 69. B. Levick states that Vespasian inherited it (Vespasian, London and New York: Routledge, 1999, 211 n. 6); but see the commentary of R. Ash, Tacitus, Historiae. Liber 2, ed. R. Ash, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007, 303. See also Dio Cass. 67 (66).1.2. On Vespasian’s early life and his grandmother’s estate see B. Levick, as cited above, pp. 4–8 with nn. 2 and 8 on pp. 210–11 with earlier bibliography.

4 ♦ Domestic Sculpture

Introduction

T

he display of marble statuary in the domestic sphere developed in late Classical and Hellenistic Greece in the wake of the Macedonian kings, who displayed their wealth, taste, and power in their palaces. There they entertained guests with lavish banquets held in the many dining rooms (andrones) placed around a large peristyle court.1 Small-scale statues have been found in houses of several cities dating back to those times: Olynthos, Eretria, Pergamon, Priene, Rhodes, and Delos.2 The earliest are three statuettes found in the residential quarter of Olynthos that date before the sack of Philip II in 348 B.C.3 The sculptures from these cities, especially Delos, have been found mainly in courtyards and reception rooms, where guests would have been sure to see them. Often they were displayed near a dining room, suggestive of the importance of the banquet or symposium in Greek society. In addition the houses on Delos exhibit a certain axiality in their layout in order to provide a dramatic sightline toward a special statue calculated to impress the arriving guests.4 Delos, which was sacked twice, in 88 and 69 B.C., thus provides a terminus ante quem for the display of domestic sculpture in the Greek world; it also serves as a signpost pointing toward both the taste for and placement of sculpture in the atrium houses of Roman aristocrats in Rome or local elites from elsewhere in Italy beginning in the later second century B.C. as a sign of their wealth and power. It was in the aftermath of Roman conquests in Greece and Asia Minor during the second century B.C. that “luxury” frst appeared in Rome,5 and when such booty as victorious generals could keep was displayed in their homes.6 To supply wealthy Romans with Greek sculptures when the infux of booty ended after the conquests of Carthage and Corinth in 146 B.C., an art market developed in both the Greek East, such as Athens and Delos—as 1

No sculptures have survived, but the andrones were decorated with fne mosaic pavements. The palaces have been thoroughly examined by A. M. Christensen, “From Palaces to Pompeii: The Architectural and Social Context of Hellenistic Floor Mosaics in the House of the Faun,” diss., Florida State University, 2006, 41–59: Pella, Pergamon, and Vergina. See also the concise treatment by L. Burn, Hellenistic Art from Alexander the Great to Augustus, London: British Museum Press, 2004, ch. 1, 43–49 on Macedonian palaces and the importance of banqueting.

2 On these sites see most recently Hardiman 2005, 61–74 with bibliography. 3

Hardiman 2005 and Westgate 2000, 392 n. 5, who notes that most of the small-scale sculptures from Olynthos are terracotta.

4

Hardiman 2005, 191–242: ch. 5, “The Evidence from Hellenistic Delos.”

5

Pliny, NH 33.148–50; 34.34.

6 Welch 2006, esp. 118–23: in the more private parts of the house, mainly the garden and dining room. Welch’s work appeared too late for Hardiman 2005 to consult for his chapter 4 on the evidence from Hellenistic/Republican Campania that must refect the situation in Rome. One should note that it was not Welch’s aim to stress the late Republican Roman desire to impress guests with the signs of their wealth and power. Rather, she stresses the rise “of a distinctively Roman decorative aesthetic” (146); the value of her paper is to examine the beginnings of this phenomenon and how it became a custom once Roman conquests had ceased after 146 B.C.; see pp. 132–46.

82

DOMESTIC SCULPTURE

the fnds from the shipwrecks from Anticythera and Mahdia or Cicero’s letters to his friend Atticus in Athens testify—and in Rome itself after the middle of the second century B.C.7 Delos has special signifcance for Cosa since amphoras made at Cosa by the Sestius family’s shipping enterprise have been found there. This indicates the beginning of a connection between Cosa and the eastern Mediterranean in the late Republic, for some statuettes of Greek marble and late Hellenistic in style from Cosa must have come from either Delos or Athens,8 where the Sestii also left traces of their amphoras.9 Domestic sculpture, which includes works made for the private sphere, is a category well represented at Cosa. It includes statuettes, herms, miniature herm busts (which sometimes formed the upper part of herm pillars, though most decorated monopod table supports in the form of herms), and reliefs such as pinakes and oscilla. The best treatment of this category of Roman art in the town house or domus, as opposed to the villa, remains E. Dwyer’s Pompeian Domestic Sculpture: A Study of Five Pompeian Houses and Their Contents of 1982.10 To this must be added two studies of sizeable “collections” of sculptures in the gardens of the House of the Golden Cupids (VI.16.7, 38) and the House of Octavius Quartio (II.2.2) in Pompeii.11 It is clear from these studies that most Roman domestic sculpture and furniture served as decorations placed within or on the edges of gardens; these decorations were often quite extensive, as in the two Pompeian houses just mentioned as well as that of Marcus Lucretius (IX.3.5) studied by Dwyer12 and the House of the Vettii (VI.15.1).13 At Cosa, however, most of this material was not found in situ; of the houses completely excavated, only one was originally an atrium house, the House of Diana, which retained most of its garden sculpture, including a basin for a wall fountain, though none was in its original position. Those sculptures belong, for the most part, to the last phase in the occupation of the house, the late Julio-Claudian period,14 and at some time later most were gathered together and placed inside the garden aedicula dedicated to Diana.15 R. Taylor has attempted a thoughtful reconstruction of how this material may have originally been displayed.16 The domestic sculptures from Cosa number altogether 36 pieces—15 statuettes, 8 herms, 8 miniature herm busts, and 5 oscilla. Of this total, 32 were found in or around the forum, including 8 from the House of Diana.17 The evidence of their fndspots overwhelmingly suggests that they 7

Welch 2006, 132–46 with bibliography. See also Harris 2015, 400–401.

8 See DS-St 2–5 below, and the table support T-Supp 1. For a connection with Delos as refected in First Style wall decoration at Cosa, see above, p. 17 with n. 23. 9

One cannot know whether or not these works were imported ready-made or made in Rome of imported marble in Greek workshops. In any case Cosa’s location was not too far from Rome and well suited for transport by sea; see Harris 2015, 407–8.

10 The following focus more on the villa: P. Stewart, Roman Art, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004, 98–110; P. Stewart, Statues in Roman Society: Representation and Response, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003, ch. 7, “The Private Sphere”; and E. Bartman, “Sculptural Collecting and Display in the Private Realm,” in E. Gazda, ed., Roman Art in the Private Sphere, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1991, 71–88. To these add now the papers in Arethusa 45, 3 (2012): “Collectors and the Eclectic: New Approaches to Roman Domestic Decoration,” guest edited by F. C. Tronchin.

11 Seiler 1992 and Tronchin 2011 respectively. On the House of the Golden Cupids see also L. H. Petersen, “Collecting Gods in Roman Houses: The House of the Gilded Cupids (VI.16.7, 38) at Pompeii,” Arethusa 45, 3 (2102) 319–32. 12 Dwyer 1982, 19–52 and passim. Jashemski 1993 provides an extensive catalogue of all the gardens in Pompeii, including their sculptural decorations. 13

Jashemski 1993, 153–55, fgs. 166–77.

14

On these see the catalogue by Taylor 2003a.

15

On the later fate of the garden see the website, Forum V, Phase V, Garden: http://www.press.umich.edu/script/ press/special/cosa/f5_p_IIIb.html (accessed 3 September 2014).

16

Taylor 2003b, 51–54.

17 In addition to these, several other decorative pieces have been found, all but two in the forum area. These include a fragmentary rim of a marble krater, DS-Other 1.

STATUETTES

83

originally decorated the atrium houses that lined three sides of the forum, although, since the looting soon after the raid of ca. 70–60 B.C. may have continued even after the Augustan resettlement of the town, it cannot be ruled out that some of this material could have come from the atrium houses that lined both sides of Street P, the processional way that runs between the arx and the forum.18 These were the town houses of the municipal elites of Cosa,19 families whose social and civic prominence required that they present themselves and their homes accordingly.20 Their wealth made it possible to decorate their homes in a manner that refected this custom, known from literary sources to have prevailed in Rome and from archaeological evidence in Pompeii and Herculaneum.21 Domestic sculptures are but one aspect of this show of wealth and power; these houses also had fne mosaic pavements and elegant wall paintings.22 At Cosa the House of Diana is a good example of this phenomenon. The closest parallels for the sorts of sculptures from Cosa are the atrium houses of Pompeii and Herculaneum. These show that domestic sculpture, including all the types listed above, tended to be found in and around their peristyle gardens,23 though some have been discovered in their atriums. Associated with the lararium located in the atrium were very small statuettes representing the patron deities of the home owner.24 Also found in the atrium at Pompeii were fountain ensembles added after the pressurized water system was installed there during the reign of Augustus.25

Statuettes DS-St 1a, b: Locks of Hair Late Republican

Fig. 82

C66.512 (1a), C66.555 (1b). Both were found in 1966 near the House of the Skeleton. The frst was discovered in the southeast sidewalk of Street M. The other was found in debris of wall fall in Street M outside bricked-up doorway at top of garden of House of the Skeleton (Sounding 5). Several uninventoried chunks with no worked surfaces may be associated: some found in 1970 in Street 5 in front of House of the Skeleton, others at intersection of Streets M and 5; all on surface or in debris of fallen walls. Vulci tuff. 18

Most of these houses were not rebuilt after the pirate raid, so such material as may have come from them would be late Republican in date.

19

Fentress 2000; also Fentress in Fentress et al. 2003, 23–26.

20

Cic. Off. 1.138.39; Vitr. 6.5.1.

21

The bibliography on this subject is vast; see most recently Welch 2006 and Wallace-Hadrill 2008, esp. 345–53 on luxury as a means of social differentiation; E. Leach, The Social Life of Painting in Ancient Rome and on the Bay of Naples, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004, 18–40 also touches on this insofar as the parts of the domus or town house “open to all visitors” are concerned. On the ways in which visitors knew where and where not to go within the domus, see J. Berry, “Boundaries and Control in the Roman House,” JRA 29 (2016) 125–41.

22

This is clear from the volumes of Pompei: Pitture e Mo-

saici, edited by I. Baldassare. See also Leach (as above) and Christensen (above n. 1). 23

Best known are the Houses of the Golden Cupids (VI.16.7, 38), of M. Lucretius (IX.3.5), of Octavius Quartio (II.2.2), of the Vettii (VI.15.2, 27).

24

Dwyer 1982, 114–15, 121–23.

25 Dwyer 1982, 113–14, 116–17; see now the elegant ensemble in the House of Sallust (VI.2.4); A. Laidlaw et al., The House of Sallust in Pompeii (VI.2.4), JRA suppl. 98, Portsmouth, RI: JRA, 2014, 28–29, fg. 1.9a–c, and color pl. 10. The pieces of this ensemble are now in Palermo, Museo Nazionale Archeologico, inv. no. 8364. For the ensemble alone see Dwyer 1979, 59–77, fg. 1. On the water supply for Pompeii that made fountains possible in gardens and atria of private homes see Keenan-Jones 2015, 191–215, esp. 195 (earliest piped distribution system was put in place around the end of the frst century B.C.).

84

DOMESTIC SCULPTURE

(1a): 0.183 × 0.165 × 0.185 m on a side. (1b): Max. Pres. L. 0.13, Th. 0.065 m. Both fragments heavily encrusted with lime; traces of mortar; chipped. Unpublished. These two fragments show locks of waving hair. The frst is roughly triangular in shape and shows two tiers of locks, one of which is raised in higher relief. The other is irregularly quadrilateral in shape and preserves a few wavy locks and a portion of a narrow, tubular fllet. Neither is so well preserved as to indicate whether it belonged to a human or an animal fgure. The fllet and the manner of treating the hair suggest a human head.

DS-St 2: Base and Statuette of Pan Late Hellenistic, ca. 100 B.C.

Figs. 83–90

CE 1953a, b. Found in 1952 along with Bust of Bearded Dionysus Attached to Separate Shaft, DS-MHB 2, in Room 22 of Atrium Publicum I, sealed by fall of basilica wall ca. A.D. 51. Statuette (a): Fine-grained white marble with ivory-colored patina, Pentelic. H. 0.58, H. of head, chin to crown 0.099 m. H. of plinth varies, 0.035 to 0.045 m. Base (b): Slate. H. 0.065, L. 0.244, W. 0.169 m. Tip of beard, hair over forehead, and horns missing; apparently broken and restored in antiquity. Lower right leg and front of plinth modern restorations. Chipped, encrusted with lime and root marks, stained reddish. Base splitting horizontally, chipped and battered, encrusted with lime. http://www.cosaexcavations.org/cosa-virtual-museum (3D image): The “Cosa Faun”; Collins 1970, 31, 34, 40, 121–29, no. 14, fgs. 38–41; Collins-Clinton, Attanasio, Platania 2008, 25 table 1, CO19; 29 table 3, CO19; 33–34, fgs. 7–8. The statue was carved in one piece with its triangular plinth, which has rounded corners (fg. 83). The long sides and the underside of the plinth are smooth-picked; the back is rough-picked. It measures 0.185 × 0.16 × 0.14 m on the sides and fts into a corresponding triangular recess in the rectangular base. The recess measures 0.185 × 0.17 × 0.145 on the sides and is 0.032 m deep. It has straight sides and a fat bottom, all roughly picked. The underside and back of the base are fat and smooth; the front and sides have two long recesses, presumably for the insertion of pieces of colored marble (fgs. 83–84).26 This fgure of Pan, with his goat’s legs, human torso and arms, and animal-like face, stands upright with his wrists crossed behind his back as though bound together. His weight is evenly distributed on both legs. He twists on the axis of his body, almost as if dancing. The motion begins with his left hoof and spirals upward and around to his right, culminating with the planes defned by his shoulders and elbows. At the top he turns his head from the rightward torsion of his body 26 See Moss 1988, 506–7, A 143, a monopod table support with a base of bardiglio containing oblong cuttings on three sides for insets.

STATUETTES

85

by looking sharply to his left. The contrasting directions of the face and chest are echoed by the legs, which also face in different directions. The Cosa Pan corresponds to the Hellenistic visualization of this theriomorphic deity in both form and style.27 Contrasting textures and strong modeling stand out: the shaggy goat’s legs with fame-like tufts of fur and the unruly hair on his head contrast with the smoother, bulging surfaces of the upper thighs, abdomen, and buttocks. The chest, shoulders, and back are heavily muscled. The anatomical divisions are exaggerated by sharply offset planes, as at the groin, or by grooves, as in the divisions of the chest and the spinal column. The face is likewise composed of wrinkled surfaces and contrasts of light and dark (fg. 88). The forehead is very low, and the heavy brows are strongly knit together over the nose. The short, fat nose has broadly faring nostrils. The small, narrow eyes are deeply set under the brows. Their inner corners are drilled to create pools of shadow. The ears are large and pointed. The lips are large and feshy; the lower lip is especially thick and prominent. The short hair is broadly rendered in curling masses all over the head, with short tufts growing out over the forehead and a fringe of longer hair on the back of the neck (fg. 89). The twisting composition of the fgure presents views from three sides (fgs. 84–87). The back is completely fnished down to the support in the form of a tree trunk behind his legs. The marble has not been removed from inside the hands, and the fngers have been perfunctorily carved. There is a small tail in low relief on the right buttock. A fawn skin lies over the tree trunk. The back of the support and fawn skin are roughly worked fat. At the top of the support at the back is a triangular hole in whose foor is a smaller round dowel hole to secure the statuette to a surface behind it. The Cosa fgure most closely resembles Pan in the group of Aphrodite, Pan, and Eros from Delos,28 particularly in the facial features and the short beard, which does not fall onto the chest. The longer hair on the back of the neck of both Pans is also very similar, and both have very muscular human chests and arms. The Cosa Pan, however, is treated with much greater plasticity in the rendering of the musculature and hair. These stylistic features are generally related to an ambience around the eastern Aegean.29 The treatment of the face and musculature of the Cosa Pan recalls the extraordinary realism of the second Pergamene school of the early second century B.C., as seen in the Gigantomachy frieze of the Great Altar of Eumenes II. This late Hellenistic style is also seen in two other representations of Pan in Roman art: one, on an oscillum from Pompeii,30 the other a 27

On Pan in general see K. Wernicke in Roscher, 3:1, s.v. Pan, esp. cols. 1406–81 (Pan in art); J. Boardman, The Great God Pan: The Survival of an Image, London: Thames and Hudson, 1997; J. Boardman, LIMC 8 suppl. (1997) s.v. Pan, pp. 923–41; N. Marquardt, Pan in der hellenistischen und kaiserzeitlichen Plastik, Bonn: Habelt, 1995; and R. Herbig, Pan: der griechische Bocksgott, Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann, 1949. Pan was a favorite subject in Hellenistic art, in keeping with the light-hearted character of the so-called rococo trend. On this see Bieber 1961, 136, 147–48; see also W. Klein, “Studien zum antiken Rokoko,” JOAI 19–20 (1919) 253–67 and W. Klein, Vom antiken Rokoko, Vienna: Österreichische Verlagsgesellschaft, 1921, which is still basic for the subject. Pollitt 1986, 127–41 gives a more up-to-date discussion of the rococo taste in late Hellenistic art and a reassessment of Klein’s book. 28

Now in the Athens National Museum, inv. no. 3335; Bieber 1961, 147–48, fgs. 629–30; Marcadé 1969, 393–96, pl. 50; Pollitt 1986, 130–31, fg. 138; Marquardt (as above) 227–36,

pl. 23, 3–4; Kaltsas 2002, 294–95 with bibliography. 29

Marcadé 1969, 393–96, 483–94; Stewart 1990, 1:222–28. See also J. J. Pollitt, “The Phantom of a Rhodian School of Sculpture,” in N. T. de Grummond and B. S. Ridgway, eds., From Pergamon to Sperlonga: Sculpture and Context, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000, 92–110. On the Pans’ heads see R. Horn, “Hellenistische Köpfe,” RM 52 (1937) 140–63, pls. 33–43. The facial type of the Cosa Pan can be traced farther back, moreover, to a head, probably representing Pan, of a less strong but nevertheless vigorously rendered type in the museum at Sparta; see S. Ferri, “Una testa di Sparta e il problema della rappresentazione dei barbari nell’arte classica,” BdA 27 (1933–34) 450–54.

30 On one side Pan sits on a rock while twisting his back to show his hands tied together; see Dwyer 1981, 284 cat. no. 134, pl. 122, 1–2 and most recently Carrella et al. 2008, 242–43, E65, side B, with further bibliography. A trace of another fgure is visible in front of Pan’s face.

86

DOMESTIC SCULPTURE

Roman copy of a Hellenistic original in San Antonio, Texas.31 In addition, the three-dimensional conception of the Cosa Pan, the twisting of the body on its axis, can be related to the dancing satyrs of the frst Pergamene school.32 A refection of these may be seen in the Dancing Satyr from the atrium of the House of the Faun in Pompeii (VI.12.1–8).33 It, too, combines a spiraling rhythm of the body to its right with a sharp leftward turn of the head. From a stylistic point of view, the motive of Pan with his hands behind his back fnds a close parallel in the Old Centaur with Eros on his back.34 The original of this was Hellenistic, probably of bronze; it has been dated to the middle of the second century B.C. and associated stylistically with the “baroque” style of the Pergamene school.35 In addition to the position of his arms and the direct relation to Eros, the muscular torso of the Old Centaur and his twisting around to glimpse Eros are very close to the Cosa Pan. Pan dancing or moving with his hands behind his back is unusual, but there are parallels. Pan often engages in a contest or fght with a goat or Eros, usually in a Bacchic context, where Pan advances toward his opponent, sometimes with his hands behind his back, sometimes not. This group appears in a variety of media, mostly pictorial, the earliest dating back to the third century B.C., the latest to the third century A.D.36 The popularity of this scene must refect a literary source, though it is now lost.37 It seems likely that the Cosa Pan, by virtue of his pose, must be understood in a similar context; although he does not look straight forward toward an opponent, he does turn his head in such a way as to imply an external object of his attention.38 Only two other freestanding statuettes in this pose are known to me. One is in the Musée Vivenel in Compiègne, France, said to be from Italy.39 The other was on the New York City art market in 31

This statuette shows Pan sitting on the ground; traces of a foot, hand, and knee are all that remain of his adversary, Eros; see Marquardt (above n. 27) 248–51, pl. 25, 1: she considers the protype as frst century B.C. contra H. Hoffmann, Ten Centuries That Shaped the West: Greek and Roman Art in Texas Collections, Houston: Rice University Institute for the Arts, 1970, 63–65, no. 19: G. Denman Collection, San Antonio. 32

Bieber 1961, 111–12, fgs. 446–49, with bibliography.

33

Bieber 1961, 39 and n. 41, p. 139, fgs. 95–96.

34

Klein 1921 (above n. 27) 49 and Marquardt (above n. 27) 250–51, where the authors make the connection between the two in different contexts. Examples, all Roman copies, are in the Louvre, the Palazzo Doria, the Vatican, and the Capitoline Museum; see Bieber 1961, 140–41, fg. 584; Pollitt 1986, 133–34, fgs. 144, 145. See also the small bronze centaur in the Museum of Fine Arts Boston; Comstock and Vermeule 1971, 65–66, no. 66: inv. no. 63.1039, a Greek original from Asia Minor, ca. 150 B.C.; on his back there is a hole for attaching an Eros.

35

Pollitt 1986, 133; Comstock and Vermeule 1971, 65–66. But see Ridgway 2000, 282–83.

Stadtrömische und Italische Girlandensarkophage, 1: Die Sarkophage des ersten und zweiten Jahrhunderts, ASR 6, 2, Berlin: Mann, 1996 and B. Andreae, ed., Bildkatalog der Skulpturen des Vatikanischen Museums, vol. 2: Museo Pio Clementino, Cortile Ottagono, Berlin: De Gruyter, 1998; also N. Blanc and F. Gury, LIMC 3 (1986) s.v. Eros/Amor, Cupido, pp. 984–85, nos. 239–43 (contest between Amor and Pan) and E. Prioux, “Un imitateur de Méléagre à Pompéi: Identité poétique d’un anthologiste à la fn de la République,” in M. Simon, ed., Identités romaines, Paris: Éditions Rue d’Elm, 2011, 13–34. The prototype is thought to date to the fourth century B.C. In some instances, Pan, with his hands behind his back, is led away by Eros; see K. Wernicke in Roscher, 3:1, s.v. Pan, col. 1458; also Schauenburg (as above) 237, fg. 5; Budde and Nicholls 1964, 100–101; and J. Meischner, “Bildtradition antiker Wettkampfrequisiten,” JdI 110 (1995) 459–62, fgs. 15–17 to cite just a few examples. Eros’s defeat of Pan in these images may refer to Eros as a personifcation of Love, who conquers All, a word play on Pan’s name, pan = all (Marquardt, above n. 27, p. 250). On this see also B. Bergmann, “A Painted Garland: Weaving Words and Images in the House of the Epigrams in Pompeii,” in Z. Newby and R. Leader-Newby, eds., Art and Inscriptions in the Ancient World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007, 60–101. 37

36

On these vignettes, especially Pan and Eros, see J. Boardman, LIMC 8 suppl. (1997) s.v. Pan, pp. 940–41; K. Schauenburg, “Bockskämpfe und verwandte Motive,” JdI 102 (1987) 233–46 with bibliography, to which can now be added among the Roman sarcophagi: H. Herdejürgen,

LIMC 5 (1990) s.v. Eros, p. 176 (S. Woodford).

38

On this see Marquardt (above n. 27) 121–26; she is not aware of the statuette in Compiègne, cited below.

39

Espérandieu 1913, 5:149, no. 3905. The head is restored.

87

STATUETTES

1987 and is now in a private collection; it is also said to have come from Italy (fg. 90). It has been restored as part of a table support to which the fgure is attached, rather crudely, at the back of the head. This Pan is more classicizing in the more restrained treatment of his human torso, in his face that looks more human than animal, and in his head that does not turn to one side. Although his beard projects sharply forward in a rather mannered way that does not compare with the beard of Pan in the Aphrodite, Pan, and Eros group from Delos, the treatment of the mass of hair above his forehead may give an idea of that missing part of the Cosa Pan. Noteworthy is the lack of horns.40 The combination of the use of Pentelic marble with the late Hellenistic style could suggest a late Hellenistic date of execution, ca. 100 B.C., but does not suggest a place of execution. There are two possibilities. The Cosa Pan could have been made in Attica and imported to Cosa ca. 100 B.C. This would have been at a time when the Sestii of Cosa were beginning to expand their wine export business to Athens and Delos.41 Or it could have been made in Rome by Attic sculptors who were working with imported Pentelic marble and who adopted a style that appealed to the Roman market,42 either around 100 B.C. or in Augustan times. The earlier of the two possible dates of execution better fts the condition and fndspot of the Cosa Pan. It must have been broken already when the basilica wall fell on the shop, sealing it effectively for so long, because, if it were nearly new when the disaster befell it, surely its missing parts would have been nearby and found by the excavators. That this was not the case strongly suggests that the Cosa Pan was scavenged from the garden of a late Republican atrium house ruined in the raid of ca. 70–60 B.C.43

DS-St 3: Female Head from High Relief Greek, ca. 400 B.C.

Figs. 91–93

C9674. Found in 1996 in the garden of the House of Diana just outside the shrine, SU 227. Very fne-grained white Greek marble. Max. Pres. H. 0.20, H. chin to crown 0.125 m (half life-sized). Surface worn; nose, upper lip, and eyebrows battered; “dimple” in chin below lower lip is damage. Traces of lime incrustation, earth stained. Presumably broken from body and neck trimmed for reuse as head of Diana in Julio-Claudian times. Taylor 2003a, 193–94 no. 3, pls. 80–82; Collins-Clinton, Attanasio, Platania 2008, 41–42, fg. 16b. Originally made for attachment to a background as if for a high relief. At the back of the head is a large, vertically oriented, rectangular mortise, the proper left side of which is slightly concave (fg. 93). This side extends farther from the back of the head than the right. Depth of cutting on this side: 0.05 m; W. across center: 0.032, across top: 0.028, across bottom: 0.03 m. The outer left side is roughly fnished; its rear surface is fnished fat and smooth, suggesting that it had rested fush 40

Images of Pan sometimes lack horns; see Wernick in Roscher, 3:1, s.v. Pan, col. 1435.

“baroque style was one of a number of stylistic options” available to sculptors by the frst century B.C.

41

43

42

See Collins-Clinton, Attanasio, Platania 2008, 32–33.

On Greek sculptors working in Rome in the late Republic see most recently Pollitt (above n. 29) 101: the late Hellenistic

I owe a great debt to Frank Brown and Lawrence Richardson, jr., for sharing with me their thoughts and stores of knowledge about the excavation of this piece and about the motive of Pan with his hands behind his back.

88

DOMESTIC SCULPTURE

against the background. This makes it clear that the head had turned to its right. Toward the back of the neck on its left is a long, fat surface cut so its longitudinal axis points downward, while its transverse axis is almost perpendicular to the background. The head was presumably broken from its context and its neck trimmed for reuse as the head of Diana in Julio-Claudian times. For the deep rectangular cutting in the head there are two possible explanations. One is for the insertion of an elaborate headdress, such as a lunate crown, used in Greek times for representations of Artemis Selene, where the tips of the crescent moon resembled horns.44 Such cuttings were also used to secure freestanding fgures to the pediments of Greek temples from at least Classical times. Two examples from the pediments of the Parthenon may be noted: One is the torso and head of Athena from the west pediment, where two rectilinear dowel holes near the neck correspond to holes in the tympanum;45 the other is a head, now in the Acropolis Museum, where the cutting appears at the back of the head.46 This is placed in such a way as to indicate that the head had turned to its right, much as that of the Cosa head. A statue of Athena from the pediment of the Temple of Apollo Sosianus in Rome has a large square cutting in back just above the belt of her peplos for attachment to the pediment; the statue has been dated ca. 450–425 B.C.47 Another example of a cutting at the back of a head for attachment to a background is that of a bearded man in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen, of Hellenistic times.48 The hair waves down and forward from the top of the head with a barely discernible part and is held in place by a double headband (fg. 91). The hair on her right falls alongside the face in thick zigzag locks that cover most of the temple (fg. 92). On her left the hair appears to be drawn away from the forehead, although one thick lock lies alongside the face in a strong zigzag that mirrors the one on her right. On either side of the center of the forehead the hair appears smooth; separating this from the rest of the hair framing the forehead are indentations that stretch back toward the headband; these are traces of the second headband. The back of her head was originally covered, perhaps with a sakkos, as the smooth surface indicates. The face is oval with a triangular forehead; the cheeks are smooth and gently rounded with a very slight indentation sloping diagonally outward from the base of the nose. The chin is slightly pointed. The damaged brows merge softly with the bridge of the nose; the almond-shaped eyes have carefully modeled lids. The inner corners of the widely spaced eyes are rather deeply inset near the bridge of the nose. Although the upper lip is badly damaged, the proper right corner shows that the lips were slightly parted and curve upward into the cheek. The lower lip is thick and curvy, most likely matching the curvy upper lip. The rightward tilt of the head and the slightly narrowed eyes convey an introspective look to the face. Two details require further comment: the broad, very wavy strands of hair framing most of the face and the treatment of the back of the head. The head of Demeter from Agrigento provides a close parallel for the very wavy locks of hair on the sides of the face.49 However, there are other 44

J. Bodel in Fentress et al. 2003, 46.

45

O. Palagia, ed., Greek Sculpture: Function, Materials, and Techniques in the Archaic and Classical Periods, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006, 46 and fg. 94.

46

Inv. no. 2381; Palagia (as above) 23 and fg. 53.

47 See most recently A. Spinelli, “The ‘Getty Cybele’: A Roman Portrait of Feminine Virtues,” AJA 121 (2017) 382 and fg. 14 with bibliography.

48 Inv. no. 1188; see M. Moltesen, “Lapis Albanus. A Group of Hellenistic Sculptures in Peperino,” in P. G. Bilde, I. Nielsen, and M. Nielsen, eds., Aspects of Hellenism in Italy: Towards a Cultural Unity?, Acta Hyperborea 5, Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 1993, 235 and fgs. 9–13. 49 As noted by Taylor 2003a, 194. See also E. De Miro, “Sculture agrigentine degli ultimi decennia del V secolo a.C.,” ArchCl 18 (1966) 193–96. Better illustrations are in E. De Miro, “La plastica siceliota nella seconda metà del V secolo a.C.,” in SIKANIE: Storia e civiltà della Sicilia greca, Milan:

STATUETTES

89

parallels for this treatment of the hair among surviving Greek originals; the most striking may be found in the fgure of Artemis on the East Frieze of the Parthenon and in a fgure on an Attic grave relief from Athens dated to the 420s B.C.50 These show very clearly the boldly waving locks zigzagging alongside the face from the central part to the ear and aid in establishing the dating of the head to the late ffth century B.C. The indentation on either side of the center of the forehead above the wavy strands is diffcult to assess beyond suggesting part of a headband. She wears a double headband, the main portion of which appears much as a single headband over the top of the head; the other is implied by the indentations in the hair on either side of the forehead. Three good parallels for this double band can be cited. The frst clearly appears on a woman depicted on an Attic white-ground cup of the ffth century B.C.51 A second is a statue of Kore found in the sanctuary of Demeter at Kyparissi on the island of Kos; she also wears a sakkos.52 The third is a half life-sized fgure of a Mantle Dancer from the late Republican villa at Fianello Sabino in Latium, whose head is covered and whose double headband is clearly shown, one band of which corresponds precisely to the indentations on the Cosa head.53 This statuette shows that, despite the covered head, both its ears are carefully rendered. The facial features in a Classical style along with the treatment of the wavy hair framing the face and the unusual double headband with Classical references strongly suggest a Greek, possibly Attic, origin for the Cosa head.

DS-St 4: Female Head from Statuette, Possibly Venus Late Hellenistic, ca. 100 B.C.

Figs. 94–95

C67.402. Found in 1967 along with DS-St 5 just inside the threshold of Shrine of Liber Pater in forum, reused in fourth century A.D. context. Coarse-grained white marble, certainly Greek. H. 0.111, H. chin to crown 0.109 m (half life-sized). Broken off through neck just below chin. Nose, lips, chin, and portions of hair badly chipped. Weathered in places; brownish earth stains; root marks, lime deposits. Collins 1970, 22, 32, 33, 35, 135–37, no. 17, fgs. 47–48; Collins-Clinton 1977, 14, 29, 50–51, fg. 23; Collins-Clinton, Attanasio, Platania 2008, 42–44, fg. 17.

Garzanti, 1985, 234 and pl. A opposite p. 732. De Miro has related this head, which is veiled, to the work of Agorakritos, pupil of Phidias, who created the cult image of Nemesis for her temple at Rhamnous, dated around 420 B.C.

seo Nuovo dei Conservatori e l’Afrodite Louvre-Napoli,” ASAtene 50–51, n.s. 34–35 (1972–73) 418–50, where he considered it a Greek original (422). 51

50

R. Kabus-Jahn, Die Grimanische Figurengruppe in Venedig, Antike Plastik 11, Berlin: Mann, 1972, text fg. 5 (Artemis); p. 19, text fg. 11 (Attic grave relief, now in the Athens National Archaeological Museum, inv. no. 910). A head of Hera from the Argive Heraion also shows a similar treatment of the locks, but those are drawn back, away from the face. See Kaltsas 2002, 115 no. 204 with bibliography, dated ca. 420 B.C. A limestone head in the Museo Nuovo dei Conservatori in Rome also exhibits similar strongly waving locks that tend to lie alongside the face before being drawn back toward a headband; see E. La Rocca, “Una Testa femminile nel Mu-

Connelly 2007, pl. 8.

52

R. Kabus-Preisshofen, “Statuettengruppe aus dem Demeterheiligtum bei Kyparissi auf Kos,” AntP 15, pt. 4 (1975) 33–34, 39–42, pls. 13–15, fgs. 1, 10–11 (Kore of Lykourgis [B]) with bibliography, dated after the mid-fourth century B.C. and identifed as Kore by the inscription on the statue base. The sakkos is secured by two ribbons that are very clearly shown in low relief. 53

Vorster 1998, 19–25, 65, fgs. 1–5, pls. 2–3, and esp. pl. 6. It is dated to the late second century B.C.

90

DOMESTIC SCULPTURE

The shape of the face with its triangular forehead, its eyes, and the soft modeling give to this small head a late Classical or early Hellenistic look, Praxitelean in spirit (fg. 94). A broad, high bridge of the nose separates the narrow, thick-lidded eyes, which have a soft, introspective look. The head tilts to its left. The hair is parted in the middle though the part is set a little to its right. The hair puffs out from the temples and cheeks and is combed away from the face in crinkly waves that cover the right ear but leave the left only half covered (fg. 95). It is gathered into a bun set low on the back of the head, leaving the neck bare. There is neither diadem nor hair band. The waves of the hair are only roughly chiseled, contrasting with the smooth surface of the face. No strands are indicated on the bun, which would not have been seen from the front. The undersides of the bun and the mass of hair behind the ears are fattened and crudely chiseled. The inner corners of the eyes, the nostrils, and the corners of the mouth are very lightly drilled, creating pinpoints of shadow that further enliven the face. Of the many statuettes or heads of Aphrodite found on Delos, in both sanctuaries and private homes, some resemble the head from Cosa.54 The head of a small bust of Aphrodite from Pompeii and now in the National Archaeological Museum in Naples has the same soft, Praxitelean treatment of the face and even the same style of coiffure, also rather coarsely rendered.55 The little Cosa head, though it turns in the opposite direction, echoes so closely the characteristics of the head in Naples that it must refect the same early Hellenistic style; the Cosa piece, however, was most likely made around 100 B.C. either in Greece or in Rome by an immigrant Greek workshop using imported Greek marble.

DS-St 5: Bust from Draped Female Statuette Late Hellenistic

Figs. 96–98

C67.403. Found in 1967 along with DS-St 4 just inside the threshold of Shrine of Liber Pater in forum, reused in fourth century A.D. Coarse-grained white marble, certainly Greek. H. 0.143, H. chin to top of forehead 0.069 m (not quite half life-sized). Lower edge chipped away across most of chest toward right shoulder, minor chips at end of left shoulder. Nose and left eyebrow chipped away, minor chips on chin and in hair. Weathered in places, light brownish earth stains, lime deposit on lower left cheek and neck, root marks. Collins 1970, 22, 24, 32, 33, 35, 138–41 no. 18, fgs. 49–50; Collins-Clinton 1977, 14, 29, 51–52, fg. 24. Collins-Clinton, Attanasio, Platania 2008, 42–44, fg. 18. This small bust was made to ft into the body of a draped woman (fg. 96). Her raised right shoulder preserves a bit of fnely, though cursorily, engraved drapery falling diagonally toward the front. Her left shoulder is bare. There is no trace of clothing on her back. The underside is fat and smooth, roughened here and there with a point. At the center front, extending from the underside toward 54 Marcadé 1969, 225–40, pls. 42–49; the statuettes represent a variety of statuary types, nude or semi-draped. 55 O. Elia, “Piccolo busto di Afrodite de arte ellenistica,” BdA 11 (1931–32) 205–13 with a detailed stylistic analysis. The piece is also carved of large-grained crystalline Greek

island marble (H. of head from base of neck 0.107 m, a little smaller than the Cosa version) and takes the form of a herm. The head juts forward so it looks downward, and it turns to its right. Aphrodite wears a thin chiton that has slipped off her right shoulder to expose her right breast. The type is considered early Hellenistic, ca. 250–200 B.C.

STATUETTES

91

the sternal notch, is preserved a part of the dowel hole by which the bust was fxed to the body of the statuette. The lower edge of the bust is preserved across the entire back and most of the chest and shoulder on the proper left side. The right arm was attached separately. Part of a fat surface for attachment and the ends of two broken dowel holes are preserved in the right shoulder (fg. 97). In one of the dowel holes there is still a trace of the fne white grout used as cement. The top of the head was also added separately. Sloping downward away from the forehead is a fat surface, fnished with a claw chisel. Another fat surface, corresponding roughly to the proper left portion of the back of the head, adjoins the frst at an obtuse angle (fg. 98). Such complex piecing was common in marble sculptures, even in statuettes, from the fourth century B.C. onward.56 Adding more than one piece to the top of the head has a parallel in the bust of the Maiden from Chios in the Museum of Fine Arts Boston, though it is about twice as large.57 This bust was also designed with a fat underside made to ft into a draped fgure from the shoulders and neckline of her dress down. The bust of a woman in Toledo, Museum of Art, is treated in the same way.58 Two Hellenistic statues made to receive a head with chest and shoulders have come to light on Delos.59 They give a good idea of how the body looked when made for the attachment of a bust such as these; the Delian fgures preserve the arms as well as the body. The long neck, which is rather thick when viewed from the side, has two horizontal rolls of fat, or “Venus rings.” The girl, or a young woman to judge from the long, loose hair, looks straight outward, tilting her head a little to her left. Her oval face has a triangular forehead. The surfaces of forehead and cheeks are softly rendered and smoothed. The base of the nose is broad, and the transition from the sides down to the deeply set inner corners of the eyes is sharp enough to cause areas of dark shadow. The edges of the brows are rounded, and the eyelids are not clearly defned. The cheeks swell so that the outer corners of the mouth are indented into the fesh. The shape of the forehead, the long neck with “Venus rings,” and the soft handling of the surface indicate a Hellenistic treatment in debt to the style of Praxiteles. The exaggerated morbidezza in which all edges are smoothed, even blurred, as in the rendering of the eyes, and the “impressionistic” treatment of the hair, echo those of the Girl from Chios in the Museum of Fine Arts Boston and a female bust in the Museum of Art in Toledo mentioned above.60 The hair is drawn from the face in broad, soft masses, leaving the lower portion of both ears uncovered. It is loosely gathered at the back of the neck, and the ends fall down in roughly blockedout locks. The hair framing the face on either side is combed up and away, usually over a headband that is not present here, and brought to the back, as in DS-St 2, though here the hair is not made into a bun but gathered at the nape in such a way as to allow it to hang straight down the back (fg. 98). Most striking is her bare left shoulder, an example of the “slipped strap” of the chiton that she must have been wearing, possibly along with a himation, faint traces of which are just visible on 56 57

Marcadé 1969, esp. 109 on Delos.

Comstock and Vermeule 1971, 40–41, no. 56: inv. no. 10.70, dated ca. 300 B.C. The authors have interpreted these surfaces as indications that her head was covered; this is not likely for the Cosa bust. Adding just the crown of the head in both male and female fgures was a much more common practice for which there seems to be no easy explanation. On this see most recently M. Moltesen, “Separately Added Cranial Calottes in Roman Portrait Sculpture,” unpublished paper delivered at the Tenth International Conference of the Association for the Study of Marble & Other Stones in

Antiquity, Rome, 24 May 2012. 58 Inv. no. 27.5. Ridgway 2000, 260 n. 31, pls. 68 a–b (dated second century B.C.). This preserves some of her himation on her right shoulder and the edge of her chiton across her back. 59

Marcadé 1969, 110 (Apollo Citharodes, A 4125, pl. 29 and “Leto” from the House of Five Statues, A 4127, pl. 34).

60

See above n. 57. Note that the heads in Boston and Toledo were overcleaned, enhancing the already blurred treatment of their faces.

92

DOMESTIC SCULPTURE

her right shoulder. The effect closely resembles that of the Girl from Chios in the Museum of Fine Arts Boston and the female bust in the Museum of Art in Toledo mentioned above.61 The bust in Toledo preserves the neckline of the chiton across front and back as well as folds of the himation on its right shoulder.62 Other than the slightly raised right shoulder, the Cosa bust does not show an action that might explain the slippage. Her left arm was surely lowered, her right perhaps raised to some extent, but she does not look downward. The baring of one shoulder has been interpreted as a sign that the fgure represents Aphrodite/Venus or a comparable goddess revealing her feminine beauty.63 That the Cosa woman is Venus is not certain, although two late Hellenistic statuettes from Delos show Venus with long, loose hair.64 The similarity in the form and piecing of the bust and the stylistic treatment of hair and face suggests the Cosa piece belongs to the same late Hellenistic context as the statuettes from Delos. The use of Greek marble encourages an attribution to a Greek workshop, perhaps one of immigrant Greek sculptors working in Rome around 100 B.C.

DS-St 6: Statuette of Bacchus Early Imperial

Figs. 99–103

C68.25. Found in 1968 in Shrine of Liber Pater, in pieces along with its base between altar and pedestal against back wall. Statue: Fine-grained white marble, Carrara. Base: Travertine. Statue: H. 1.15 m. Base: H. 0.09, W. 0.34, L. 0.44 m. Collins 1970, 24, 32, 33, 109–20 no. 13, fgs. 31–36; Collins-Clinton 1977, 49–50, no. 1, fg. 22 and passim; Collins-Clinton 2001, 123–43; Collins-Clinton, Attanasio, Platania 2008, 46, fg. 20; Kristensen, T. M., Making and Breaking the Gods: Christian Responses to Pagan Sculpture in Late Antiquity, Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 2013, 99, fg. 1.22. The statuette is carved in one piece with an oval plinth whose sides and bottom are rough-picked for insertion into the rectangular base (fg. 99). The missing head was broken through the neck. Also 61

The neckline of the Classical or classicizing chiton is broad enough that it can easily slip off one shoulder whether the wearer is moving or not. The motive can be traced back to certain goddesses shown on the Parthenon; see Ridgway 1981, 52: a sign of femininity, also pp. 98, 198–201 (the “Sandalbinder” from the Nike Balustrade and the Frejus Aphrodite respectively). See also Ridgway 1990, 228–30, 242 n. 1, pls. 111a–c (“Girl from Anzio”) and 370–71, pls. 185a–b (“Budapest Maiden”). Both are non-divine fgures engaged in actions that cause the chiton to slip off a shoulder. The motive also appears in Panel 11 of the Telephos Frieze from Pergamon, worn by Auge; see Ridgway 2000, 70–76, pl. 30; here Auge’s chiton slips off her right shoulder despite her upright, static pose.

62

This chiton is the Hellenistic type that features a narrow band around the neckline that secures the multitude of gathers that make the dress so voluminous and so likely to slip off one shoulder. Early examples of this style are worn

by certain goddesses in the Gigantomachy Frieze from the Great Altar at Pergamon, traditionally dated ca. 180–160 B.C. The clearest depiction is that worn by Selene (Ridgway 2000, pl. 16); other goddesses wearing it are Aphrodite, Rhea, and Hekate. Only Hekate does not have a strap slipping off a shoulder. Auge on Panel 11 of the Telephos Frieze also wears this type of chiton (above n. 61). 63

Ridgway 2000, 72 in relation to Auge’s bare shoulder in the Telephos Frieze and A. Delivorrias, “Problèmes de conséquence méthodologique et d’ambiguïté iconographique,” MEFRA 103 (1991)129–57, where he is concerned mainly with Aphrodite.

64

Marcadé 1969, 229 A 5080, pl. 42 (here her hair hangs straight down the back) and 234 A 2129, pl. 45 (here her head turns to one side so that her hair hangs behind the other shoulder).

STATUETTES

93

missing are both arms, made separately and attached at the shoulders,65 the penis, and fragments above the left ankle. Part of the right upper arm is preserved, including a segment of the attachment surface (fg. 101).66 The forearm was secured to the fank by an iron pin, whose end is still embedded. The left upper arm and edge of the shoulder are completely broken away, leaving only the end of a cylindrical dowel hole oriented horizontally. A right hand of the same marble and matching size was found nearby and probably belongs (inv. no. C68.23, Max. Pres. L. 0.117 m, W. across knuckles 0.069 m; fg. 103). It was attached to the lower arm above the wrist by a dowel; the fngers have broken away. The upper back has two fne-grained white marble patches roughly corresponding to the shoulder blades (fg. 100). These were carefully carved to match the curvature of the back; their edges must have originally melted into the surrounding marble almost seamlessly. They were secured by iron pins, whose oxidation has caused discoloration in the left one and splitting in the right. A fne, white grout was also present at the time of discovery.67 The patches are pierced by drilled holes at the points where the pins were inserted. Most likely the pins were deeply sunk and the shallow holes in the patches plugged with lead or a mixture of plaster and marble dust, then smoothed to make the holes water-tight and invisible. These patches must represent ancient repairs to either faws in the marble or damage at those points.68 That the marble contains faws is visible in the abdomen of the fgure, where there are at least three shallow, round pits the size of small peas.69 Another pit is visible in the left side just below the break in the shoulder. Others may be seen on the outer side of the left lower leg (fg. 102). These pits do not seem a natural part of the texture of the marble and may be attempts by the sculptor to remove impurities, probably bits of graphite that occur in Carrara marble. These were drilled out and the pits inflled with plaster and marble dust and smoothed. The fllings have since disappeared. A few remaining black specks may be seen on the statue’s chest.70 Perhaps the pits that were drilled out represented larger impurities that were more disfguring. The fgure represents the youthful, slender Bacchus assuming a graceful Praxitelean contrapposto. He places his weight on his right leg, next to which the support in the form of a tree trunk rises to mid-thigh. Around it twists a vine stalk with leaves, tendrils, and bunches of grapes. His left leg is relaxed, with the foot set back so that the toes are in line with the right heel. The left heel is raised, although the marble between it and the plinth was not removed. The swinging line of the stance moves upward through the right leg and curves through the upper torso to culminate in the head, which, were it present, would complete a long S-shaped curve. In the neck the taut right sternal tendon indicates that the head turned to its left. The angle of view obtained when standing directly in front of the statue’s base reinforces this reconstruction since it would afford a view of the face. The shoulders slant downward toward the lowered right arm in chiastic opposition to the slope of the hips. The left arm was raised, in response to the raised left shoulder, and the hand most 65 On piecing in Hellenistic and early Imperial statuary, especially when a limb extends beyond the confnes of a block of marble, see Claridge 1988, 139–41. 66

The upper and outer part is broken away, revealing the length of a cylindrical dowel hole preserving bits of the iron dowel. This extends downward along the axis of the lowered upper arm. The attachment surface is fnished fat with a smooth border (anathyrosis) surrounding an inner surface roughened with a small point. On joining two pieces of marble at two fat surfaces by means of an iron dowel, see Claridge 1988, 140–43.

67

The statuette was discovered lying on its back; this probably accounts for the preservation of the adhesive.

68 On repairing faws in marble statuary in antiquity see O. Palagia, “Les techniques de la sculpture grecque sur marbre,” in D. Vanhove, ed., Marbre hélleniques de la carrièrre au chef-d’oeuvre, Brussels: Credit Communal, 1987, 82. 69

These appear as dark spots in the photographs.

70 These are barely visible in fg. 123. An over life-sized cuirassed statue, PS-St 6, also exhibits the same black specks of graphite in the marble.

94

DOMESTIC SCULPTURE

likely grasped a thyrsus. A long lock of hair waves down the front of the left shoulder. A piece of another rests on the top of that shoulder, and a third is preserved on the right along with the end of a ribbon.71 The hair at the back of the head must have been gathered into a bun since there is no trace of hair on the back of the neck. There is no pubic hair. The soft and unfocused modeling befts the adolescent divinity. The surfaces of the body slip from front to back in smooth transitions, leading the viewer’s eye around. The composition is further united both by the chiastic arrangement of legs and arms, hips and shoulders, and by the S-curve that moves from legs to head. This movement matches the three-dimensional handling of the overall form. The upper back swells out from the waist (fg. 100), and the swinging stance moves in depth even when viewed from the front, as seen when the statue is set into its base (fg. 99). The statue must have been designed to be seen from this angle. Statues of the adolescent Bacchus holding a thyrsus with the raised hand and a cantharus with the lowered one are common in Roman art. A good example in marble is in the Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Altemps in Rome, excavated in the Sanctuary of the Syrian Gods on the Janiculum in Rome.72 The two statues belong to a diverse and widespread class of images of the nude or partially nude god in bronze and marble. They share only the position of the arms and the objects held: a thyrsus in the raised hand, in the lowered a cantharus. The body types show the greatest diversity. Some have an athletic physique with frm, carefully articulated musculature, while others show a softer body with more smoothly rendered musculature. Their proportions vary from chunky to slender. Most distribute their weight in a contrapposto stance, either carefully balanced in a Polyclitan manner or more exaggerated in a Praxitelean manner. The statue from the Sanctuary of the Syrian Gods in Rome and one found at Virunum in Austria illustrate the two main body types.73 The head usually turns toward the weight-bearing leg, but this can vary; the statue from Virunum looks straight ahead. The proportions, conception of the body, and the contrapposto indicate inspirations from both a ffth-century stronger, more upright prototype and a fourth-century softer, more swinging prototype. Either is combined with a head type that seems inspired by a late Classical model. This makes it diffcult to pinpoint a specifc point of departure for these images and hence to delineate a coherent replica series. These symptoms indicate, rather, that these sculptures were independent Hellenistic and/or Roman creations of an eclectic, essentially classicizing nature capable of many variations, especially by the Roman sculptors. Several attempts have been made to classify this large and diverse corpus of images, including those in bronze and marble, those that are nude or wear a nebris or mantle, and those with different positions of the raised arm holding the thyrsus.74 How the statuette from Cosa fts into this complex typology depends on whether the upper left arm was extended horizontally as in the statue from 71

For the ribbon see Collins-Clinton 2001, 128 fg. 10.7.

72 Inv. no. 60920. R. Paribeni, Le Terme di Diocleziano e il Museo Nazionale Romano, Rome: Libreria dello Stato, 1928, 136, no. 257; P. Gauckler, Le Sanctuaire syrien du Janicule, Paris: A. Picard, 1912, 185–87, 281–92, pls. XXV, LV. See now J. Frel and F. Duthoy, “Le sanctuaire syrien du Janicule,” Eirene 44 (2008) 120, 125, 137 no. 39 with further bibliography. 73 On the example from Virunum see G. Piccottini, Die Rundskulpturen des Stadtgebietes von Virunum, CSIR Österreich 2, fasc. 1, Vienna: H. Böhlaus, 1968, 14 no. 6, pl. 8 with bibliography.

74

C. Praschniker, Der Baderbezirk von Virunum, Vienna: R. M. Rohrer, 1947, 68–69, nn. 30–33; E. Pochmarski, Das Bild des Dionysos in der Rundplastik der klassischen Zeit Griechenlands, Vienna: Verband der wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaften Österreichs, 1974, 139–43; LIMC 3 (1986) s.v. Dionysos/Bacchus, pp. 542, 563, 565 (C. Gasparri); and I. Manfrini-Aragno, Bacchus dans les bronzes héllenistiques et romains: les artisans et leur répertoire, Cahiers d’Archéologie Romande 34, Lausanne: Bibliothèque historique vaudoise, 1987, 58–77, 159, fgs. 24–87; see also the criticisms of V. J. Hutchinson, “The Cult of Dionysos/Bacchus in the GrecoRoman World: New Light from Archaeological Studies,” JRA 4 (1991) 222–30.

STATUETTES

95

Virunum or bent down as in the statue from Rome. The answer lies in the technical observation made above concerning the traces of a dowel hole in the remains of the left shoulder. If the arm were lowered, the method of attachment would match that in the right upper arm, and there would not be a dowel hole at the level of the shoulder. Instead, the preserved dowel hole is horizontal (fg. 127) and surely indicates a horizontally extended upper left arm, bent up at the elbow in the manner of the statue from Virunum.75 Thus Cosa’s Bacchus belongs to Praschniker’s Type IIB and to Manfrini-Aragno’s Type AIc.76 In the turn of its head the Cosa Bacchus differs from most of the other examples, which look to their right whereas the Cosa fgure looks toward its left. The effect of a rightward turn is quite different from that of the Cosa fgure, for the rightward turn of the head tends to keep the spectator’s viewpoint more toward the frontal aspect of the statue. Thus, the effect of spatiality in the stance is diminished, and the composition remains closed, following the Classical contrapposto arrangement. Conversely, a leftward turn of the head opens the composition and encourages the spectator to view the fgure from a more oblique angle, from which the three-dimensional effect of the stance can be better appreciated. This extra variation reinforces the diversity of these images. It encourages us to understand them as eloquent reminders of the ingenuity of the Roman sculptors working to serve the varied tastes of wealthy Romans who desired small-scale statuary to embellish their homes and gardens.77 Despite the fndspot of this piece, it was surely made originally for placement in a private house, most likely a garden, perhaps even in a garden shrine, as its size seems to indicate. The weathered condition of the feet and plinth suggests that it may have stood on the edge of a portico or in a shallow wall shrine in a garden. The three-dimensional quality of the statue strongly suggests that it stood free in a portico rather than in a shrine against a wall. The well-proportioned fgure and the fnely fnished and subtle modeling of the bodily surfaces indicate a high quality of workmanship. The drill is limited to relatively unimportant functions, such as achieving a pictorial effect in the grapes and leaves on the tree stump and separating the right leg from the stump and the feet from the plinth. There are no signs of the drill in the locks of hair on the shoulders. These qualities of workmanship suggest that the Cosa statuette was executed during the reign of Augustus.

DS-St 7: Statuette of Diana as Huntress Early Imperial

Figs. 104–7

C9603 (main body with right lower leg C9608) and dog (C9604) plus other related fragments; all found inside the aedicula of Diana, SU 227. Fine-grained white marble, Carrara. C9603 (main body): Total H. 0.727, H. without right leg 0.58 m. C9606 (left hand): L. 0.11 m. C9607 (right hand): L. 0.06 m.

75

For the vertical orientation in a lowered upper arm and the horizontal orientation in a raised upper arm held horizontally, see Claridge 1988, 145, fgs. 7–8.

76

For the detailed discussion of this see Collins-Clinton

2001, 129–30. 77

On this point see LIMC 3 (1986) 563, s.v. Dionysos/ Bacchus (C. Gasparri).

96

DOMESTIC SCULPTURE

C9608 (right lower leg, joins C9603): L. 0.18 m. C9609 (right forearm, joins C9607, hand): L. 0.13 m not including elbow. C9604 (dog): H. ca. 0.14 m (consists of three joining fragments: head, body, right leg). Taylor 2003a, 191–93 nos. 1–2, pls. 78, 79; Collins-Clinton, Attanasio, Platania 2008, 45–46, fg. 16a. The right upper arm from edge of drapery at the shoulder is missing; the left is missing from the elbow below hem of sleeve. Her left leg is broken away through the knee; her right lower leg (C9608) is broken below the knee and reattached; both feet are missing. Only the head and forequarters of the dog are preserved; its paws are missing. Diana’s feet and the dog’s paws were likely attached to the missing plinth along with the rest of the dog and the support by Diana’s left leg, which are also missing. Her right forearm (C9609) joins hand (C9607, fg. 106 right) at the wrist. The breaks are slightly weathered; the forearm is earth stained on one side and discolored slightly by rust in one place. The fngers and thumb of the right hand are broken away; they had held a long, straight object such as a spear; slightly earth stained. Left hand (C9606, fg. 106 left) is too small for this statue, nor does it or its marble match that of the right hand. Its second fnger and the tip of the thumb are broken away; lime flm, root marks, earth stains. This hand curls its fngers around a cylindrical object. The fngers and thumb are very long and slender. Below the little fnger are two holes drilled at an angle; these meet at a point within. In the break near the wrist is another drilled hole for attachment to lower arm; the attachment surface is broken away. The diameter of all three holes: 0.003 m. Diana stands facing front with her weight on her left leg (fg. 104). Her right knee is bent, suggesting that the heel was raised. This stance causes her right hip to sink in opposition to the slightly raised right shoulder, which produces a chiastic Polyclitan pose. Her left arm is lowered, and the remnant of her left hand shows that it was holding a cylindrical object, perhaps a bow. She raised her right arm, so that the upper arm is almost horizontal and aligned with that shoulder. The remains of that hand indicate that it was also holding a cylindrical object, perhaps a spear. She wears a short chiton with long, buttoned sleeves. The chiton is belted at the waist so that the skirt could be shortened by pulling it up through the belt to form a soft, full pouch that covers the belt.78 The folds of the skirt refect her ponderation, hanging in high vertical ridges on her left thigh while fattening slightly over her right where the knee projects; the folds gather in deeply carved channels between her legs. Since her lower right leg is preserved to the ankle, she must have worn sandals, not hunting boots. Over the chiton she wears a nebris, or deerskin, tied to her left shoulder and held to her body by a baldric that crosses between her breasts from her right shoulder to under her left arm. The nebris crosses her body in the opposite direction, covering her left breast. Its head hangs below that breast, and its right foreleg rests along her right thigh; its cloven hoof is clearly shown. Its left foreleg is tied to its corresponding hind leg in a knot at Diana’s left shoulder so that one leg dangles beside her left breast and the other down her back over her left shoulder. The edges of the skin and the legs are nicked in a regular fashion to indicate fur; along the leg dangling in front each nick ends in a small drilled hole. The head has a row of four drilled holes on each side of the ridge that 78

M. Bieber, Ancient Copies: Contributions to the History of Greek and Roman Art, New York: New York University Press, 1977, 71 makes this point clear. Whether the Cosa

fgure wore a second belt below the breasts is not certain since the nebris would have covered it.

STATUETTES

97

corresponds to its muzzle. The small drilled holes for articulatory and coloristic purpose are typical of later Caligulan through Flavian workmanship.79 On the back the baldric and folds of the skirt are carved in very low relief; there is no hole for attaching a quiver (fg. 105). The nebris covers most of the back; one leg hangs down on her left side. The back is worked in a cursory fashion without fne details, though the cloven hooves of the nebris are clearly, if not sharply, delineated. At the base of her neck is a large oval socket, beveled at the edges, for the separately made head: L. left to right 0.103, W. front to back 0.10, D. 0.093 m at back edge. The closest parallels for the draping of the short chiton and the chiastic contrapposto are those belonging to a type best represented by a portrait statue from Ostia, now in the Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, Rome.80 Although the treatment of the drapery folds is much simplifed in the Cosa statuette and the stance is reversed, the draping is the same. Especially close is the raised loop in the overfold of her chiton placed above her free leg, as Taylor has pointed out.81 To the sleeveless chiton of the fgure from Ostia, the sculptor of the Cosa statuette has added sleeves and the nebris. These are common variations among Greek and Roman statues of Artemis or Diana, the nebris a reference to Diana as a huntress.82 Noteworthy is the absence of the quiver, one of the primary attributes of Diana as a huntress, along with the bow, since there is no hole in the baldric crossing her back for attaching one made separately. The quiver, however, is sometimes absent when Diana is holding a spear in her raised right hand, as she does on the reverse of a denarius of Augustus dating between 15 and 12 B.C.83 It is likely that the Cosa Diana also held a spear in her right hand, a bow in her left. Diana’s hunting dog is often shown seated or standing beside her; in marble statuary it appears by the tree trunk that supports her weight leg, as it would have here. Only its forequarters are preserved (fg. 107). It turns its head and looks up at its mistress as if awaiting a command; its slanting shoulders indicate that it was sitting. The slope of the shoulders that merges with the angle of the neck and head, paralleled by its laid back ears, closes the composition by leading the viewer’s eye from Diana’s lowered arm through the dog to the ground. Based as it is on a statuary type wearing a short, sleeveless chiton, the statuette of Diana presents a good example of the Roman sculptor’s use of various changes and additions to form a new creation: the chiton now has sleeves and, as if the spear and bow were not enough to show her as

79

This can be seen especially in cuirassed statues, for example the late Caligulan statue perhaps representing Germanicus from the theater at Caere (see most recently Rose 1997, 85, pl. 64; now in the Vatican, Museo Gregoriano Profano inv. no. 9948, with bibliography). The torso of a cuirassed fgure in the Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Palestrina exhibits these holes in the gorgoneion on its chest (see Agnoli 2002, 179–81, cat. II.14, considered Claudian). Also a Neronian or late Flavian statue from Velleia, now in Parma, Museo Nazionale di Antichità, inv. no. 827 (see Rose 1997, 122 no. 16, 124, pls. 152–53, with bibliography; Saletti 1968, pl. XI 3 shows a better detail of the breastplate).

1979, 1, 1:23–24 no. 24 (V. P. Giornetti) with earlier bibliography. This statue clearly shows the second belt tied in a bow beneath her breasts.

80 Inv. no. 108518, now considered Flavian in date, LIMC 2 (1984) s.v. Artemis/Diana, 802, no. 18 with bibliography (E. Simon); see most recently La Regina 1998, 49 (B. Germini). See also Bieber (above n. 78) 71, fg. 253 and A. Giuliano, ed., Museo Nazionale Romano, Le sculture, Rome: De Luca,

83 Bieber (above n. 78) fg. 254. There Diana also holds a bow in her lowered left hand and is accompanied by her dog, standing by her right, weight leg; she also wears a twice-belted short chiton. According to Bieber (above n. 78) this depiction may refect a cult image of Diana from the time of Augustus.

81

Taylor 2003a, 192.

82 LIMC 2 (1984) s.v. Artemis, 651–53, nos. 353–95 (Artemis wearing a nebris); 747 (on Artemis in a short chiton belted twice) (L. Kahil and N. Icard) and s.v. Artemis/Diana, 801–5, nos. 16–26 (standing fgures in short chiton of which nos. 20a–c wear a nebris) (E. Simon). On the nebris used for Diana as huntress: LIMC 2 (1984) s.v. Diana, 803 (E. Simon).

98

DOMESTIC SCULPTURE

a huntress, she now wears a nebris. The total effect is most eye-catching. The opposing slants of the baldric and upper edge of the nebris crossing at mid-chest refect the opposing directions of the arms, one raised, the other lowered. These chiasticisms are again paralleled in her stance. The pictorial surface treatment enhances the effect further: the furry edges of the nebris and the two rows of drilled holes on its head. The terminus ante quem of this statuette must be late Julio-Claudian given the destruction date of the House of Diana where it was found.84 Symptomatic of this date is the decorative use of small drilled holes for coloristic effect, which is typical of later Caligulan, Neronian, or Flavian workmanship.85 It may never be known what happened to its original head since the head found with the statuette does not belong to it. It is very likely that the socket for the new head was made later, and that the original head was broken off and lost, or it was too damaged for repair. The statuette was quite a pastiche: head from a high relief in a late ffth-century B.C. style probably in Greek marble, DS-St 3 above, and hands that do not match. The workmanship has a close resemblance to that of the statuette of Hercules tunicatus, DS-St 9 below, and to the head of the table support in the form of a herm, whose shaft was found in the garden of the House of Diana, T-Supp 11, especially in the similar decorative use of the drill in the hair.

DS-St 8: Half-nude Female Statuette: Venus or Nymph Augustan–Julio-Claudian

Figs. 108–9

CG 278. Found in 1954 in the forum on the southwest side of the comitium/curia (Building C) near the surface. Fine- to medium-grained white marble. Max. Pres. H. 0.203 m. Large fresh break in fall of drapery. Upper body above waist and most of lower legs, feet, and base broken away. Earth stained, root marks. Unpublished. This under life-sized half-draped female fgure stands with her weight on her right leg; her left leg is drawn up and rests on a stone (fg. 108). Only her abdomen with her navel, hips, and buttocks remain above her draped legs. Her himation is wrapped around her lower body, with one long edge rolled in a mass just below her hips and buttocks. The himation is pulled tightly against the back of the weight leg, the ends falling back and then forward over the thigh of her raised left leg. The left knee presses against the mantle and almost seems nude. The folds of the drapery are rendered in a cursory manner, even more so on the back (fg. 109). The fgure is designed to be viewed from its right side only, a two-dimensional viewpoint that permits a full view of the pose. She bends her torso forward, over her raised left leg. Her navel is a shallow depression over a shallow crease that defnes the lower edge of her abdomen. At her back

84 85

Fentress in Fentress et al. 2003, 63: 80s A.D.

Seen especially on the pteryges of cuirassed statues; see above n. 79. This treatment also appears on a table support

in the form of a herm, the shaft of which was found in the garden of the House of Diana and the head in the context of the Neronian odeum across the forum, T-Supp 11.

STATUETTES

99

a Y-shaped depression separates her buttocks. Above her left knee a bit of marble projects from the drapery; on the front side of the break is the end of a small drilled hole. The statuette corresponds to the so-called Nymph Type of Aphrodite, variously dated from the second half of the third century B.C. to the mid-second century B.C.86 Noteworthy among the copies, including Cosa’s, is the way in which the rolled himation slips below the buttocks as she bends over. In the best examples the arms are preserved, both extending forward, with the left forearm resting on the raised thigh and the right arm crossing over it. This explains the piece of marble projecting from the drapery of the Cosa example just where the left arm would have rested upon the raised leg. The pose in which the fgure bends forward over her raised left knee while her left foot rests on a rock is closely related to that of the Muse Melpomene.87 Grassinger provides a good argument for identifcation of the Broadlands statuette as Aphrodite,88 for whom half-nudity is more appropriate; she also analyzes the treatment of the nude body and the drapery.89 In comparison the drapery of the Cosa statuette is much more schematic, with less variety in carving the folds, less plasticity, and a greater reliance on the drill.

DS-St 9: Draped Male Torso: Hercules Tunicatus? Julio-Claudian

Figs. 110–11

C73.48. Found in 1973 in the forum reservoir. Medium-grained white marble. H. 0.227, W. 0.139, Th. 0.085 m. Head and arms broken away; legs gone below tunic, although a stump of proper right thigh remains. Battered all over. Earth stained. Brownish black stains on front, back, and proper right side. Lime incrustations. Unpublished. This under life-sized young man has broad shoulders and narrow hips (fg. 110). He wears a short tunic and feline, probably leonine, pelt whose hind legs are tied around the fgure’s loins in front, the paws hanging down. One foreleg hangs down the man’s back behind his right arm (fg. 111), and its head appears to rest on the fgure’s right shoulder. The other foreleg must have rested on the fgure’s left shoulder, balancing the lion’s head. The fgure stands upright with his weight on his right leg. His right arm and shoulder are lowered, his left raised. In back the pelt hangs very low to a level corresponding to his hips; the folds of the lion skin and skirt of the tunic are barely indicated. In profle the fgure is very thin. 86

LIMC 2 (1984) 74–75, s.v. Aphrodite (A. Delivorrias), with bibliography. The type is thought to have originated in the Greek islands, especially Rhodes (Helbig4, 288 no. 1462 [H. von Steuben]). A good example is that in Broadlands, D. Grassinger, Antike Marmorskulpturen auf Schloss Broadlands (Hampshire), Monumenta Artis Romanae 21: Corpus signorum imperii Romani, vol. 3, fasc. 4, Mainz am Rhein: Zabern, 1994, 55–57, no. 4, fgs. 36–43. 87

Grassinger (as above) 56 and n. 17, a statuette in Frankfurt, Liebieghaus, with bibliography, dated to the late

second century B.C. 88 89

Grassinger (above n. 86) 55.

Grassinger (above n. 86) 55–56; dated to the late second or early frst century B.C. Given the late Hellenistic date for this piece, it is interesting to note that there are no examples of this type among the fgures of Aphrodite found on Delos; see Sanders 2001, appendix A, 223–30, Aphrodite statuettes, nos. 1–37.

100

DOMESTIC SCULPTURE

Could this fgure be Hercules tunicatus? The animal skin is feline, as one can see from its paws; although its head seems too small to belong to a lion, it is in scale with the small size of the fgure. The draping is unusual for Hercules, who is usually not depicted wearing a tunic except the toxic one given him by Deianeira, which caused his death.90 Such a statue stood in the Forum Romanum near the rostra in front of the Temple of the Divine Caesar according to the Elder Pliny’s notice of a bronze statue of Hercules tunicatus there (Pliny NH 34.93, where he also states that the name of the sculptor is not known). The statue came to Rome from Asia as part of the war booty (manubiae) of L. Licinius Lucullus, whose triumph took place in 63 B.C.; it was displayed after his death in the Roman Forum near the rostra of the Temple of the Divine Caesar.91 The statue no longer exists, and there are apparently no copies or adaptations of it, so we do not know exactly what it looked like.92 The statuette exhibits a great reliance on the drill in rendering the folds of the tunic and pelt, details of the paws and head, and in separating one form from another. Long, rough channels made by the running drill are obvious in outlining the edges of the animal’s legs around the youth’s loins, especially at his waist. The ends of drill holes are everywhere apparent. The use of the stationary drill to accent or separate certain forms is very like that in the statuette of Diana (DS-St 7 above), an indication that they may have been made in the same workshop. In back, the drill was used much less. This prominent use of the drill is common among domestic statuettes of the early Imperial period, as is evident in those from Pompeii.

DS-St 10: Statuette of Sarapis Enthroned Early Imperial

Figs. 112–13

CC 281. Found in 1950 on arx along west side of Temple D on surface in area occupied during Middle Ages. Fine-grained white marble. Pres. H. 0.089 m. Upper half of fgure missing, broken away through waist. Legs of throne mostly battered away, better preserved on proper left side. Right foot broken away; left extremely worn. Cerberus, who was on the proper right side, now broken away along with platform on which both the throne and Cerberus rested; uppermost part of front leg of throne barely visible. Surface quite weathered, battered, and bruised. Root marks and lime encrustations. Collins 1970, 132–34, no. 16. 90

LIMC 4 (1988) 770, 794–95 no. 842 (O. Palagia).

91 According to Pliny the statue’s base bore three inscriptions relating to the origin of the statue as war booty of Lucullus and to circumstances surrounding its public display. On this see M. Pape, “Griechische Kunstwerke aus Kriegsbeute und ihre öffentliche Aufstellung in Rom,” diss., Universität Hamburg, 1975, 22–23, 47–49, 191. 92 On this statue and its meaning see V. M. Strocka, “Der Hercules tunicatus auf dem Forum Romanum: Plin. Nat. 34, 93,” in R. Einicke et al., Zurück zum Gegenstand: Festschrift für Andreas E. Furtwängler, Langenweissbach: Beier & Beran, 2009, 99–107 with bibliography. The statue

is interpreted as an allegory of death and apotheosis as applied particularly to Augustus, whose funerary oration had used Hercules as a metaphor of a hero who became a god. See also A. Stewart, “Baroque Classics: The Tragic Muse and the Exemplum,” in J. I. Porter, ed., Classical Pasts: The Classical Traditions of Greece and Rome, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006, 130, 149, 150–54, where Hercules was represented as a tragic fgure who served as an example of man’s struggle against his passions to achieve virtus and dignitas. Seneca’s tragedy Hercules Oetaeus tells of Hercules’s agonizing death and his apotheosis after donning the tunic that Deianeira had smeared with the venom of the Hydra. This play was partly based on Sophocles’s tragedy Women of Trachis.

STATUETTES

101

This tiny seated fgure rests his feet on a footstool (fg. 112). He wears a chiton and himation. The chiton, which gives to the surface of the abdomen a wrinkled, irregular appearance, is fne in texture, revealing the navel beneath it. The himation is draped over the legs, coming from behind on the proper right side. It must have hung over his raised left arm, as the mass of drapery preserved on the proper left side indicates. Its hem hangs almost to the ankles. On the lap the upper edge is gathered into a roll, the end falling along his left leg. His left foot is drawn close to the throne; his right was advanced. The proper left side of the throne is roughly hollowed out between its legs, which are mostly broken away (fg. 113); the back and underside of the statuette are smooth-cut. The statuette is a much reduced and crude copy of the famous cult statue of Sarapis in Alexandria, generally considered to be the work of the younger Bryaxis, perhaps the grandson of the Athenian sculptor of the same name, who worked in the third century B.C.93 A good copy from Alexandria shows Sarapis seated rigidly upright on a high-backed throne with his left arm raised, often holding a scepter, as other replicas show, and his right arm lowered toward Cerberus sitting by his side, again as other copies indicate.94 The Cosa statuette shows the same draping of the himation over the legs, in which a major diagonal catenary falls from the left knee to the right ankle, resulting from the position of the feet, and minor curving folds go from leg to leg. Certain details, however, are simplifed owing to the small scale, such as the folds of drapery over the legs, the squaring-off of the footstool instead of representing it obliquely, and the lack of any indication of footwear or decoration on the footstool. The position of the navel seems a bit too low. Although found on the arx, it was in an area disturbed during the Middle Ages and thus could have come from anywhere about the site. This and its small scale suggest that it may have been intended for private use, perhaps in a domestic cult.95

DS-St 11: Torso of Nude Male Figure Early Imperial

Figs. 114–16

CE 208. Found in 1952 built into wall of late antique building along southwest side of street leading into forum. Coarse-grained white marble. Pres. H. 0.276, L. from sternal notch to navel 0.165 m. Head broken away through base of neck. Left arm missing. It was attached separately; a smooth attachment surface for it and part of the shoulder preserved in back (fg. 115). In break is the end of dowel hole. Right shoulder and arm broken away. Broken from lower body through waist. Surface weathered and worn, earth stained; minor chips all over. Collins 1970, 24, 32, 35, 130–31, no. 15. 93

The statue is known through numerous copies in varying sizes and materials. The attribution to Bryaxis, and the circumstances of its creation, however, have been the subject of much debate. See LIMC 7 (1994) 666–92, s.v. Sarapis (G. Clerc and J. Leclant) with bibliography. On the attribution to the younger Bryaxis see Bieber 1961, 83–84; Pollitt 1986, 279–80; Ridgway 1990, 95–97, and Stewart 1990, 1:202–3, 300–301. All cite Clement of Alexandria, Protrepticus 4.48, who clearly distinguished the younger Bryaxis from the elder.

This Sarapis was created for Ptolemy II Philadelphus, who reigned from 285 to 247/6 B.C. 94 On this statue see LIMC 7 (1994) 667 no. 8a, now in the Greco-Roman Museum in Alexandria, inv. no. 3916; on its appearance see p. 689. 95 On this see W. Amelung, “Le sarapis de Bryaxis,” RA (1903) part 2, 195.

102

DOMESTIC SCULPTURE

This small torso bends to its right and leans slightly forward; the neck also extends forward (fg. 114). The pose suggests that the fgure placed his weight on his right leg so that his body defned a Praxitelean S-curve. The right arm was lowered and the left raised. It is diffcult to ascertain in what direction the head turned, though the tendon on the proper right side appears to be fexed. The modeling, though soft and unformed as if representing a boy or adolescent, seems a bit tight, almost cold. It lacks the lushness of surface exhibited in the statuette of Bacchus, DS-St 6 above; the shoulders and back are less rounded. The back is fully modeled and has a deep spinal groove bending to the right, but the traces of point-work have not been eradicated (fg. 115). The quality of the workmanship indicates a frst-century A.D. date. The small size would indicate that the fgure was originally made to decorate a home or garden, perhaps as part of a group, as its active pose suggests. Having been built into a late antique wall so near the atrium houses in the forum, it might have belonged to one of those.

DS-St 12: Head of Attis Early Imperial

Figs. 117–18

C73.49. Found in 1973 in forum reservoir. Fine-grained white marble. H. 0.135, W. 0.10, H. of face from chin to top of forehead as preserved 0.079 m. Broken fat at back and through neck. Small break in hair on proper left side. Tip of nose and part of mouth battered away. Very worn and granular all over; marble splitting here and there. Some weathering from original use along top right side of cap. Earth stained; root marks. Lime encrustations and dark stains on broken back and neck surfaces. Unpublished. This is an under life-sized head of a beardless young man wearing a Phrygian cap (fg. 117). A fringe of curly hair frames his forehead. On his right side a fap of his hat covers his ear (fg. 118). He has a bulging forehead, especially between the eyes, which are deeply set at their inner corners. The face has a fourth-century B.C., somewhat Scopaic, look. On the right side of his chin is a badly worn protuberance. Since Attis often raises one of his hands to his chin, this head is likely to have belonged to such a fgure.96

DS-St 13: Male Head Early Imperial

Figs. 119–20

C69.372. Found in 1969 on arx West Slope, Sounding 1, near the small atrium house, on the surface. Fine-grained white marble. H. 0.102, H. chin to crown 0.092, W. 0.07 m.

96 For images of Attis see LIMC 3 (1986) 22–44, s.v. Attis (M. J. Vermaseren and M. B. De Boer); also New Pauly, Antiquity 2 (2006) 327–29, s.v. Attis (G. Baudy) and http://

referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/ attis-e207610 (accessed 23 April 2014); both with bibliography.

103

STATUETTES

Face broke off when excavated and reattached. Badly worn and weathered, surface granular and splitting. Nose, mouth, tip of chin, and proper left ear battered away. Earth stained; encrusted with lime and root marks. Unpublished. The under life-sized head is broken from its body through the middle of the neck. It tilts to its left. It has short, impressionistically rendered hair, now very worn, and the eyes are deeply inset at the inner corners: a late fourth-century B.C. look.

DS-St 14: Lower Face of Child Early Imperial

Fig. 121

CE 534. Found in 1952 in street entering forum outside Atrium Publicum near surface. Fine-grained grayish white marble. Pres. H. 0.114 m. Face sheared off from head, broken through neck and below eyes; most of nose and left cheek broken away. Surface quite weathered and earth stained. Two irregular, weathered grooves across right cheek. Lime deposits and traces of mortar on back. Collins 1970, 32, 34, 142–43, no. 19, fg. 51. This fragment preserves only the cheeks, mouth, chin, and a tiny piece of the neck of a pudgy, smiling child or perhaps Eros. The features are extremely softly modeled. This blending of the facial features into each other recalls the morbidezza associated with the Alexandrian school of Hellenistic art. Children as a subject in Hellenistic art are a part of the so-called rococo trend, which began in Alexandria but subsequently diffused all over the Mediterranean and continued into Roman art.97

DS-St 15: Right Hand of Statuette of Bacchus Early Imperial

Fig. 122

C67.512. Found in 1967 on sidewalk in front of Shrine of Liber Pater along with coins and pottery of late antique date. The pottery is associated with the shrine since some of the sherds join pieces found inside the shrine. Fine-grained white, slightly grayish marble. Max. Pres. H. 0.048 m. Broken off through back of hand and part of bottom. Surface weathered and earth stained. Lime deposits. Collins 1970, 20, 35, 144–45, no. 20, fgs. 52–53. This small piece preserves only the fngers of a right hand grasping one of the handles of a cantharus. The fngers are held in a special way. The index and little fngers lie along the rim and bottom of the 97

Bieber 1961, 136–38; Pollitt 1986, 127–30, esp. on children.

104

DOMESTIC SCULPTURE

cup respectively, while the two middle fngers curl around the handle. The thumb rests on the top of the handle to steady the cup. This is the standard way in which Bacchus is represented holding his drinking cup.98 The rim of this cup has been crudely carved to give the impression of an elaborate molding. This fragment is carved on both sides and most of the bottom. It probably broke off a statuette of Bacchus, who would have held the cantharus in his lowered right hand with the top of the cup facing forward.99 The bottom must have partially rested on a support or strut, for there is a small break below the free handle where the foot of the cup was attached. The workmanship is crude and shows heavy use of the drill. A date in the frst century A.D. is likely.

Herms INTRODUCTION Herms were well known from the sixth century B.C. in Greek and Roman art and life; over time they came to serve many related apotropaic functions and to take several forms.100 By the frst century B.C. they became popular among wealthy Romans in the aftermath of the Roman conquests in the Greek East, as a way to express their appreciation of Greek culture by erecting them in their homes and gardens. Cicero’s letters to Atticus give a glimpse into this aspect of Roman life in the 60s B.C., when he was ordering herms to decorate the “Academy” or gymnasium in his villa.101 His idea is refected by the fourteen marble busts made for herm pillars that were discovered in the large garden of the Villa of the Papyri in Herculaneum, where they were displayed around the pool.102 Cicero was clearly taking advantage of the Neo-Attic workshops in Athens, already catering in his day to the increasing demand for works of art by wealthy Romans. By Augustan and Julio-Claudian times herms were erected in the gardens of the houses belonging to well-to-do middle-class families in Roman towns, as those found in Pompeii testify. Several atrium houses there have gardens flled with small sculptures of various sorts, including herms: best known are the House of the Vettii (VI.15.1), the House of the Golden Cupids (VI.16.7), and the House of Marcus Lucretius (IX.3.5).103 The herms from Cosa were made to decorate gardens; three (DS-Herm 1–3) were, in fact, found in the garden of the House of Diana, one of the atrium houses facing the forum.104 None are 98

Two statuettes of Bacchus illustrate this well. One stood on the south edge of the peristyle surrounding the garden in the House of the Vettii in Pompeii (VI.15.1); see PPM 5 (1994) 524, fg. 99. The other was found in the sanctuary of the Syrian gods on the Janiculum Hill in Rome, now in the Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Altemps; P. Gauckler, Le Sanctuaire syrien du Janicule, Paris: A. Picard, 1912, pl. XXV clearly shows this detail.

A. Malek, eds., Gardens of the Roman Empire, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2018, esp. 361–65; they were the most common type of sculpture found in gardens (361 with bibliography). 101

Those related to herms have been collected by Pollitt 1966, 76–78: ad Atticum 1.6.2, 1.8.2, 1.9.2, 1.10.3, 1.4.3, 1.1.5.

102

99

This piece is too small to belong to the statue of Bacchus, DS-St 6 above.

C. C. Mattusch, The Villa dei Papiri at Herculaneum: Life and Afterlife of a Sculpture Collection, Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2005, 157–87.

100

103

On herms in general see RE 8 (1894) s.v. Hermai, 696– 708 (Eitrem), New Pauly, Antiquity 6 (2005) s.v. Herms, 240–41 (R. Neudecker); Wrede 1985; and LIMC 5, 1 (1990) s.v. Hermes, pp. 374–78 (G. Siebert); on types of herms see Lullies 1931. On herms in Roman gardens see now K. J. Hartswick, “Sculpture in Ancient Roman Gardens,” in W. F. Jashemski, K. L. Gleason, K. J. Hartswick, and A.-

House of the Vettii: Jashemski 1979, 35–38; Jashemski 1993, 153–55 with bibliography. House of the Golden Cupids: Seiler 1992, 116–33; Jashemski 1979, 38–41; Jashemski 1993, 159–63 with bibliography. House of M. Lucretius: Dwyer 1982, 19–23, 38–48; Jashemski 1993, 231–33.

104

On their fndspots and their setting see Taylor 2003b.

105

HERMS

typical Hermes herms. DS-Herm 1 wears a chlamys, not usual for herms of Hermes, whose shaft is plain; the chlamys may indicate a youthful Hermes wearing traveling attire; perhaps an identifcation as a draped satyr is more ftting for a garden. DS-Herm 2 and 3 are female, likely representing Artemis given the presence of the Shrine of Diana in the garden. These could well have served an apotropaic function—the original and time-honored function of herms—associated with the shrine and arranged on either side of the entrance.105 The fourth, DS-Herm 4, was found in the reservoir just outside the west corner of the forum and may have come from one of the nearby atrium houses. In comparison with the herm busts from the Villa of the Papyri, which are life-sized, the herms from the Pompeian houses mentioned above, however, are quite small. They were designed to ft the smaller size of the gardens where they were erected, and, with one exception, their shafts supported miniature herm busts.106 The pillar herms from Cosa, DS-Herm 1–3, are slightly larger, and neither DS-Herm 1 nor 2 was designed to receive a herm bust. In DS-Herm 1 there is a smooth, fat surface through the neck where a piece of an iron dowel remains for attaching its head. DS-Herm 2 has a socket between the shoulders for inserting a separate head.107 The Cosa herms are unusual in various ways: DS-Herm 1–3 are draped herms, and the iconography of DS-Herm 4 defes certain identifcation. Draped pillar herms are not common, and they do not appear until late Hellenistic times, as the examples from the Athenian Agora and Delos show.108 DS-Herm 1 clearly wears a chlamys whose diagonal draping creates a challenge to the artisan, who has taken pains to form a composition congenial to the tall and narrow shaft. DS-Herm 2–3 are female herms wearing a peplos over a chiton; their garments fall naturally in long folds that reinforce the verticality of the extremely narrow pillar. The outer front edges of all three are emphasized by rendering the folds in slightly higher relief, a feature that stresses the closed composition of the drapery folds on the shaft. All three show a high degree of artistic skill. The half-draped male hip herm in giallo antico, DS-Herm 4, presents diffculties of identifcation since it lacks attributes of a specifc deity. He seems to sniff a bunch of fowers in his right hand, held across his chest toward his head. There are no traces of a beard. He is not Priapus because he is not ithyphallic, nor does his iconography conform to that of Silvanus, both of whom can be represented in herm form.109 DS-Herm 5–7 are plain pillar-like shafts in bardiglio originally surmounted by a miniature herm bust. In this they have parallels in four examples, also in bardiglio, in the garden of the House of the Golden Cupids in Pompeii.110 The small busts atop three of the four shafts are double busts featuring two different heads back to back; the fourth is a single form. These busts, small as they are, are nevertheless too large for their shafts.111 Two of the shafts from Cosa, DS-Herm 5–6, have been cleaned, revealing the beauty of the blue-gray marble with its white veins. 105

On this see Taylor 2003b, 53.

109

106

For these little busts see below, pp. 112–23.

110

107 Since DS-Herm 3 is a fragment of the bottom of a herm exactly like DS-Herm 2, we can only surmise that its top was treated in the same way. 108

Athenian Agora: Harrison 1965, 138–39, 167–69 no. 218, pl. 58; Delos: Marcadé 1969, 226, pl. 19. A Roman example of a draped female herm wearing a peplos with a long overfall belted high is in the National Museum in Rome: MusNazRom 1, 7 (1984) 61–62 no. III, 3 (A. Ambrogi).

Wrede 1985, 28–29 (Priapus), 30 (Silvanus).

Seiler 1992, 117–18 nos. 4, 12, 15, and 16 for the herms, fgs. 205 and 207 for old views of the garden; Jashemski 1979, 39 fg. 63 (Seiler no. 12) and Jashemski 1993, 161–62, nos. 4, 12, 15, 16 and fgs. 186 (not no. 9 as in her caption) and 188, fg. 182 is a view of the garden. The miniature busts were removed from their shafts in 1978. Note also that Seiler did not identify the type of marble; Jashemski took her identifcations from the original publication, A. Sogliano, NSc (1907) 549–93. 111

This is clear in Jashemski 1993, fgs. 186 and 188.

106

DOMESTIC SCULPTURE

All are Julio-Claudian in date. R. Taylor has presented an insightful analysis of the garden of the House of Diana and its sculptural decoration as it fts into the décor of contemporary gardens, especially those in Pompeii mentioned above.112 I will add here only a few observations. The three Pompeian gardens mentioned above must have been laid out and embellished with herms and sculptures after the earthquake in A.D. 62. The sculptural decoration was arranged in various ways around a central water feature in all three gardens. Streams of water spout from statues into large basins placed around the edge of the garden in the House of the Vettii, where the central fountain consists of a simple basin on a pedestal. The gardens in both the House of the Golden Cupids and that of Marcus Lucretius feature more elaborate central pools. Although the garden of the House of Diana lacks the water play, it does feature an eye-catching fountain-like niche against the back wall that was decorated as a grotto and fanked by sculptures.113 The owner of this house assembled quite an assortment of pieces for his garden. They were eventually removed much later and many piled into the shrine of Diana; the rest were left to the vicissitudes of later human activity.114 Besides the herm next to the fountain, whose base was found in situ, only the two draped female herms can be tentatively restored to their original places. Samples of marble from two of the herms, DS-Herm 1 and 2, were tested to determine the quarries of origin since it is diffcult to identify white marbles with certainty by eye alone. DS-Herm 1 is Carrara marble and DS-Herm 2, Pentelic.115 Along with the different styles of carving the drapery, this suggests that they were not made in the same workshop. The herm in Pentelic marble was probably made by a sculptor of Greek descent and training, working with his customary material. The larger herms were most likely made in Rome.

CATALOGUE DS-Herm 1: Draped Herm of Satyr? Early Imperial

Figs. 123–24

C9617. Found in 1996 in the garden of the House of Diana among the decorative pieces piled in the shrine of Diana. See Fentress et al. 2003, 51, SU 227. Fine-grained white marble with a few gray veins, Carrara. H. 0.62, W. 0.15–18, D. 0.13–14 m. Taylor 2003a, 201–2 no. 14, pl. 92; Collins-Clinton, Attanasio, Platania 2008, 25 table 1 no. CO12, p. 29 table 3 no. CO12, p. 36 fg. 11a. For the description of the front, including the condition and comments, see Taylor (above). The back is smooth-picked fat. The neck is fnished smooth and fat; the plane of its surface slopes downward, almost paralleling the slope of its chest. It retains a remnant of an iron dowel for affxing its head. In the neck there is a pour channel flled with lead that leads from the left rear toward the dowel hole. The type is more properly classifed as a draped pillar herm than as a mantle herm; it has the form of a pillar, not the draped human upper body with arms of a mantle herm.116 112

Taylor 2003b.

113 Fentress et al. 2003, 43: built around an earlier wall niche in Claudian times.

See Fentress et al. 2003, 63, 139. See below B 6a, b for two pieces of the same water basin, one of which was found at the other end of the forum, and Rabinowitz and Fentress 2002: http://www.press.umich.edu/webhome/cosa/ (Forum, Phase V: Late First Century to the Mid-Second Century)

(accessed 1 January 2016). 115 Collins-Clinton, Attanasio, Platania 2008, 25 table 1 nos. CO12 and CO13, p. 29 table 3 nos. CO12 and CO13, pp. 35–37, and fgs. 11a, 11b.

114

116

On the mantle herm see Lullies 1931, 81–83: “Die Mantelherme.” Below the draped upper body is the more customary pillar-like shaft.

HERMS

107

It wears a chlamys, unusual for a pillar herm, pinned on its left shoulder with a round brooch. The edge on its right shoulder is folded back as if to free the arm for action. The sculptor has attempted to balance the asymmetrical draping by treating the vertical folds along the proper right side, where the edge of the chlamys folds over, with stronger modeling to counteract the broad, rather fat and doughy rendering of the archaistic overlapping folds ending in zigzags along the opposite side.117 Both right and left sides are framed along the front and rear edges by folds of the chlamys, which cease toward the bottom. On both sides appears a hole for the armbar within a small square depression, 0.015 m on a side; traces of iron remain within them (fg. 123). The cloak is a Greek type, normally pinned on the right shoulder, worn by soldiers, travelers, and ephebes as shown in Greek art. Without the head it cannot be identifed for certain; it could have represented a young Hermes as a protector of travelers as easily as a youthful satyr.118 The latter with its Bacchic connotations would be more appropriate for a garden herm.119 The marble has been tested and is certainly from the Carrara quarries, an indication that it would have been made in Italy to satisfy the market for sculptural works to decorate the gardens of wealthy Romans.

DS-Herm 2: Draped Female Herm Early Imperial

Figs. 125–27

C9618. Found in 1996 in the garden of the House of Diana among the decorative pieces piled in the shrine of Diana. See Fentress et al. 2003, 51, SU 240. Pentelic marble. H. 0.902, W. 0.14–15, D. 0.12 m. Taylor 2003a, 202–3 no. 15, pl. 93; Collins-Clinton, Attanasio, Platania 2008, fg. 4 no. CO13; tables 1 and 3, no. CO13; pp. 35–37, fg. 11b. For the complete description, including the condition and comments, see Taylor (above). Certain points must be made here, nevertheless, for better comprehension. Broken in two pieces, this herm is almost complete, lacking only its head, made separately for insertion into the socket between the shoulders, and the armbars, each separately attached by an iron dowel whose ends are still embedded on either side (fg. 125). The neck socket is shallow, almost hemispherical, and very smoothly picked with remnants of deeper pick marks (fg. 126). On each side is a fat, crescent-shaped surface, very smooth, that slopes toward the socket. The drapery is rendered rather simply in low relief on three sides; the back is plain. The underside is worked fat with a claw chisel; in the center is a long dowel hole. On the front, the drapery is treated in three distinct tiers (fg. 125). The neckline of a chiton appears at the front edge of the socket, suggesting that the separate head included part of the chest (fg. 127). Paralleling this edge is a shallow groove. The crinkly texture of the chiton is rendered by 117

For similar soft and simply rendered archaistic folds on a table support in the form of a draped female herm from Pompeii see Moss 1988, 579–80 A 227; illustrated in J. Ward-Perkins and A. Claridge, Pompeii a.d. 79, Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1978, 2:145 no. 77.

118

Suggesting that the Cosa herm most likely represents a satyr is a herm in the form of a satyr wearing a chlamys on an ivory plaque that had decorated a wooden throne (solium)

recently excavated in Herculaneum; the plaque shows the herm standing on a base next to two Amorini with a liknon, clearly a Bacchic context; see M. P. Guidobaldi, “Uffcio Scavi di Ercolano,” RStPomp 19 (2008) 148–50, fg. 5. It was found in the ruins of a monumental structure near the Villa of the Papyri in 2007. 119

On the relevance of Dionysus and his followers to gardens see below, p. 113 n. 149.

108

DOMESTIC SCULPTURE

shallow, wavy lines falling downward. Below the hint of the chiton is a peplos with a series of narrow V-shaped folds that are framed on either side by a pair of vertical folds falling from the shoulders, each terminating in a fat omega-shaped fold. These folds end in a clearly defned horizontal edge almost halfway down the shaft; this draping resembles the overfall of the peplos. Below this edge a second tier of thin vertical folds frames the looping ones in the center. These vertical folds terminate in inverted omegas echoing those above. The second tier ends in a clear horizontal edge, the hem of the peplos. A third tier of folds appears at the bottom, where thin vertical folds alternate with plain, fat areas in even lower relief. Below the vertical folds of the chiton is a fat trapezoidal surface whose narrower upper side corresponds to the three central folds of the chiton. The sides slope down and out toward the lower corners of the shaft. The total effect is that of a peplos with a long, ungirded overfall worn over a longer chiton woven of a fner material: clearly feminine attire. Breasts are not clearly indicated but implied by a rather sharp angle formed by the slope of the chest and the vertical front of the draped shaft. The right side shows the open edges of the peplos descending in zigzag folds along the rear half (fg. 126). The hem continues from the front side with the folds of the chiton below. There are two holes for attachment of an armbar; the lower one is empty and matches the one on the other side. Above, a remnant of an iron pin has caused the marble above it to split. The surface to which the armbar abutted is fat and smooth, measuring 0.08 by 0.06 m. Its front edge corresponds to the edge of the fall of folds of the peplos. The left side shows folds of the peplos, rather simply rendered. The hem of the overfold has an omega fold in the center. That of the skirt of the peplos has two omega folds with half of one at the front edge; this turns the corner to match the other half on the front. The same happens on the proper right side. Carefully set between folds is a smooth attachment surface for the armbar. The drilled hole for this is empty. This surface has an irregular trapezoidal shape, wider at the top: 0.054 and 0.035 m; the lower edge slopes so that the height varies from 0.08 to 0.09 m. A draped female herm in the form of a table support from Pompeii also wears two garments, a peplos unusually belted high just under the breasts over a chiton.120 A peplos with a long overfall worn over a chiton appears also on two late Hellenistic statues of Artemis from Delos.121 Both clearly show a short-sleeved chiton in very low relief on their upper arms—the only indication that there is a chiton beneath the peplos. An incomplete draped female herm from the Athenian Agora that preserves its head also wears a peplos, though it is broken just below the overfall so there is no indication of the presence of a chiton.122 It has been interpreted as a herm of Artemis, and, given that the Cosa herm was found in the context of a shrine of Diana/Artemis, whether or not the costume is a diagnostic reference to Diana, this may be true of it as well.123 120 Ward-Perkins and Claridge (above n. 117) and Moss 1988, 579–80 A 227. The central folds of the overfall and of the chiton end in the inverted omega fguration, an archaistic mannerism. The central omega fold and the overlapping zigzag folds falling from it on either side may be seen in some of the archaic korai from the Athenian acropolis; see most recently E. B. Harrison, “The Dress of the Archaic Greek Korai,” in D. Buitron-Oliver, ed., New Perspectives in Early Greek Art, Studies in the History of Art 32, Center for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts Symposium Papers 16, Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, 1991, 232–36.

121

Marcadé 1969, 422 A4126, pl. XXXVI, from the Maison aux Cinq Statues, and p. 223 MN1829, pl. XXXVI, from the House of the Diadoumenos and now in Athens, National Archaeological Museum (on this see also Kaltsas 2002, 294 no. 616, dated ca. 100 B.C.).

122

Harrison 1965, 138–39, 167–69 no. 218, pl. 58: small female herm, second century B.C. For a late Hellenistic parallel see Marcadé 1969, 226–27, pl. XIX: from Delos, Palestra of Granite. See also the comments of Moss 1988, 580 A 227 on the table support mentioned above n. 117. 123

For herms in sacred precincts see Wrede 1985, 37–38.

109

HERMS

The workmanship is of a very high quality. The artful half-omega folds of the peplos turning the corners to the sides are diagnostic. The overall treatment of the drapery, its organization in three clearly distinguished tiers, the careful distinction between the different textures of the peplos and chiton, even the treatment of the attachment surfaces for the armbars, all combine with the use of Pentelic marble to suggest Attic workmanship either in Greece or in Rome by immigrant artisans working with their accustomed marble.

DS-Herm 3: Fragment of Draped Female Herm Early Imperial

Fig. 128

C9687. Found in 1996 in the garden of the House of Diana among the decorative pieces piled in the shrine of Diana. See Fentress et al. 2003, 51, SU 227. Fine-grained white marble. H. 0.21, W. 0.13, D. 0.12 m. Encrusted with lime and root marks; earth stained. Taylor 2003a, 202–3 no. 16, pl. 94; Collins-Clinton, Attanasio, Platania 2008, 37 n. 1. For the complete description, including the condition and comments, see Taylor (above). This fragment is the bottom of a draped female herm that is a twin of DS-Herm 2. It is broken just above the hem of the peplos. Below the vertical folds of the chiton is a fat trapezoidal surface whose narrower upper side corresponds to the three central folds. The sides slope down and out toward the lower corners of the shaft. A very similar treatment occurs on DS-Herm 2. The underside is worked fat with a claw chisel; in the center is a dowel hole, Diam. 0.018, D. 0.064 m. The carving of this fragment is less competent than that of DS-Herm 2 above.

DS-Herm 4: Partially Draped Hip Herm Early Imperial

Figs. 129–30

C73.47. Found in 1973 in the reservoir outside the west corner of the forum. Stolen in 1987. Giallo antico. H. 0.385, W. 0.22 m. Two joining pieces; broken more or less horizontally through the abdomen and below the elbow. Head and neck missing. Lower part of herm pillar broken away. Chipped along break and in proper right elbow. Earth stained; pitted in places. Unpublished. The approximately half life-sized male fgure is rendered in human form to the hips above a herm pillar that tapers downward: a hip herm (fg. 129). He wears only a mantle loosely looped over his left shoulder. It falls partly down his upper arm and wraps around his lowered forearm, his hand clutching a piece of the fabric. The end of the mantle falls alongside the pillar. His other arm, rather muscular, is raised and crosses his chest in front; the hand holds a bunch of fowers, of which one remains. His large penis hangs straight down from a fringe of lightly indicated pubic hair. The fattened scrotum is outlined by a shallow groove. Without the head it is diffcult to identify the

110

DOMESTIC SCULPTURE

fgure. The break at the shoulders, where the head and neck have broken away, runs just above the collar bones in front and gives no clear hint as to whether or not the fgure had a beard. The bunch of fowers he holds is the only attribute that might assist in identifying him. One might think of Vertumnus in his aspect as a god of the changing seasons and of gardens,124 to whom gifts of fowers (fruits of the garden) are given.125 As such, a herm representing him holding a bunch of fowers would be appropriate in a garden. His iconography is essentially unknown, however, and there are no securely identifed images of him.126 The competent though uninspired workmanship shows scarcely any traces of the drill. The musculature of his arms, chest, abdomen, and pelvis is simply and broadly rendered in a way that recalls certain mannerisms of archaic kouroi, especially in the pattern of two parallel arcs on either side of the central abdominal groove and the way in which the fngers of his left hand curl around the mass of drapery and press against the thigh. The back (fg. 130), reworked at a later time, now shows only the spinal groove, the drapery, and part of the buttocks. The upper back and buttocks have been cut back and worked level with a claw chisel, and an iron pin remains between the shoulder blades, perhaps for attachment to an upright support. Its fndspot near the forum suggests that it came from one of the nearby atrium houses, where it may have stood in its garden.

DS-Herm 5: Herm Shaft? Julio-Claudian

Fig. 131

C9680. Found in 1996 in House of Diana inside Shrine of Diana, SU 227. Bardiglio. H. 0.88, D. at fat upper end 0.177, W. at fat end 0.185, W. at base 0.185 m. Large piece broken slantwise at bottom, taking with it most of tenon; otherwise intact.127 Taylor 2003a, 203 no. 17, not illustrated. This could well be the shaft of a herm whose separate head is missing. There are no signs for attachment of a head, nor are there any for attaching armbars. The fat upper surface is too large to conveniently accommodate the underside of a miniature herm bust such as that found in the

124 L. Richardson, jr., ed., Propertius. Elegies I–IV, paperback ed., Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 2006, 427. See also G. Hutchinson, Propertius. Elegies, Book IV, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006, 96. This poem explains the nature of Vertumnus, originally the Etruscan Veltune, and the origin of his worship by the Romans; on this see E. C. Marquis, “Vertumnus in Propertius 4, 2,” Hermes 102 (1974) 491–500. 125

Propertius 4.2, lines 41–42, 45–46, referring to Vertumnus’s statue in the Vicus Tuscus in Rome. 126

For Vertumnus see LIMC 8 (1997) 235, s.v. Vertumnus (J. P. Small) with earlier bibliography. See also more recently N. de Grummond, Etruscan Myth, Sacred History, and Legend, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archae-

ology and Anthropology, 2006, 63–70; New Pauly, Antiquity 15 (2010) 326–27, s.v. Vertumnus (L. Aigner-Foresti); and M. Bettini, “Vertumnus: A God with No Identity,” I Quaderni del Ramo d’Oro on-line, 3 (2010, 320–34 (http://www.qro. unisi.it/), accessed 22 April 2014—I owe this reference to J. P. Small. He is also known as Vortumnus or Voltumna; see LIMC 8 (1997) 281–82, s.v. Voltumna (M. Harari), an Etruscan divinity worshipped near Volsinii; his cult was established in Rome on the Aventine after Volsinii fell to the Romans in 264 B.C. There was a statue of him in the Vicus Tuscus, though we do not know what it looked like. I am grateful for the advice of J. P. Small regarding the diffculties in identifying images of Vertumnus. 127 The shaft as photographed is upside down, so the tenon appears at the top.

HERMS

111

debris of the fallen Augustan wall between the Shrine of Diana and the house itself (DS-MHB 8). At the other end the fat margins surrounding the tenon were worked fat with the pick and roughly smoothed, leaving the rough, unworked lumplike tenon in the center.

DS-Herm 6: Herm Shaft? Julio-Claudian

Fig. 132

C9716. Found in garden of House of Diana, SU 333. Bardiglio. H. 0.845, D. at fat upper end 0.144, W. 0.163 m. Bottom with tenon broken away along with much of one side on a slightly curved slant, similar to the break on DS-Herm 5. Part of the fat end, the top, broken slantwise.128 Unpublished. This piece is a twin of DS-Herm 5. Near the top in the center on each narrower side is a small hole for attaching armbars, Diam. 0.80 m. The bottom with the tenon is also worked in the same way.

DS-Herm 7: Herm Shaft? Julio-Claudian

Figs. 133–34

C9620, C9622. Found in 1996 in garden of House of Diana, SU not known. Bardiglio. C9620: H. as preserved 0.38, D. 0.17, W. 0.20 m. C9622: Total H. 0.554, H. to outer edge without tenon 0.0511, D. at base 0.17, W. at base 0.197 m. Unpublished. C9620 is the upper half and C9622 the lower half of a third herm whose upper surface is fat and plain, though chipped; it, too, is a twin of DS-Herm 5. Just a little of one side of the base of C9622 is chipped away. Their depths and widths match, and the breaks nearly join. If they do belong together, the total height would be 0.934 m or somewhat less. This would be a little taller than either DS-Herm 5 or 6.129

DS-Herm 8: Phallus First century A.D.?

Fig. 135

C68.577. Found in 1968 near the surface behind the eighteenth-century farmhouse in an area disturbed by the farmer in connection with his outbuildings. L. 0.098, W. 0.071 m. Fine-grained white marble. 128

As in DS-Herm 5, this shaft is also photographed upside down.

129 I thank G. Bannino for checking these pieces for me at Cosa.

112

DOMESTIC SCULPTURE

Phallus broken away at midpoint; edges of pubic hair chipped; a large part of proper right testicle chipped away. Earth stained; lime encrusted; root marks. Slightly weathered. Collins 1970, 25, 35, 180 no. 31, fg. 74. This is an image in relief of an erect phallus made for insertion into a herm pillar. Folds of skin make ridges and grooves alongside the phallus and above the testicles. Behind it on both sides are traces of pubic hair. The piece is cut smooth behind for attachment to another surface, though there is no sign of a dowel hole. Phallus and testicles were fnished with a fne rasp, whose traces are most visible on the proper left testicle. The fndspot in an area of houses suggests a domestic use, either as an apotropaic emblem set into a wall of a house or for insertion into a herm.130 The material suggests an early Imperial date.131

Miniature Herm Busts INTRODUCTION The miniature herm bust forms a category of Roman decorative arts that was very popular during the earlier Roman Empire, especially in the West,132 and eight have been excavated at Cosa. One of these is intact and a good example of the type, DS-MHB 3, fg. 138. They are small, most ranging from 0.15 m to 0.21 m in height, from 0.08 m to 0.11 m in width, and ca. 0.09 m in depth. They are distinguished by their form: fnished fat at the back—cut vertically through the center of the head and neck, cut vertically at the sides, and horizontally on the underside, so that they resemble half of the bust of a double herm. Sometimes, but not always, these surfaces are roughened in one way or another, or provided with a hole, for attachment to another object. They are usually carved from white marble, although colored marbles were also used, especially giallo antico and rosso antico.133 Giallo antico was popular for the miniature herm busts from Pompeii;134 in this regard it is interesting that four of the ones from Cosa are also in giallo antico (DS-MHB 1, 2, 5, 6).135 They represent a variety of divinities, mainly the older or younger Dionysus and members of his entourage such as Pan, Satyrs, and Silenus, as well as Eros, the older Hercules, and a helmeted warrior. Among the identifable busts from Cosa are two of the bearded Dionysus (DS-MHB 1 and 2), Eros (DS-MHB 3), a bearded Hercules (DS-MHB 5), Silenus (DS-MHB 6), and a beardless warrior (DS-MHB 4). 130

On relief representations of the phallus in Greek and Roman times see New Pauly, Antiquity 10 (2007) 912–13 s.v. phallus (J. Scherf). Apotropaic phalli have been found set into exterior walls of houses on Delos, frequently by doorways, either scratched or carved in relief on the building stones; see Bruneau and Ducat 2005, 231–32 no. 58, 239 no. 64 (House of the Lake), and 240 no. 65. They have also been found in Pompeii. Such apotropaic phalli were usually not separately attached as the Cosa example would have been; this may indicate that the Cosa piece was more likely made to be set into a herm pillar.

131

The House of the Birds, constructed during the reign of Augustus by joining two earlier houses, is located just above the area where this relief was found.

132

The best studies of this category are those of Rückert 1998 and Bonanno 1977; of these Bonanno’s is the briefer. For their geographical distribution see also Moss 1988, 234–35. 133 Rückert 1998, 184–86 on materials used. Rosso antico has not been found at Cosa. 134

Moss 1988, 67, 74–75 with n. 47, where he lists seventeen used in table supports, others for different purposes; see also pp. 231–32. 135

On the use of giallo antico for images related to the Dionysian sphere see Gregarek 1999, 150–51.

MINIATURE HERM BUSTS

113

Only one of the miniature busts from Cosa was found in its original setting, the garden of the House of Diana on the forum, DS-MHB 8. The examples from Herculaneum, Pompeii, and environs, where so many have been found in situ, show that they were placed primarily in a domestic setting, often in a garden.136 In Pompeii the House of the Golden Cupids (VI.16.7) has a peristyle garden that is a showcase for the display of many types of sculptures, including statuary, pinakes set upon decorated pillars, herms, and a sundial, with masks and oscilla swinging between the columns of the portico.137 There a miniature bust of the child Dionysus rests on a small pillar that is a bit too slender for it,138 a second bust, too wide for its pillar, represents the bearded Dionysus,139 and a third, another bearded Dionysus, fts awkwardly into an unusual cutting on the front side of a pillar near its top.140 The House of Acceptus and Euhodia in Pompeii (VIII.5.39) is not so well known, but fve miniature busts, Bacchic in nature, were found in its small garden.141 A different use has been proposed for four busts from the garden adjacent to the open-air triclinium of the House of the Ephebe in Pompeii (I.7.10–12).142 Four small marble posts were found in a row separating the triclinium area from the garden; the busts were found nearby. According to the excavator and others following him, they were affxed to the posts, which in turn supported a latticework fence.143 This interpretation has been discarded recently in favor of considering them as freestanding garden herms, just as those in the House of the Golden Cupids.144 Another form of miniature herm bust found in Pompeii, though not at Cosa, is the double or janiform herm, in which two heads appear back to back.145 These fgure prominently in two well-known gardens in Pompeian houses, the House of the Vettii (VI.15.1), where two rest on tall decorative columns balancing each other in their setting and facing up and down the length of the oblong space,146 and the House of Marcus Lucretius (IX.3.5), where two pairs rest on tall pillars, also balancing each other at the front and rear of the garden.147 The House of Apollo (VI.7.23) had miniature double herms decorating an imposing fountain in the courtyard and also in the garden.148 All of these juxtapose the old, bearded and the young, beardless Dionysus. The Dionysiac iconography of all these little busts, single and double, is striking and fts the Bacchic theme that unites the sculptural decoration of these gardens.149 In addition to images of 136

Rückert 1998, 199–200 with bibliography.

137

These were removed from the garden in 1978 following a series of thefts. For bibliography and old photographs see PPM 5 (1994) 716, 741–47 fgs. 48–69 for the garden. See also Rückert 1998, 197; Farrar 1998, 99–100; and Stackelberg 2009, 27 and n. 37 with bibliography.

144

Rückert 1998, 197–98, who notes that there is no other comparable evidence for fence posts in the form of herms.

145 On these see A. Giumlia, Die neuattischen Doppelhermen, Vienna: VWGÖ, 1983. 146

See PPM 5 (1994) 516 fg. 84, 520–21 fgs. 90–92 for garden views; Giumlia (above) 75, 218 nos. 69 and 70; Rückert 1998, 197; and Stackelberg 2009, 27 and n. 38 with bibliography.

138

Rückert 1998, 228 I110.

139

Rückert 1998, 228 I109.

140

Rückert 1998, 228 I108.

141

Carrella et al. 2008, 149 C42 with bibliography.

PPM 9 (1999) with bibliography; P. Zanker, Pompeii: Public and Private Life, tr. D. L. Schneider, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998, 172–74; Rückert 1998, 197; Farrar 1998, 99, 101.

142

Rückert 1998, 228 I102–I105, all representing Dionysus.

148

147

143 Maiuri 1927, 61, 74; H. Wrede, Die spätantike Hermengalerie in Welschbillig, Berlin: De Gruyter, 1972, 126 E3; Jashemski 1993, 40, 41 fg. 44, with bibliography.

PPM 4 (1993) with bibliography; Zanker (as above) 156–60. The garden sculptures are now lost.

149 On this see Stackelberg 2009, 27–30, 82–83, 87–88; Farrar 1998, 117–19; Jashemski 1979, 123–24, 320; Grimal 1969, 317–30.

114

DOMESTIC SCULPTURE

Dionysus himself, other divinities appear, those who participate in the thiasus, the happy throng of followers of Dionysus. These include Eros, god of love; Silenus, who raised the child Dionysus from infancy; and the old, bearded Hercules, drinking partner of Dionysus—all of whom are represented among the little busts from Cosa. The meaning is clear: a reference to a happy life of pleasure, peaceful and fruitful, as beftting the god of wine.150 The one miniature bust from Cosa that seems out of place in this context is that of the warrior, DS-MHB 4. C. Rückert has reinterpreted these images, beardless and wearing a helmet and body armor, as a form of Dionysus as a warrior, an allusion to his travels in the East, a mythological allusion to Alexander the Great’s triumphs in the East and to Alexander the “New Dionysus.”151 In this guise Dionysus guarantees a peaceful and happy life. Most miniature herms, however, were attached to marble shafts in such a way as to fashion the monopod table supports in the form of a herm that were so popular among the Romans, though such tables have not been discovered in gardens.152 C. Moss has explained the sometimes complex ways in which some of these supports were made, even using several different marbles to achieve a colorful and textural eye appeal.153 The most complicated ones have a separate base, shaft, miniature bust, back pillar, and capital. The separate miniature herm bust fts its shaft perfectly most of the time, but occasionally there are some misfts among the examples from Pompeii.154 This and the ubiquity of the type has suggested to Moss that these little busts were mass-produced in specialized workshops, of differing levels of competency to judge by the more crudely executed examples from Pompeii, and sold either directly to the consumer or to another workshop, perhaps in another town. Moss also notes that none of the miniature herm busts in giallo antico were made in Pompeii.155 The miniature bust has also been found in the household lararium in Pompeii.156 There they assume a protective spirit along with the images of household deities kept within. This may also be the signifcance of these busts when found in niches overlooking a garden, as in the House of Euxinus in Pompeii (I.11.12).157 Not all of these busts have been discovered in domestic settings. A very public place is the façade of the Taberna of the Four Divinities in the Via dell’Abbondanza in Pompeii (IX.7.1), where an obvious religious meaning applies to the bust found in a niche that forms a part of the wall painting depicting a religious procession of Cybele.158 The bust of Hercules from Cosa (DS-MHB 5) was reused in the late antique Shrine of Liber Pater overlooking the forum, where it also took on a religious sense.159 They have been found in baths and theaters as well.160 150

Rückert 1998, 204–6, 207; and Stackelberg 2009, 27, 88.

151

Rückert 1998, 195–96.

152

Moss 1988, 313–15. For a monolithic monopod table support in the form of a herm from Cosa see T-Supp 1.

153

Moss 1988, 28; these he calls “assembled herm tables.” See also Rückert 1998, 181 (separately made parts as a Roman invention), 199. 154 See Moss 1988, 235: “grossly maladapted to the shafts on which they sit.” 155

Moss 1988, 234–37.

156

Rückert 1998, 198. See also the bust found in the

lararium in the portico of the villa rustica in the locality of Villa Regina at Boscoreale; S. De Caro, La villa rustica in località Villa Regina a Boscoreale, Rome: G. Bretschneider, 1994, 85, 217 cat. no. 257, pl. 13ab; Rückert 1998, 225 I16: bearded Silenus. 157

Jashemski 1993, 52–53 with fgs. 61 and 62; PPM 2 (1990) 589 fg. 11.

158 Rückert 1998, 198; PPM 9 (1999) 768–69 and fgs. 1, 6, and 7. 159

Rückert 1998, 196 and n. 119, although I cannot agree that this small bust could have served as a cult image.

160

Rückert 1998, 200.

MINIATURE HERM BUSTS

115

These little busts, single as well as double, have in common their miniature size, which is scaled to ft the size of their settings, whether garden, lararium, or niche, as well as the size of the owner’s pocketbook.161 P. Zanker has shown that the lavishly decorated gardens of the Pompeian houses refect the desire of the wealthy middle-class families to expand their town houses wherever possible to include a garden, however small, embellished with statuettes and small herms—all in an effort to emulate, on a much more limited scale, the expensive life style of upper-class Romans in their country villas, especially after the earthquake of A.D. 62 provided the opportunity for such renovations.162 Many such villas were set in the Campanian countryside, often overlooking the sea or another picturesque vista, and these were sources of inspiration for the ornate new gardens in Pompeii. So it must have been at Cosa in the early Empire after the Augustan reoccupation, when many of the older atrium houses were rebuilt. The House of Diana on the forum is the best example, whose garden was flled with furniture and statuary reminiscent of those in Pompeii.163 This brief introduction provides a glimpse of the multifunctionality of this type of object, to which the abbreviated herm-like form is admirably suited164 despite the fact that only one was found in situ at Cosa, DS-MHB 8.165 This bears a certain signifcance in that all of the examples from Cosa have been found around the forum, where three sides were lined with the atrium houses of the well-to-do families of the town. The House of Diana was rebuilt after the Augustan reoccupation and, according to the excavators, the garden laid out during the reign of Nero.166 It may be the key to where the others were originally placed: in a domestic setting, whether garden or lararium. The miniature herm busts from Cosa ft within the time frame when most were produced.167 Three early examples from dateable contexts come from Cosa. These include a bearded Dionysus (DS-MHB 1) unearthed in an Augustan context.168 Another was found in the remains of a late Augustan or Tiberian wall overlooking the garden of the House of Diana on the forum, DS-MHB 8.169 The third, the tiny bearded Dionysus, DS-MHB 2, was discovered in a context sealed by a wall that collapsed in an earthquake ca. A.D. 51.170 DS-MHB 1 and 2 are carved from giallo antico and represent two of the earliest sculptural uses of that marble originating in modern Tunisia.171 They strongly suggest that the well-to-do families of Cosa in the early Empire were aware of and able to afford the same luxuries as those of Pompeii.

CATALOGUE DS-MHB 1: Head of Bearded Dionysus Augustan 161

Farrar 1998, 103 on the relationship to the size of the garden.

Fig. 136 166

Taylor 2003b, 55.

167

Rückert 1998, 182–83, 207.

168

Rückert 1998, 182.

162

Zanker (above n. 147) 135–203, based on his “Die Villa als Vorbild des späten Pompejanischen Wohngeschmacks,” JdI 94 (1979) 460–523; Rückert 1998, 203–4, 207.

163

Taylor 2003b.

164

On the multiple uses of this form see Dwyer 1982, 26 n. 1.

165 It was discovered in the garden of the House of Diana in the forum. See the catalogue entry for the signifcance of this fndspot.

169

On this wall see the website http://www.press.umich.edu/ script/press/special/cosa/f5_p_iiib, Augustan Modifcations. See also Fentress et al. 2003, 37–38 for a possible dating to A.D. 20–40. This reuse suggests that the miniature herm bust was already in existence by Augustan times. 170

Rückert 1998, 182.

171

Rückert 1998, 186.

116

DOMESTIC SCULPTURE

CF 2167. Found in 1953 in Level III of fll beneath pronaos of Temple B on northwest side near west corner in context of Augustan repair to foundation.172 Giallo antico. Pres. H. 0.14 m. Broken diagonally through neck and beard; hair above proper left side sliced away. Proper left side of forehead and nose scarred; tip of nose and mustache broken away. Chipped, bruised, and worn. Lime flm and some traces of mortar. Collins 1970, 22, 31, 35, 146–50 no. 21, fg. 54; Bonanno 1977, 400 n. 4, 403 n. 26; Rückert 1998, 182, 186, 226 no. I37; Gregarek 1999, 216 no. D36. This small archaistic head is smooth-cut behind, indicating that it would have belonged to a small bust. The hair radiates from the crown in shallowly chiseled waving locks and terminates over the forehead in three superimposed rows of tight snail curls. A thin tubular fllet holds the hair in place. The ears were partially covered by hair, but the head is so battered in these areas that the arrangement is diffcult to discern; perhaps long locks or the ends of the fllet falling to the chest have broken off. The planes of the face are smooth and show very little modeling. The transition from the frontal plane to the sides is abrupt and gives a cubic effect. The sharply rendered lids outline almond-shaped eyes that have wedge-shaped hollows, perhaps to receive colored inserts. Their inner corners are lightly drilled. At the outer corners a chiseled line defnes the roll of fesh beneath the brow. A long mustache frames the sensuous half-opened mouth that is drilled between the lips. The tips of the mustache form small curls winding away from the mouth. The beard consists of short curls each winding toward the center. They are schematically arranged in two rows, as preserved, the upper of which corresponds to the level of the tips of the mustache. The center of each curl is drilled. This head, with its scheme of three rows of archaistic snail curls over the forehead, traces its ancestry to the famous herm of Alkamenes created in the second half of the ffth century B.C. These curls suggest a line of descent from the Ephesus type of full-length herm.173 However, the treatment of the forehead curls and particularly the beard illustrates the sort of alterations introduced during the long history of these herms by artisans and copyists of Hellenistic and Roman times. Here the forehead curls continue to lie close to the head all the way to the ears instead of lengthening as they do in the full-scale copies. In the beard, the locks have been considerably shortened, their arrangement formalized into neat rows, and, most signifcantly, they end in tight curls with drilled centers, giving a lively surface effect. These changes are due to a combination of the freer rendering common in small-scale works and an increasingly decorative archaistic approach in the rendering of the beard that occurs frst in Neo-Attic herms of the late second and frst centuries B.C.174 The Cosa herm, 172

See Cosa Excavation Journal, vol. 1, pp. 176–88. Damage to the foundation may have resulted from a fre during the reign of Augustus; this miniature herm along with some terra sigillata sherds were mixed with earlier Republican material when the pit dug to make the repair was reflled.

173

On the Ephesus and Pergamon types and their relation to Alcamenes’s Hermes Propylaios see D. Willers, Zu den Anfängen der archaistischen Plastik in Griechenland, AM suppl. 4, Berlin: Gebr. Mann, 1975, 33–47; L. Capuis, Alkamenes: Fonti storiche e archeologiche, Florence: L. S. Olschki, 1968, 35–58; D. Willers, “Zum Hermes Propylaios des Alkamenes,” JdI 82 (1967) 78–87, 108–9; and Harrison 1965, 129–34.

174 Some dateable examples of larger-scale herms with a decorative treatment of the beard are the following, both of which have longer locks with curls at the ends: (1) head of Hermes from the House of Hermes on Delos, Delos Museum inv. no. A 4118, dated by an inscription to the early frst century B.C.; see Marcadé 1969, 152–53, 293–97, and pl. XIV; (2) herm from Peiraeus found in 1959 and most likely stored for shipment in the early frst century B.C.; Vanderpool 1960, 265, 267, and pl. 71, fg. 13. See also the discussions of Marcadé 1969, 293–300 concerning the variations in bearded herms, including Alcamenes types, in Delos during the fourth century B.C. and the Hellenistic period and of Harrison 1965, 134.

117

MINIATURE HERM BUSTS

so small and simply rendered, is a free version of ordinary craftsman’s work that emerges from an eclectic, Neo-Attic environment yet that still manages to convey, faintly, the crisp and thick-lidded aspect of the Classical original.175 As in DS-MHB 5 below, the face was executed in a plain yellowish area of the marble.176 The fnding place strongly suggests that this little head may be Augustan. Its style, including the treatment of the eyes, and its type have close parallels with fnds from Pompeii,177 and these points reinforce an Augustan or early Imperial date.

DS-MHB 2: Bust of Bearded Dionysus Attached to Separate Shaft Augustan/Julio-Claudian

Fig. 137

CE 1598a, b. Found in 1952 along with statuette of Pan (DS-St 1) in Room 22 of Atrium Publicum area. This was under the fallen northwest wall of the basilica, which sealed the contents of the room, possibly as a result of an earthquake in A.D. 51; this debris was not removed until the modern excavation. Bust (a): giallo antico. Shaft (b): black slate. Bust (a): H. 0.09, W. underside 0.68, D. underside 0.034 m. Shaft (b): Pres. H. 0.262, W. 0.055 tapering down to 0.044, Th. 0.04 m tapering down to 0.032 m. Bust intact, encrusted with lime, especially on proper left side; root marks, chips. Top of shaft broken off; lime encrusted, especially on proper left side; root marks. Collins 1970, 22, 31, 34, 40, 151–54, no. 22, fg. 55; Bonanno 1977, 400 n. 4, 403 n. 26; Rückert 1998, 182, 186, 226 no. I38; Gregarek 1999, 217 no. D42. This unusually small bust was found attached to its shaft by a fne white cement. Attachment of the bust to the side of the shaft with no support below is equally unusual and suggests a repair.178 The rather straight cut of the sides of the beard also suggests a repair; although some herm busts from Pompeii do have pointed spade-shaped beards, the edges are not so straight and the tip not so sharply pointed.179 The unusual effect of hanging in space against the shaft may be refected in the placement of the four miniature busts found in the small garden beside the open-air triclinium of the House of the Ephebe in Pompeii (I.7.10–12). These were discovered near four white marble shafts that must have supported a latticework fence. The excavator thought that three of the busts were attached to one side of their shafts with some sort of adhesive since a hole for attachment is only on the fourth bust.180 The hair on the top of the head waves outward from a central part, and a tubular fllet holds the forward hair low on the forehead. This hair is combed up, over, and back under the fllet in such a 175

On the Hermes of Alcamenes as a point of departure for later herms, see Willers 1967 (above n. 173) 88. 176 See Moss 1988, 76, where he notes that a minimally or even non-brecciated form of giallo antico was preferred for carving the miniature herm busts from Pompeii. 177 See especially Carrella et al. 2008, 256–57, E 55 for the well-preserved beard.

178

But see Moss 1988, 593–94 A 241 for a table support from Pompeii decorated with a separate herm bust attached to its shaft with no support beneath. I thank C. Moss for pointing this out to me. 179 For some examples see Carrella et al. 2008, 30–31, A 10; 67–68, B 01; 221, E 23. The locks of these beards are styled differently, however. 180

Maiuri 1927, pl. V and p. 61; for the busts see p. 74.

118

DOMESTIC SCULPTURE

way that the ends emerge over the ears in three pendant corkscrew locks. A long twisted lock falls to the chest from below the pendant corkscrews on each side. Over the fllet above the middle of the forehead are two rosette-like clusters of ivy berries, references to the ivy wreath of Dionysus. The short curls of the pointed beard have been formalized into a pattern of superimposed rows, shallowly carved. The uppermost row fanks the mustache with outward-winding curls. The tips of the long mustache also curl outward. Below, smaller curls wind toward the center of the beard. The edges are crudely sliced, exaggerating the pointed spade-like shape. The fesh surfaces of the face are smoothed. The brow bulges over the straight nose, which has a wide bridge and faring nostrils. A chiseled groove separates the closed lips. The eyes are slightly hollowed and the inner corners drilled for coloristic effect. The narrow lids are sharply rendered. Although crudely executed, the long forehead hair looping around a fllet echoes the fashion of Curtius’s Type E,181 where, however, the locks before the ears terminate in a bunch of snail curls.182 The narrow forehead, bulging brows, and long nose also resemble those of Curtius’s Type E. The treatment of the beard is similar to that of DS-MHB 1 (fg. 136), a schematized, archaistic rendering, and differs altogether from the long, wavy arrangement of locks in Curtius’s Type E. The Cosa example is a very free version combining hair and beard types from two different sources—the sort of mixing of types commonly found in small-scale Roman works that refect a late Hellenistic eclecticism.

DS-MHB 3: Eros Augustan/Julio-Claudian

Figs. 138–39

C65.1. Found in 1965 inside eighteenth-century farmhouse beneath limestone fagging of foor, buried in stratum of soil about 0.50 m above Street M, on which farmhouse was placed. According to F. E. Brown the bust was buried by the farmer as a good luck charm, for several coins were found buried along with the bust. Coarse-grained white marble. H. 0.15, L. underside 0.094, W. underside 0.059 m. Intact; chipped; surface earth stained and weathered with a few root marks and lime deposits; blackish stain on curls on his right side. Collins 1970, 22, 25, 26, 35, 165–66, no. 25, fgs. 64–65; Rückert 1998, 226 no. I39. This small bust depicts a young boy or, more probably, Eros or the child Dionysus with a rounded face and pudgy cheeks. His features are softly and indistinctly modeled, his eyes deeply set with indentations at their inner corners for coloristic effect. The nostrils and corners of the mouth are lightly drilled. He smiles a little, causing a slight dimpling in his cheeks, and tilts his head slightly to the left so that his hair falls away from his face on that side. The workmanship is competent, with minimal drill work, and the soft treatment enhances the charm of the child’s face. 181

L. Curtius, Zeus und Hermes, RM suppl. 1, Munich: Bruckmann, 1931, 68, pl. 19, fg. 25, a herm in Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale, inv. no. 6324.

182

See Herm A 1866 from Delos, a Hellenistic variation of the Alcamenes herm that adds hanging corkscrew locks by the temples. It has been dated to the early frst century B.C.; see Marcadé 1969, 153 and pl. XIII. See also Harrison

1965, 137–38. The long, looping forehead hair itself seems to be borrowed from hairstyles originating in heads of Apollo during the early Classical period, returning in vogue with new variations under the infuence of late Hellenistic classicism. On this see the discussion of the many early Classical and classicistic versions in Ridgway 1970, 136–38 and 147–48 with bibliography. See also the comments of Harrison 1965, 137.

MINIATURE HERM BUSTS

119

The hair waves forward from the crown in broad strands separated by chiseled grooves. The strands terminate in large curls framing the face and are held in place by a tubular fllet. Over the forehead on either side of the central part begins a plait of hair that goes under the fllet and continues back along the top of the head.183 A Bacchic mitra or mitra-like headband appears in very low relief straight across the top of the forehead and disappears among the curls; its ends fall onto his chest.184 The mitra and the fllet encourage an identifcation as Eros or the child Dionysus rather than simply a young boy or putto.185 The underside, back, and sides corresponding to the shoulders are smooth-cut. The fndspot does very little to indicate the original location of this piece. Although suitable for private use and excavated in the midst of private houses, this little bust may not necessarily have been found in the immediate vicinity by the eighteenth-century farmer. The weathered condition of the top of the head suggests that it had been displayed outside in a garden, perhaps set atop a column,186 rather than as a part of a table support. The mitra lends to the bust a Bacchic spirit appropriate to a garden setting.

DS-MHB 4: Headless Bust of Helmeted Warrior Augustan/Julio-Claudian

Fig. 140

CD 205. Found in forum in 1951 outside northwestern wall of basilica near surface. Fine-grained white to grayish marble. H. 0.05, L. underside 0.091, W. underside 0.055 m. Head missing, broken off through lower neck. Edges chipped and battered; original surface of front weathered away to expose grains of marble. Earth stained, root marks, lime flm especially on underside. Collins 1970, 32, 34, 173–75, no. 28, fg. 69; Bonanno 1977, 401 n. 13; Rückert 1998, 226 no. I42. This tiny fragment preserves only the chest of a fgure wearing a cuirass of scale armor that consists of overlapping, bifurcated plates arranged in fsh-scale fashion, resembling an aegis.187 The cuirass 183 On this plait see R. Stuveras, Le putto dans l’art romain, Brussels: Latomus, 1969, 171–72; see also D. B. Thompson, “A Dove for Dione,” Hesperia, suppl. 20, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982, 156–57. It appears often on heads of young boys, as, for example, on a marble statuette from the House of the Vettii in Pompeii (VI.15.1); see Jashemski 1993, 155, fg. 172. It also appears on many images of Eros, among which the copies of the Eros of Thespiae by Lysippus stand out; see Moreno 1995, 111–29 no. 4.15. 184

On the mitra see H. Brandenburg, Studien zur Mitra: Beiträge zur Waffen und Trachtgeschichte der Antike, Münster: Axchendorff, 1966, esp. 133–48 on the mitra as a ribbon or headband worn by Dionysus. It rests over the forehead, often drooping, passes to the back of the head, where it is knotted, the ends either falling down the back or drawn forward to fall upon the chest. By Hellenistic and Roman times it had become a permanent attribute of Dionysus. A similar fat band may be seen on heads of the young Dionysus; see especially that on a triple-faced herm in the Manisa Museum:

Giumlia (above n. 145) 111, cat. no. 136, fg. 12, where it is considered an unusual form of mitra. 185

For Eros in a Bacchic context see LIMC 3 (1986) s.v. Eros, pp. 922–24 nos. 851–905 (A. Hermary, H. Cassimatis, and R. Vollkomer); for Eros wearing Bacchic attributes see DarSag, s.v. Cupido, 1604–1606 (M. Collingnon) and Waser, RE, s.v. Eros, col. 508. Putti also appear in Bacchic contexts, especially the thiasos, and may resemble the child Dionysus; see Stuveras (above n. 183) 21–24. They are not known to wear the mitra, however.

186

Two busts of similar type in the form of double herms rest on decorative columns in the garden of the House of the Vettii in Pompeii (VI.15.1.27); see PPM 5 (1994) 516 fg. 84, 520–21 fgs. 91–92.

187

On the aegis-like appearance of the cuirass see the comments of Budde and Nicholls 1964, 55 no. 88, pl. 30, who call attention to the resemblance to Greek scale armor.

120

DOMESTIC SCULPTURE

has a rolled edge around the neck. Falling forward over the shoulders are the ends of a diadem, whose tips are battered away. Many examples of this type exist, most with the head of a beardless helmeted warrior.188 The lack of any trace of a beard on the Cosa bust indicates that it was also beardless. On those that preserve their heads, the fgure wears the royal Macedonian helmet decorated with a plume and the ram’s horns of Zeus Ammon. Cheekpieces tie under the chin, and faps in the form of rams’ heads cover the ears. The ends of a diadem hang from behind the ears on either side of the neck and rest on the chest; these appear on the Cosa bust. The back and sides of the shoulders are smooth-cut; the underside is lightly picked for attachment to some other object, perhaps a monopod table support.

DS-MHB 5: Bearded Hercules Augustan

Figs. 141–42

C68.32. Found in Shrine of Liber Pater at southeast end of forum, reused in fourth-century A.D. context. Giallo antico, discolored pink and white from exposure to heat, as in a fre.189 Pres. H. 0.192, H. of head from chin to crown 0.138 m. Base and tips of fllet, most of proper right half of beard, most of lower lip, and tip of nose broken away. Other minor chips; proper right eyebrow and lids scarred. Surface dull, slightly lime encrusted; a few root marks. Collins 1970, 33, 35, 42, 167–70 no. 26, fgs. 66–67; Bonanno 1977, 410 with n. 55; Collins-Clinton 1977, 14, 17, 24–25, 53–54 cat. no. 5, fg. 26; Wrede 1985, 69; LIMC 4 (1988) 785 no. 1195 (Herms, aged Herakles) (O. Palagia); Moss 1988, 575–76, 623; Rückert 1998, 196, 205, 226 no. I40; Gregarek 1999, 149–50, 252 no. E47; Carrella et al. 2008, noted on p. 29 at no. A 09 and on p. 230 at no. E 43. This small head is broken from a bust whose back and preserved lower right side are smooth-cut. It shows a square bearded face whose features are characterized by prominent brows and cheekbones, with a forehead marked by two creases. The eyes with their narrow lids are set deeply under the brow and are hollowed. On the forehead two bulges fare outward from the bridge of the nose, which is short and broad with faring nostrils. The mouth is small with a full lower lip. The modeling of the face is soft and shows further wrinkling across the nose, crows’ feet at the eyes, and sagging cheeks. The face is clearly that of Hercules, worn out and weary after his labors yet calm. He has a short, full beard, better preserved on his left side, where the locks form elongated reversed S-curves terminating in a curl. His full moustache closely frames his mouth and merges 188 This type has been reexamined by Rückert 1998, 191, 195–96 and interpreted as representing the young Dionysus as a warrior and peace bringer in the guise of Alexander the Great. Rückert gives 35 examples, to which can be added another from Spain: M. P. Muñoz, “Las esculturas romanas de Sexi (Almuñécar, Granada),” in Le due patrie acquisite: Le due patrie acquisite: Studi di archaeologia dedicate a Walter Trillmich, Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 2008, 362–64, fg. 7. For further references see Carrella et al. 2008, 237–38 no. E56, a bust in the Museo Archeologico Nazionale of

Naples and K. Fittschen and J. Bergemann, eds., Katalog der Skulpturen der Sammlung Wallmoden, Göttinger Studien zur Mediterranen Archäologie 6, Göttingen: Biering & Brinkmann, 2015, 87–89 no. 22, pl. 62. 189

Originally considered a type of pavonazzetto (Collins 1970 and Collins-Clinton 1977 cited above). For the cause of the discoloration see the Corsi Collection of Decorative Stones, s.v. Giallo antico; http://www.oum.ox.ac.uk/corsi/stones/ view/29 (accessed 1 May 2013).

MINIATURE HERM BUSTS

121

with the beard. Presumably the locks of beard and moustache are repeated symmetrically on the other side of his face. His hair is very short and consists of tight, crescent-shaped locks. Encircling his head is a thick, twisted fllet,190 its ends falling onto the chest from behind the ears. Into this are stuck three grape leaves, one in the center and one drooping over each ear. The twisted fllet and grape leaves add both a celebratory and Bacchic feeling to this image: Hercules perhaps already accepted into Olympus and ready to enjoy the feasting. The treatment of the beard, hair, and especially the face yields a recognizable image of the older Hercules, an image that echos Lysippean prototypes of the late fourth century B.C. but without the expressiveness so prominent in the surviving copies.191 A fllet decorated with grape leaves sometimes appears on Roman copies of these heads, particularly that of Herakles Epitrapezios, to whom the Bacchic reference is well suited, so that its presence on the Cosa head and others like it is not unusual.192 Miniature busts representing the older, bearded Hercules are fairly common and fall into two versions. More frequent are those closer to the originals: expressive faces reliant for visual effect on a plastic treatment of the face, on contrasts of light and dark and on different textures.193 The second version is less expressive and more classicizing, especially in the treatment of the eyes; these heads tend to be more refned in execution. The Cosa herm belongs to this version.194 This suggests that both go back to a Neo-Attic reworking of the Lysippean images.195 But more can be said. All these herms, however crudely made, show a similar style of beard: thick, curly locks—some more regularized or stylized than others—and a clearly defned central separation below the mouth, dividing the beard into two halves, mirroring each other. This characteristic may also be seen in the beard of the colossal seated Hercules from Alba Fucens, whose head shows other affnities to the herms,196 one of which was found in Rome.197 The colossal statue is now considered a product of an Attic workshop active in Rome in the

190

This may be the struppus, a twisted headband worn at festivals or ceremonies. For Hercules wearing this see RE s.v. Haartracht und Haarschmuck, col. 2134 (Bremer) and Roscher, I, 2, s.v. Herakles, cols. 2178–79 (A. Furtwängler). See also C. Vorster, Römische Skulpturen des späten Hellenismus und der Kaiserzeit 1: Werke nach Vorlagen und Bildformen des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., Vatikanische Museen, Museo Gregoriano Profano ex Lateranense, Katalog der Skulpturen, vol. 2, 1, Mainz: Zabern, 1993, 40 no. 11.

191

This head may be related in a general way to those of the Herakles Epitrapezios, the Farnese Herakles, a colossal Herakles made for Tarentum, and that from Alba Fucens. On the Herakles Epitrapezios see now E. Bartman, Ancient Sculptural Copies in Miniature, Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 19, Leiden: Brill, 1992, 147–86, where the colossal Hercules from Alba Fucens is also discussed. For the Tarantine Herakles see Moreno 1995, 281–88. The Cosa head, however, looks neither upward nor downward but straight ahead, as beftting its use as part of a small herm. On small decorative herms of Hercules that preserve the general features of the larger-scale Lysippean prototypes, see G. A. Mansuelli, Galleria degli Uffzi, Rome: Istituto Poligrafco dello Stato, 1958, 1:194, no. 184. See also Bartman (above) 9–15. 192

On Hercules wearing a vine wreath see E. T. Wakeley and

B. S. Ridgway, “Head of Herakles in the Philadelphia University Museum,” AJA 69 (1965) 158–59, where the wreath of vine leaves is considered appropriate for the symposium. 193 See Carrella et al. 2008, 29 no. A 05 and pp. 229–30 nos. E 40–E 42 with references to others to which can be added two in Berlin: Königliche Museen, Beschreibung der antiken Skulpturen, Berlin: W. Spemann, 1891, 82, nos. 191, 192. 194 A miniature herm in the Museo Archeologico Nazionale of Naples has a similar look, especially in the treatment of beard and moustache; see Carrella et al. 2008, 230 no. E 43, inv. 6469; pavonazzetto, from Pompeii. A bust, whose head is carved fully in the round, has a similer serious look though the beard is somewhat different; see B. Ashmole, A Catalogue of the Ancient Marbles at Ince Blundell Hall, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1929, 45 no. 97, pl. 14. The wreath is quite thick with grape leaves. 195

On this idea see Mansuelli (above n. 191) 1:194, no. 184.

196 A. Latini, “Il colosso di Alba Fucens e l’Eracle Epitrapezio di Lisippo,” RdA 19 (1995) 69–70; Latini has presented a careful analysis of the stylistic background of this beard on p. 69. 197

Latini (as above) 70.

122

DOMESTIC SCULPTURE

frst century B.C.198 This reinforces the attribution of the earliest of the herms of this type to an Attic workshop in Rome. The workmanship relying on the chisel rather than the drill and the avoidance of coloristic contrasts and expressiveness in the overall treatment give the head a classicizing aspect. The quality is high for this type of piece. Noteworthy is the way in which the sculptor planned the composition so as to utilize an area of the marble solid in color for the face; originally this would have been yellowish, a tone appropriate for a male face.199 The bust may date early in the frst century A.D. or earlier.

DS-MHB 6: Fragment of Bearded Silenus First century A.D.

Fig. 143

CE 1545. Found in 1952 in Room 24 of Atrium Publicum area, Level III. Giallo antico. Pres. H. 0.098 m. Preserved are only beard, mouth, and proper right cheek. Sheared from face behind beard. Surface bruised and dull. Lime flm, root marks, traces of mortar. Collins 1970, 171–72, no. 27, fg. 68; Bonanno 1977, 400 n. 5, 401 n. 16; Rückert 1998, 226 no. I41. This fragment of a bearded face has the plump cheek and the wide sensuous mouth of Silenus. His feshy lips are parted in a smile. The preserved side of his thick moustache forms a small corkscrew by the corner of the mouth. The beard falls in seven thick, spiraling locks, whose tips end with a small curl winding in opposite directions from each other. The features preserved here fnd close parallels in other representations of Silenus, of which many in the form of herms or herm busts have come from Pompeii. The best known is the Silenus half of a small double herm bust surmounting a decorative column in the peristyle garden of the House of the Vettii (VI.15.1).200 These heads repeat the salient features of a statuette of Papposilenus in the Palazzo Massimo alle Terme in Rome.201 In the Cosa piece the windings of the corkscrews and the separation of the locks from each other are crudely rendered with the running drill.202 Such heavy reliance upon the running drill for textural effect may well be a technique used in a particular workshop, to judge from the less refned decorative herms from Pompeii. The fndspot suggests a Julio-Claudian date.203

198

Latini (as above) 69.

199

See above n. 176.

200

Rediscovering Pompeii, Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 1990, 260–61 no. 181. Three others may be cited: (1) a bust from Pompeii, De Nuccio and Ungaro 2002, 385 no. 87: Pompeii Deposito inv. no. 743 (M. Mastroroberto); (2) a double herm from Pompeii (VI.13.49), now in the Museo Archeologico Nazionale of Naples, inv. 110002 (Carrella et al. 2008, 88–89); and (3) a bust in Providence, RI (R. Winkes, Love for Antiquity: Selections from the Joukowsky Collection,

Louvain-la-Neuve: Institut supérieur d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’art, Collège Erasme, 1985, 86 no. 66. 201

La Regina 1998, 115, and MusNazRom 1, 8, 1 (1985) 377–78 (E. Fileri).

202 The bust cited in n. 201 above exhibits a beard whose treatment is very close to that of the Cosa example, though its use of the drill is not so heavy-handed. 203

Moevs 1973, 30–31.

MINIATURE HERM BUSTS

DS-MHB 7: Headless Bust First century A.D.

123

Fig. 144

C70.39. Found in 1970 in the center of the forum on the surface (SATR). Fine-grained white marble. H. 0.088, Pres. W. 0.113, D. 0.089, Diam. of neck 0.067 m. Head broken off diagonally through neck. Both sides battered so that most of fllet on proper right shoulder gone. Worn, chipped; marble granular and splitting. On back an area of tiny lichen pits; earth stained; root marks; traces of mortar. Unpublished. Onto the bare chest fall the ends of a broad fllet, folding over upon itself.204 There are no traces of long hair or a beard. The back and sides are fat. A pronounced drill-channel separates each side of the neck from the fllet. The back and underside are picked and worked smooth, most likely for attachment to a table support.

DS-MHB 8: Headless Bust Augustan

Fig. 145

C9673. Found in 1996 in the House of Diana along with round altar (A 2) in the collapse of the post-Augustan wall that had closed off Room K when the wall fell into the garden near the aedicula after the house fell into disuse, SU 275. Fine-grained white marble. H. 0.12, W. 0.18, D. 0.9 m. Taylor 2003a, 204–5, no. 18, pl. 95. See Taylor (above) for condition and description; encrusted with lime on right side of bust; root marks. This bust is almost identical to DS-MHB 7; though headless, it is much better preserved, a result of having been buried undisturbed in the debris of the wall in which it had been built. The fllet appears to fold onto itself about halfway down the bare chest, and the rounded ends with a short tassel fip up; the folded edge of that on the right is chipped.205 The fat back exhibits eight shallow blows of a claw chisel, suggesting that the back of the head was also fat, and the smooth treatment of the surfaces of the back and underside may indicate that this bust was not intended to be attached to a table support in the form of a herm.206 The relatively smooth treatment compares nicely with that of DS-MHB 3 (Eros) and DS-MHB 5 (Hercules) and contrasts with that of DS-MHB 4 and 7. Sometime soon after the Augustan reconstruction of the House of Diana the bust was built into a wall closing off the triclinium from the garden over which it had looked.207 This provides an Augustan date for execution of the bust. 204

A very similar headless bust was found in the House of Diana; see below DS-MHB 8 and R. Taylor 2003a, 204 no. 18, pl. 95.

205 In addition to the parallel cited by Taylor 2003a, 204 n. 515, see others in Carrella et al. 2008, passim.

206

As suggested by Taylor 2003a, 204.

207 Fentress et al. 2003, 37, 39 fg. 18. See further http:// www.press.umich.edu/script/press/special/cosa/f5_p_iiib. html (accessed 16 August 2016).

124

DOMESTIC SCULPTURE

Oscilla INTRODUCTION Oscilla, small and usually marble decorative objects of Roman origin, were designed to hang from the architrave between two columns of a colonnade, usually that of the peristyle garden of a Roman house or villa. They take several forms: a theatrical mask, a tondo, a rectangular plaque resembling a pinax, a pelta, a shield (clipeus), and a syrinx. Except for the masks, they are carved with a composition in low relief on both sides, so that they could be appreciated from either the garden or the portico. At the top would be a hook or loop for suspension by means of a cord or chain.208 They have been found in situ in Pompeii and Herculaneum, where the best known are those in the peristyle garden of the House of the Golden Cupids (Pompeii VI.16.7, 38). Photographs of 1904 show the house restored with a replanted garden, the garden statuary, and the oscilla hanging between the columns of the portico at one end, supporting a festive garland that encircles the garden.209 The chronological range extends from the frst century B.C. to the third century A.D., though most are early Imperial.210 Those from Pompeii and Herculaneum are thought to date between the destructive earthquake of A.D. 62 and the eruption of Vesuvius in A.D. 79.211 Very few outside the Vesuvian area have been found in dateable contexts. The excavations at Cosa have brought to light two intact, though broken, and three fragments of oscilla. The intact ones and one fragment are respectively a mask of Papposilenus (DS-Osc 1), a rectangular oscillum or pinax (DS-Osc 4), and a piece of another pinax (DS-Osc 5), all from the garden of the House of Diana. Two fragments of circular oscilla or tondi (DS-Osc 2–3) were discovered around the periphery of the forum near the surface, so it is not possible to ascertain their original location. The dating of the three oscilla from the House of Diana depends on the construction history of the house. When it was rebuilt during the Augustan reoccupation of the town, a portico at the rear of the house was added overlooking the garden; it stretched across behind the tablinum and adjacent triclinium with two unequally spaced columns supporting its architrave.212 This created three intercolumniations, just right for the three oscilla. Later, ca. A.D. 20–40, the longest of the three intercolumniations and part of its neighbor were walled in so as to enclose the triclinium, leaving open two unequal intercolumniations.213 In Claudian times it seems that a pluteus, or low wall, was built across the narrower intercolumniation and part of the second to create a narrow passage to the garden from the remnant of the portico.214 If this were indeed a pluteus, as its masonry suggests, and not a wall per se, there would still be two open spaces above for two of the three oscilla. R. Taylor’s remark that the one-sided mask of Papposilenus would have been just as effective against a wall as hanging free allows the two double-sided rectangular oscilla to have hung above the pluteus and in the doorway.215 This evidence provides a basis for considering an Augustan date for all three oscilla. 208 On oscilla see most recently the exhaustive study of Bacchetta 2006, where he discusses earlier studies in some detail, pp. 15–26. See also A. Bacchetta, “Oscilla e ‘ornamenti sospesi.’ La testimonianza delle fonti iconografche,” in F. Slavazzi, ed., Arredi di lusso de età romana. Da Roma alla Cisalpina, Florence: All’Insegna del Giglio, 2005, 55–118.

211

Bacchetta 2006, 65–66.

212

Fentress et al. 2003, 34 and fg. 15; also Taylor 2003b, 54.

213

Fentress et al. 2003, 37 and fg. 18.

214

Fentress et al. 2003, 39–40 and fgs. 19 and 20.

215

Taylor 2003b, 54.

209

See especially Seiler 1992, pls. 205–8 for the views, 594–96, 597–609 for the oscilla.

210

On the chronology see Bacchetta 2006, 62–76.

OSCILLA

125

Taylor was reluctant to consider such an early date for these three. He followed the observations of E. Dwyer, who considered that the oscilla from Pompeii did not become popular until the time of the Fourth Style of Pompeian wall painting, or not until after the earthquake of A.D. 62 to judge by the new or restored peristyle gardens where most have been found.216 Dwyer’s dating has recently been adjusted by Bacchetta, who has gathered evidence for an earlier appearance of these decorations, many of which are Augustan.217 Thus, if the remodeling of the rear of the House of Diana gives an accurate indication, these three oscilla from Cosa increase the number of Augustan examples in the archaeological record. The mask of the old Silenus, two pinakes with theatrical masks, one tondo with a satyr on one side and grapes on the other: this imagery alludes to the followers of Dionysus and to the god himself, god of the theater as well as god of the vine and the wine made from it.218 The latter allusion, especially, refers to Dionysus as a force of nature who introduced the vine, its propagation, and its product to the Greeks and who ensured a life of good fortune and happiness to his adherents.219 Bacchic imagery was a popular theme among the sculptures found in Roman gardens including oscilla; the garden was itself a symbol of the abundance of nature and the joys conveyed by both it and the allusions to the Bacchic thiasus.220 On the other side of the coin, so to speak, is the darker, destructive side of nature, for the reverse side of DS-Osc 4 shows a lion attacking a deer. The meaning is obvious, as the deer screams in horror at the pouncing beast. The scene shows the deer already down, its forequarters climbing up the frame so the animals are head-to-head. The subject, clearly a hunt, 221 may refer to the quarry as one of the animals sacrifced to Dionysus, who himself often wears the nebris or fawnskin.222 In sum, the Bacchic imagery of the oscilla from Cosa is in keeping with the iconography of oscilla overall: a celebration of nature and of Bacchus. In the catalogue below the oscilla are arranged in the order in which Bacchetta organized them, preceded by the mask of Papposilenus. 216

Dwyer 1981, 256–57.

217 Bacchetta 2006, 67–71 (end of the frst century B.C. to the middle of the frst century A.D.), though he acknowledged the later date for the material from Pompeii and Herculaneum (65–66). Perhaps excavated too late for Dwyer to take into consideration are the Third Style wall paintings from the diaeta of the House of the Golden Bracelet (VI.Insula occid.42) depicting a garden with herms supporting pinakes and oscilla suspended from above; good illustrations are in Jashemski 1993, 348–56. 218

K. von Stackelberg provides an explanation for how theatrical masks could have come to be so popular in garden decoration; Stackelberg 2009, 23, 82–83: the connection between the theater and gardens came about when the porticus behind the theater of Pompey, which had been planted as a garden, became a public garden in 54 B.C. and was later linked by Vitruvius (5.6.9, 5.9.5). 219 On the Bacchic theme often found in Roman gardens and garden sculpture see Grimal 1969; Stackelberg 2009; Farrar 1998; and Dwyer 1982, 123, 126. Bacchetta 2006, 175–213, 387–99 and Rückert 1998, 201–206 discuss the iconography of oscilla and miniature herm busts within the setting and meaning of the garden.

220

In this introduction the focus is the oscilla from Cosa, not the garden/s in which they were, or could have been, placed. Only DS-Osc 1, 4–5 were found in a garden in which, however, the garden sculpture was not overtly Bacchic in subject matter.

221 Cf. a dog chasing a deer on a pelta in the Staatliche Museen in Berlin, Bacchetta 2006, 236, 550 no. P 114. 222

The composition anticipates that shown on the curved ends of Roman sarcophagi of later date. On these see most recently S. Walker, Catalogue of Roman Sarcophagi in the British Museum, Corpus signorum imperii Romani, vol. 2, fasc. 2, London: British Museum Publications, 1990, 36 with bibliography, especially C. R. Chiarlo, “Sul signifcato dei sarcophagi a ληνοσ decorate con leoni,” AnnPisa 3, 4, 4 (1974) 1307–45. The scene has been interpreted as a reference to the venatio, or wild beast hunt, a form of entertainment known to the Romans since the second century B.C. The representation on the Cosa pinax could then have a double meaning, or point of reference: a hunt for the sacrifcial animal of Dionysus as well as the venatio, although the details indicative of the venatio, the harness worn by the lion and the lion’s trainer as seen on the sarcophagi, are not shown.

126

DOMESTIC SCULPTURE

CATALOGUE DS-Osc 1: Mask of Papposilenus Augustan

Fig. 146

C9613. Found in 1996 in the House of Diana inside aedicula along with other decorative material from garden, SU 227. Fine-grained white marble. H. 0.22, W. 0.14, Th. 0.07 m. Broken in three pieces and chipped along breaks, otherwise intact; lime flm; earth stained. Taylor 2003a, 205 no. 19, pl. 96. See Taylor (above) for a description and discussion with bibliography. On his head Papposilenus wears a twisted fllet. The top of the head does not appear to be bald, though the treatment is not clear. A groove delineates the fllet on each side. Curved locks of the hair on the side of his head are drawn away from the temples. The ends of the moustache and locks of the beard terminate in large, fuffy snail curls. The facial features are expressive and plastically rendered. The closely knit brows and large, staring eyes deeply drilled at their inner corners give a fearsome look.223 Dividing the top of the head is a low band that runs from front to back. In the center of this is the hole for securing the loop for suspension. A bit of iron remains there. The back of the head is concave and roughly picked.

DS-Osc 2: Tondo Augustan–Julio-Claudian

Figs. 147–48

CD 1001. Found in 1951 just outside north corner of basilica in an upper, disturbed level. Fine-grained white marble. Diam. 0.40, Th. of edge 0.031, W. of border 0.014–0.018 m. Chipped and discolored from rust; black stains on outer edge; weathered. Pieces of border chipped away from both sides. Some lime flm and traces of mortar. Collins 1970, 32, 35, 41, 177–78 no. 29, fgs. 70–71. This is a piece of a circular oscillum, the most common form, with decoration in low relief and a border consisting of a plain, fat fascia on both sides. On the main side a male fgure runs or dances toward the right, for the paw of a panther skin fies out behind him (fg. 147). His torso turns almost to face the front, while his upper right leg is in profle. The break appears to correspond to the outline of the fgure’s shoulder and upper arm, which crossed the body almost horizontally as though raising something before him, such as a double fute.224 There is no sign of a tail. On the reverse a vine stalk with two bunches of grapes hangs down from the edge of the border (fg. 148). The fgure, insofar as can be determined, may be a satyr playing his instrument as part of the Bacchic thiasos. As such the subject is in keeping with the Bacchic theme found on these reliefs, 223

The apotropaic nature of masks of Silenus is noted by Bacchetta 2006, 37 n. 37.

224 As, for example, on side A of a tondo from Ostia, Bacchetta 2006, 437 no. T 90, pl. 13, 3.

127

OSCILLA

where satyrs dancing, playing a musical instrument, or preparing for a sacrifce are common. Although the single vine stalk on the reverse gives no hint of the composition on that side,225 the reference is also Bacchic. The fndspot in such close proximity to the Neronian odeum built in the basilica suggests that it may have originally been associated with it, especially since oscilla are sometimes found in or near theaters.226 If so, a Neronian date is likely. The workmanship is hasty, the relief very low and not well articulated. The width of the border is not uniform and, although the relief is smoothed on the principal side, the marks of the chisel were never entirely removed from the reverse. Given the quality of the workmanship the oscillum may have been made locally, perhaps in a workshop in Luna.227

DS-Osc 3: Tondo, Fragment Augustan–Julio-Claudian

Fig. 149

C68.145. Found in 1968 behind the Shrine of Liber Pater at the southeast end of the forum near the surface. Fine-grained grayish white marble. Diam. 0.42, Th. edge 0.043, W. of border 0.015 m. Chipped and battered. Outside edge weathered. Collins 1970, 20, 35, 179 no. 30, fgs. 72–73. This is a very small fragment of an oscillum with a curved edge, either a tondo or, less likely, a piece of the curved edge of an oscillum in the form of a pelta. It has a plain, fat border and an unidentifable bit of low relief on one side. It cannot belong to DS-Osc 2 since it is larger and the edge is thicker. As nothing belonging to the Shrine of Liber Pater was found behind it, the oscillum most likely was not associated with it.

DS-Osc 4: Pinax Augustan

Figs. 150–51

C9662, C9663. Found in 1996 in the House of Diana, C9662 in debris of collapsed rear wall of garden, SU 242; C9663 inside aedicula along with other decorative material from garden, SU 227. Fine-grained white marble. As assembled: H. 0.17, W. 0.22, Th. 0.025 m. Broken in four joining pieces; damaged hindquarters of lion on reverse restored. Taylor 2003a, 205–7 nos. 20–21, pls. 97–98. 225

It is possible that the grapes may represent an offering at a rustic outdoor altar. See an example from the House of the Black Wall in Pompeii (VII.4.59), now in the National Archaeological Museum in Naples, inv. no. 6643: Bacchetta 2006, 444–45 no. T 107, pl. 16, 5 left.

226

Bacchetta has discussed these at length; Bacchetta 2006,

357–75; some 65 oscilla have been found in the theater at Verona (365) and are thought to have hung in the arches of the summa cavea (373). 227

Bacchetta 2006, 136.

128

DOMESTIC SCULPTURE

See Taylor (above) for complete description and discussion. On the front is a mask of Papposilenus facing right (fg. 150); on the back a lion attacks a deer (fg. 151). Some observations may be added here. Animals are frequently represented on the reverse of rectangular pinakes, and the animal springing toward the right on the reverse of this one must be a lion to judge from its mane and the plume at the end of its tail.228 It has caught up with a deer that lies on the ground under the lion’s raised forelegs with its neck and head pointing awkwardly upwards against the frame of the pinax. A cloven-hoofed foreleg is bent beneath its body, and its mouth is open as the lion appears to claw at its neck. It is indeed a scene of the wildness of nature.

DS-Osc 5: Pinax, Fragment Augustan

Figs. 152–53

C9688. Found in 1996 in the House of Diana, in debris of collapsed rear wall of garden near niche, SU 285. Fine-grained white marble. H. 0.11, W. 0.105, Th. 0.025 m. Taylor 2003a, 207–8, pls. 99–100. See Taylor (above) for complete description and discussion. On the front side a tragic mask facing right occupies the lower right corner; in the lower left corner of the back is the hindquarters of an animal leaping to the right.

Other Decorative Pieces DS-Other 1: Fragments of Decorative Krater Rim Augustan?

Figs. 154–55

CE 798ab, CE 1474. Found in 1952 above the rubble of the fallen northwest wall of the basilica, CE 798ab above Room 16 and CE 1474 above Room 22 of the Atrium Publicum. Medium-grained white marble, perhaps Pentelic. Outer Diam. 0.36 m. Broken, chipped; encrusted with lime and root marks. Unpublished. These three fragments, two of which join, belong to the gracefully out-curved rim of a small ornamental calyx krater. The outer edge is decorated with an egg and dart motive surmounted by oval beads. The workmanship is delicate. The form with its decorative rim is that of the well-known Borghese Krater found in Rome in the Gardens of Sallust and now in the Louvre,229 and two of the kraters from the Mahdia shipwreck 228

For animals on the reverse of rectangular oscilla see Bacchetta 2006, 231; see also p. 237 for the lion, which is not common on oscilla.

229

D. Grassinger, Römische Marmorkratere, Monumenta Artis Romanae 18, Mainz am Rhein: Zabern, 1991, 144–51, and on the Borghese Krater, pp. 181–83, no. 23 and fg. 1,

OTHER DECORATIVE PIECES

129

now in the Bardo Museum in Tunis.230 The ship is thought to have originated in Athens and to have sunk ca. 100 B.C.; the kraters have been considered products of Neo-Attic workshops active 130/120 B.C. although most, such as the Borghese Krater, were made during the reign of Augustus.231

DS-Other 2: Miniature Feline Leg Julio-Claudian

Fig. 156

C9670. Found in Room H of the House of Diana in collapse of pisé walls disturbed by agricultural activity, SU 75; see website http://www.press.umich.edu/script/press/special/cosa/ f5_p_vii.html (Forum V, Phase VII). Fine- to medium-grained white marble. H. 0.10 m. Heavily encrusted with lime on proper left side; root marks, earth stained; tip of proper left toe and most of proper right toe broken away. Taylor 2003a, 211–12 no. 28, pl. 104. This tiny feline leg is modeled on those used as bench supports.232 It is very low and squat in its proportions. Its fank is broad, its heel and ankle pronounced. The “knee” projects forward as far as the foremost toes, just as in bench supports. The toes are separated by narrow, drilled grooves, and a drilled hole articulates the roots of each toe. Both upper and lower surfaces are smooth-cut, and both exhibit slight anathyrosis, which is more distinct on the upper surface where the center is lightly picked. As Taylor has noted, this leg seems never to have been attached to another piece.

DS-Other 3: Fragment of Relief with Torso of Old Man, Silenus? Julio-Claudian

Fig. 157

CC 882. Found in the southwest aisle of the basilica on the surface in an area of late antique shops. Fine-grained white marble. Max. Pres. H. 0.095, Max. Pres. W. 0.104, Max. Th. 0.063, Th. of plate varies from 0.029 to 0.045 m. Broken on all sides. Surface worn and weathered; earth stained. Head of fgure broken away through base of neck; lower body through hips. Right arm broken away, left below elbow. Collins 1970, 35, 41, 216–17 no. 41, fg. 89.

Paris, Louvre, inv. MA 86, dated 40–30 B.C. See also K. J. Hartswick, The Gardens of Sallust: A Changing Landscape, Austin: University of Texas Press, 2004, 110–11. 230

Inv. C 1202 (B1) and C 1203 (B2); D. Grassinger, “Die Marmorkratere,” in Hellenkemper Salies 1994, 1:259–83, esp. 259, 271, 275–76.

231 232

Grassinger (as above) 259, 271.

A good example of late Hellenistic date comes from the House of Hermes on Delos; see most recently Andrianou, The Furniture and Furnishings of Ancient Greek Houses and Tombs, London: Cambridge University Press, 2009, 25, fg. 3 with bibliography. Its height is 0.40 m.

130

DOMESTIC SCULPTURE

This tiny fragment of a relief shows only the torso of an old man with traces of a beard on his chest and a slight paunch, probably Silenus. A twisted armlet encircles his upper left arm. His shoulders appear to twist forward, for his abdomen points obliquely to the right. His left arm is lowered, his right raised. If the identifcation of Silenus is correct, the piece may have belonged to a frieze or panel depicting a Bacchic scene or procession, a subject appropriate for a fndspot within the odeum built inside the ruined basilica. The modeling is competent, particularly that of the feshy abdomen. The forms are rounded and carefully articulated; against the background the contours are undercut. There are no traces of the drill. The back of the relief is smooth-cut, though worn. The fne chisel-work indicates a date rather early in the frst century A.D.

DS-Other 4: Round Plinth Late Republican, second century B.C.

Fig. 158

CF 1097. Found in 1953 in Room 25 of Atrium Building I, Level II. Coarse, creamy travertine. Diam. 0.26, H. 0.04 m. Cracked, chipped, lime encrusted. Unpublished. This is a plain round plinth with a raised circular center sloping up from a fat rim. The surface of the raised center was left rough. The low level where the piece was found corresponds to that of the plinths of colored marble found in Room 22 of the Atrium Publicum.

DS-Other 5: Round Plinth Early Imperial

Fig. 159

Not inventoried. Found near the House of the Skeleton in a trench dug for a waterline along the north side of the museum on or near the surface. Light gray marble, bardiglio. Diam. 0.164, H. 0.024, W. across octagon 0.115 m. Each side of octagon varies a few mm on either side of 0.05 m. In the edge a large chip; two much smaller, recent ones reveal the color of the marble. Earth stained. Unpublished. The edge of this round plinth is slightly concave; the octagonal upper surface presents a slight anathyrosis, with a smooth outer edge within which the surface is roughened with a small pick smoothed over. In the center is a turning hole. The underside is smooth.

OTHER DECORATIVE PIECES

DS-Other 6: Round Plinth Early Imperial

131

Fig. 160

CE 1624. Found in 1952 along with the statue of Pan (DS-St 2) and DS-Other 7–9 below, in Room 22 of the Atrium Publicum, Level II, sealed by fall of northwest wall of basilica ca. A.D. 51. Giallo antico. Diam. 0.257, H. 0.039 m. Worn, chipped; root marks, lime encrustations, rust stains. Unpublished. This intact disk has a simple, shallowly concave beveled edge. The upper surface is roughly fnished as if to secure an object resting upon it.

DS-Other 7: Square Plinth Early Imperial

Fig. 161

CE 1625. Found in 1952 along with the statue of Pan (DS-St 2) and DS-Other 6, 8, and 9, in Room 22 of the Atrium Publicum, Level II, sealed by fall of northwest wall of basilica ca. A.D. 51. Giallo antico. L. each side 0.312, H. 0.044, L. each side of octagon 0.09, W. of octagon 0. 023 m. Mostly intact; all four corners broken away. Surface crack from middle to one edge of top. Worn, chipped; encrusted with lime and root marks; spots of rust. Unpublished. This small piece consists of a raised octagon with molded sides centered inside a plain square. The sides of the octagon have a shallow cyma reversa above a fllet. The top of the octagon has a picked surface, although the perimeter is smooth. The underside was originally smooth and fat.

DS-Other 8: Square Plinth Early Imperial

Figs. 162–63

CE 1622. Found in 1952 along with the statue of Pan (DS-St 2) and DS-Other 6–7 and 9 in Room 22 of Atrium Publicum I, sealed by fall of northwest wall of basilica ca. A.D. 51. Pavonazetto. Proper L. and W. 0.297, Gr. Pres. L. 0.297, Gr. Pres. W. 0.240, Diam. inner circle 0.225, Proper H. 0.05, Th. 0.045 m. Chipped, worn; encrusted with lime and root marks; rust stains. Unpublished.

132

DOMESTIC SCULPTURE

One corner and traces of three sides remain of this originally square base. Inscribed within is a raised, fat circular surface that has a molded edge consisting of a cyma reversa and fllet. This surface is rough picked within a smooth perimeter 0.01–0.015 m wide. In one corner of the underside there is a slightly raised foot. The underside is very rough picked. Roman parallels are not known to me, but see a similar, though simpler, base for a round altar from Delos, Agora of the Italians, in the north portico in front of Exedra 30.233

DS-Other 9: Platter? 80–70 B.C.

Fig. 164

CE 1618a–c. Found in 1952 along with the statuette of Pan (DS-St 2) and DS-Other 6–8 in Room 22 of the Atrium Publicum sealed under the northwest wall of the basilica that fell in the earthquake of A.D. 51. Lumachella orientale. Gr. L. of all three together 0.543, Gr. W. 0.23, H. varies 0.055–0.052, Outer Diam. 0.60, W. of ring foot across its top 0.033 m. Broken and mended in antiquity. Chipped and worn; encrusted with lime and root marks. Collins-Clinton 2014, 73–80. All that remains of this platter are three joining pieces mended with iron dowels, traces of which remain. It has a fat, smooth upper surface (fg. 164) and a low ring foot underneath, smooth-picked inside the ring. A decorative plate or platter is the most likely identifcation; it cannot be a table top since the underside of table tops is not treated in this way. The smooth upper surface is not roughened to support another object, nor does it show signs of wear as from a heavy object resting upon it.234 The discovery of this broken piece sealed under a thick layer of rubble from the fallen basilica wall along with the statue of Pan (DS-St 2) strongly suggests that it was scavenged from a nearby atrium house damaged or destroyed in the raid of 70–60 B.C. It must have been incomplete when placed where it was found since no other pieces belonging to it were found. Given the history of Cosa in the late Republic, pillaged by the pirates ravaging the west coast of Italy at that time, desolate for several decades, and not resettled until early in the reign of Augustus, could it date before the pirate raid? We do know that the late Republican atrium houses destroyed by the pirates were scavenged after the raid, perhaps even after the Augustan resettlement; most of the Republican atrium houses were not rebuilt and thus open to treasure seekers. It is quite possible that the statue of Pan and the lumachella piece were damaged during the raid and may have been scavenged later from such a ruined late Republican house. This would explain their missing parts when they were excavated. A date of 80–70 B.C. fts Cosa’s increasing prosperity from the late second century B.C. on. The earliest pieces of this lumachella so far known belong to the pavement of a house under the Ludus 233

M. Trümper, Die ‘Agora des Italiens’ in Delos: Baugeschichte, Architektur, Ausstattung und Funktion einer späthellenistischen Porticus-Anlage, Internationale Archäologie 104, 2 vols., Rahden/Westf.: Verlag Marie Leidorf, 2008, 2:pl. 172.

234

Pieces of a very similar platter were found just above Level I in Room 1 of the House of the Skeleton, inv. no. C68.390. It is made of a soft, sandy material and painted yellow; Diam. 0.63 m. It has a similar ring foot beneath a fat upper surface with a very slightly raised rim.

OTHER DECORATIVE PIECES

133

Magna in Rome dated around 70 B.C.,235 so a similar date for the Cosa piece would not be surprising. This pavement, consisting of black tesserae interspersed with broken pieces of colored marbles, is associated with Second Style wall decoration, which began in Rome in the late second century B.C., as, for example, in the House of the Griffns on the Palatine. The discovery of plaster fragments in the early Second Style at Cosa in debris from the pirate raid dumped on the arx to the south of the “Capitolium” reinforces the early dating of this platter.236

DS-Other 10: Marble Sample Augustan/Julio-Claudian

Fig. 165

C73.37. Found in 1973 in reservoir at west corner of forum, L. I. Portasanta: gray with yellow and orange veins. L. 0.137, W. 0.097, H. 0.056 m. Chipped. Unpublished. This is a plain rectangular block whose sides are fnished smooth, perhaps a sample of this type of colored marble. It is so far the only piece of portasanta found at Cosa. The upper surface has a shallow cutting, lightly scored with a chisel. The underside is lightly picked within plain edges (fg. 165). The fndspot indicates that the piece most likely came from a house on the forum. Parallels for this sort of object have been found in the shipwreck Fourmigue C, found off the coast of France in the Golfe-Juan.237

DS-Other 11: Pillar Neronian/Flavian

Fig. 166

C9621. Found in 1996 inside the aedicula in garden of House of Diana, SU 227. Proconnesian marble. Max. Pres. H. 0.35, W. of one side, at top 0.116 and at bottom 0.12, W. of other side, at top 0.088 and at bottom 0.095 m. Heavily encrusted with lime; root marks, earth stained; broken at one end. Unpublished. This is a plain, slightly tapered, rectangular pillar whose narrow bands are oriented vertically. The black and off-white stripes of this marble are most easily visible in the break. The sides clearly show 235 F. Guidobaldi and A. Salvatori, “The Introduction of Polychrome Marbles in Late Republican Rome: The Evidence from Mosaic Pavements with Marble Insertions,” in ASMOSIA I, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1988, 173; also, most recently, P. Pensabene, “Il fenomeno del marmo nel mondo romano,” in De Nuccio and Ungaro 2002, 5. 236 For this information I am grateful to Anne Laidlaw, who has shown me these fragments, some quite large.

237

See C. Baudoin, B. Liou, and L. Long, Une cargaison de bronzes helléniques: L’épave Fourmigue C à Golfe-Juan, Archaeonautica 12, Paris: CNRS, 98 and 99 fg. 87; one of the fve pieces is round, the rest almost square, of which three are partially worked. They were interpreted as samples carried by a merchant specializing in works of art who had brought samples to interest potential customers. But see A. J. Parker’s review in IJNA 27 (1998) 87, where they are considered “souvenirs or the property of a connoisseur.”

134

DOMESTIC SCULPTURE

signs of having been sawn, to judge by parallel scratch marks along the wider sides; these are the sides that best reveal the stripes in the stone. The other two sides are worked smooth. The top is fat and smooth, without a dowel hole or cutting for attachment to something else. The contrast between the dark and light bands, which are rather narrow, is striking and produces a rather decorative effect.238 The marble was trimmed so that the narrow sides show the contrasting bands to the best effect, whereas the broad sides are mostly white. The decorative effect would have been most attractive in the garden setting.239 It would also have attracted attention for its rarity. These two qualities would have served to express the status and wealth of the owner of the house.240 The marble was imported from Proconnesus, an island in the Sea of Marmara, where quarrying in the Roman period began in Augustan times. Exportation began in the second half of the frst century and peaked in the second and third centuries A.D.241 The earliest dateable pieces of this marble are some blocks in the Temple of Venus at Pompeii awaiting reconstruction after the earthquake of A.D. 62, and a block found in the Via Marina outside the temenos of the Temple of Apollo, probably associated with the work in the nearby Temple of Venus.242 Also dateable to the interval between the earthquake and the eruption of Vesuvius in A.D. 79 is a table top in the garden of the House of the Vettii (VI.15.1).243 These instances of early use strongly suggest that, if Proconnesian marble was available for use during the reigns of Nero and Vespasian at Pompeii,244 it could have been available for use elsewhere as well. The small pillar from Cosa could then have been obtained for the garden of the House of Diana in Neronian or Flavian times since the house was not abandoned until ca. A.D. 80.245 The association of the owner of the house, L. Titinius Glaucus Lucretianus, with the marble trade may explain the presence of this piece at Cosa at that time.246 This pillar then stands with the pieces from Pompeii as among the earliest examples of Proconnesian marble imported to Italy.

238

Cf. the herm pillars in bardiglio in the garden of the House of the Golden Cupids at Pompeii (VI.16.7, 38) noted above p. 105 with n. 110. See also the pillars above DS-Herm 5–7.

Blocks in the Temple of Venus,” in J. J. Herrmann, Jr., N. Herz, and R. Newman, eds., ASMOSIA V: Interdisciplinary Studies on Ancient Stone, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the Association for the Study of Marble and Other Stones in Antiquity, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1998, London: Archetype Publications, 2002, 282–88, esp. 282 and 286. L. Jacobelli and P. Pensabene, “La decorazione architettonica del Tempio di Venere a Pompei: contributo allo studio e alla recostruzione del santuario,” Rivista di Studi Pompeiani 7 (1995–96) 45–47.

240

243

Cf. C. B. Rose, The Archaeology of Greek and Roman Troy, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014, esp. 17 for an example of vertically oriented narrow bands close together in the leg of a sarcophagus from a tomb at Dedetepe in the Granicus River valley; the tomb was constructed between 480 and 460 B.C. (116).

239

On this see above, p. 83.

241

See most recently D. Attanasio, M. Brilli, and M. Bruno, “The Properties and Identifcation of Marble from Proconnesos (Marmara Island, Turkey): A New Database Including Isotopic, EPR and Petrographis Data,” Archaeometry 50, 2 (2008) 747–74 and P. Pensabene, “Le principali cave di marmo bianco,” in De Nuccio and Ungaro 2002, 203–5. The earliest evidence for the use of this marble in Rome appears on public buildings of the Flavian period. 242 M. Bruno et al., “Pompeii after the AD 62 Earthquake: Historical, Isotopic, and Petrographis Studies of Quarry

Fant et al. 2002; this garden was furnished after the earthquake (309), and the table top along with the pieces from the Temple of Venus “are the earliest dated Proconnesian imports to the western Mediterranean” (314). 244

Bruno et al. (above n. 242) 282.

245

Fentress in Fentress et al. 2003, 63. There is no certain evidence for continued decoration of the garden after Neronian, times, however.

246

On this association see above, p. 12 with n. 76.

5 ♦ Tables

Introduction

T

his chapter comprises ffteen supports, eleven tops, and fve bases for tables, altogether thirty-one pieces, the greatest number of objects in a single category from Cosa. If not actually found within a private house, most were excavated in or near residential areas, including the forum, whose open space was occupied on three sides by the atrium houses of Cosa’s elite families. The tables include four supports (T-Supp 1–4) and ten tops (T-Top 1–10) of late Republican date; a few of the tops are securely dated, and most of the supports were probably imported from Delos before 70 B.C. The rest are early Imperial and fnd their closest parallels among tables from Pompeii and Herculaneum. The works of R. Cohon and C. Moss on Roman stone tables have given a clear picture of the place of this luxury item in the upper and pretentious middle-class households beginning in the second century B.C.1 Cohon’s work concentrates on a type of rectangular table whose top rested on a pair of sturdy, slab-like supports, often highly decorated. Since he included both Greek and Roman examples, he was able to analyze the Greek prototypes, especially of late Hellenistic times, that have a direct bearing on the Roman versions. Moss published all the other types, limiting his study to tables from Italy. These are tables with a single support, his Types 1–8; those with three legs, his Type 9; and those with four legs, his Type 10. Both scholars devote attention to such matters as style, workshops, form, and function. E. De Carolis’s work considers tables along with other sorts of Roman furniture and includes those made of wood, bronze, and other materials as well as stone. De Carolis classifed tables differently, using the table tops, rectangular or circular, as the distinguishing factor rather than the number and form of the supports. He also devoted special attention to the primary sources of information, not just written texts but also Campanian wall paintings that depict the different types in use. These three works supplement one another admirably. Most of the tables from Cosa are Augustan or Julio-Claudian in date, and most of these, as well as those of late Republican times, were found around the forum. This is suggestive since the types are those most often found in domestic contexts, particularly the atrium houses of the upper class, which at Cosa are concentrated on or near the forum. Only two of these houses have been excavated, and both were rebuilt and reoccupied during the Augustan resettlement.2 Thus one could assume that the pieces not found there had originally stood in one of the neighboring houses. Only three tables (T-Supp 6, 7, and 9) were found on the arx, the frst two with slab-like supports, the third the foot of a monopod, and all early Imperial in date. One, T-Supp 6, was found in two 1

Cohon 1984; Moss 1988; these supersede the work of Richter 1966. See also De Carolis 2007 on Roman furniture in general.

2

These were the House of Diana on the southwest side and

the Atrium Publicum on the northwest side. On these see Fentress et al. 2003 and Brown et al. 1993 respectively. See also Fentress et al. 2003, 32–34 with plan, fg. 14 for insulae reoccupied in the Augustan period.

136

TABLES

pieces, neither near a temple: one piece was built into the medieval gate, and the other was nearby on the surface. E. Fentress’s studies of the evolution of Cosa’s city plan over time have concluded that the atrium houses along Street P extended originally from Street 5 along the southeast perimeter of the forum to the edge of the area sacra in front of the “Capitolium.”3 Although not all of those were rebuilt after the Augustan resettlement, several atrium houses remained near the arx, to any of which T-Supp 6 could have belonged. The situation is different for the dedicatory table T-Supp 7, two pieces of which were found on the arx, where the table was originally set up. The pieces belong to a type that consists of two slablike supports with Eros herms at each narrow end; the smaller piece came from the second support. A recent study has identifed this type of table as a base for an under life-sized bronze equestrian statue,4 though this would not have been the case at Cosa given the different context. The inscribed support, the larger of the two pieces and now lost, shows that the table was erected in honor of the Younger Drusus, son of Tiberius.5 According to Cohon tables of this type would have stood in the home of the dedicand or in public places.6 The forecourt of the “Capitolium,” where the pieces were actually found, would have been ideal for such a dedication. The space was completely remodeled when Cosa underwent resettlement under Augustus, receiving a new pavement, a reorientation of the altar, and an enclosing wall with an imposing gateway.7 THE SUPPORTS Most Roman stone tables have prototypes in Classical or late Hellenistic Greece. The type most often found in Greek houses is that with a single columnar support, common at Olynthos and Delos, although it was also used to support a basin.8 Delos is the place where the greatest variety of table supports corresponding to their Roman counterparts may be found. Those discovered before 1938 have been classifed and published by W. Deonna,9 who organized them frst according to the shape of their tops, circular or rectangular, and then by the type of support. We also know from Roman sources that tables fgured among the booty brought back to Rome during her wars of eastward expansion in the second century B.C.10 These late Hellenistic types prefgure the Roman ones gathered by Cohon and Moss. The very few exceptions were Roman inventions based on late Hellenistic prototypes. Such a one from Cosa is the type of slab-like support with an Eros herm at either end, T-Supp 7. Once Delos became a free port in 166 B.C., workshops there soon began producing the luxury items in both bronze and marble for which Romans were acquiring a taste. The material discovered 3

See Fentress et al. 2003, 24 fg. 10 for the original plan of the colony and 33 fg. 14 for that of the Augustan resettlement. 4 Eck and von Hesberg 2004, 143–92. The best parallel for such a table is one from Brescia that was found in a funerary context. Its supports are plain, though inscribed, and it preserves its top, on which are the small “footprints” appropriate for securing the hooves of three legs of such a statue; see Eck and von Hesberg 2004, 147–49 with fgs. 3–5; fg. 5 shows a reconstruction with the statue. 5

Bace 1983, 74–75 with earlier bibliography.

6

Cohon 1984, 123.

7 See Brown et al. 1960, 127–39 for the Augustan repairs and rebuilding; 129 for the wall surrounding the redesigned

forecourt; and 135 fg. 100 for a plan of the Augustan “Capitolium” with its new forecourt. A fragment of an over lifesized portrait head of Drusus Minor was found in the forum reservoir (PS-Head 1), suggesting that a statue honoring him may have stood in the forum instead. 8

On this see Moss 1988, 33–34. See also ch. 7 below.

9

Deonna 1938, 15–63, p. 17 for the houses where tables were found. 10

See especially Livy 39.6.709 noting monopodia in the triumph of G. Manlius Vulso after his victory in Asia Minor in 186 B.C., reinforced by Pliny NH 34.14, who cited the monopodia in the context of bronzes. On these see most recently Wallace-Hadrill 2008, 315.

INTRODUCTION

137

in the Mahdia shipwreck, which foundered around 100 B.C. off the coast of Tunisia, gives an idea of the sorts of goods wealthy Romans desired, including furniture and furnishings.11 The shipment this wreck contained is one of the earliest indications of the extent of Roman taste and the Greek ability to satisfy it. Moss has noted that Delos was a major center for the production of furnishings, including tables in both Parian and Pentelic marble.12 The monolithic herm in Parian marble from Cosa, T-Supp 1, exhibits such close ties with Delos that it may well have been made there and brought to Cosa, perhaps under the agency of the elder L. Sestius, who was already trading on Delos by the end of the second century B.C.13 A lion’s head from a three-legged table is another piece from Cosa, T-Supp 3, that shows ties to Delos in the style of its head and the Pentelic marble from which it is carved.14 If these observations are correct, these two late Republican table supports would be among the earliest pieces of marble furniture to reach Italy from workshops on Delos. This would reinforce Moss’s idea about the role of Delos in supplying these items of luxury to wealthy Romans.15 A third piece, a stretcher for a three-legged table inscribed with the Greek letter kappa, T-Supp 4, may also have originated on Delos. Another table support of late Republican date is Italian in manufacture, a piece of a pillar of a fne travertine decorated on the front with a twelve-petaled rosette, T-Supp 2. The rosette is a variation of a motive that is limited in date to late Republican/late Hellenistic times.16 Several table tops of travertine, also of late Republican date, have come to light at Cosa (T-Top 1–7, 9–10), all but one found around the forum and most likely from the nearby atrium houses. Travertine is not a local stone; its major quarry, still in use, is at Tivoli near Rome. This suggests that these elegant pieces were shipped to Cosa by sea, perhaps ready-made.17 Eleven more tables complete the list of early Imperial supports, all fragmentary and some diffcult to classify. Nevertheless, the tables from Cosa at this time echo the types found at Pompeii and Herculaneum. Among the slab-like types one, T-Supp 6, belongs to Cohon’s Type III, the most common of those types. Another, a rare type used for dedications, is the only table erected at Cosa in a public place: T-Supp 7, the dedicatory table already discussed. Most of the other types are monopods, of which the goat-griffn support from the House of Diana, T-Supp 8, is also a rare example of its type, Moss’s Type 4, and is, for Cosa, mostly intact. The rest belong to Moss’s Type 4 (Protomes on Feline Legs), Type 5 (Herms), Type 7 (Columnar), or Type 9 (Three-legged Tables). T-Supp 11, a support in the form of a herm, offers an interesting story. It suffered breakage and reuse in antiquity, not unusual in itself, but in the process its head became separated from its shaft and was reused in a completely different context. The head was found in the ruins of the Neronian odeum at the base of one of its tribunes. This and its Neronian style suggested to the author in the late 1960s that it had decorated the odeum in some way at the time of its construction.18 We must now rethink this since originally the little table must have decorated the garden of the House of Diana. Although we are not certain when the garden and the shrine of 11

See most recently Wallace-Hadrill 2008, 362–71 with bibliography.

12

Moss 1988, 120–30.

marble from home, had set up shop on Delos. 15

Moss 1988, 127.

16

On this see below, pp. 148–151.

13

Will 1997, 127 and Will 1989, 300. See also above, pp. 15, 25–26. 14 On the use of Pentelic marble on Delos, where local sculptors used Parian, see Moss 1988, 125–26 n. 50. Apparently Athenian sculptors, who preferred to work with Pentelic

17

Cf. the comment by M. Flohr, “Artisans and Markets: The Economics of Roman Domestic Decoration,” AJA 123 (2019) 109 n. 41 regarding the use and working of travertine in Rome. 18

Collins 1970, 161–62.

138

TABLES

Diana went out of use, the separation of the head from its shaft may provide a clue. The broken shaft was discovered among pieces of garden decoration placed in the cella of the shrine, the head taken away for reuse elsewhere presumably at the same time. This may well have been when the odeum was repaired during the reign of Maximinus Thrax (A.D. 235–238) as an inscription from Cosa indicates.19 In addition, preceding Maximinus there was a distinct Severan interest in Cosa, when parts of the forum were patched up and a granary was built within the House of Diana.20 It could have been then that the garden was cleared of its marble decorations and the little head reused probably within the odeum, as traces of a hard, gray mortar indicate.21 Finding the head of Dionysus, the god of the theater, may have seemed serendipitous just at the time when the odeum was being or about to be restored, and reusing it would have been most appropriate for its decoration. The only types of table support missing from Cosa are Moss’s Types 1–3 (monopod types with complete fgures, seated or standing), Type 8 (monopods in the form of a knotty club), and Type 10 (tables with four legs). His Type 6, a support in the form of a pillar, is represented at Cosa only by a late Republican example, T-Supp 2, noted above. His Type 7, a columnar support, is indistinguishable from basin supports, especially if its basin or table leaf is missing or if its crowning element is broken away, for if it were fat, it would likely serve to support a table leaf that is fat on its underside. THE TABLE TOPS The excavations at Cosa have yielded fve rectangular and fve circular table tops dating to late Republican times. These are made of travertine, varying from a coarse to a fner, marble-like texture. The single Imperial piece, T-Top 11, is marble, plain and unremarkable in its appearance. All ten Republican leaves, T-Top 1–10, have raised rims and profled edges. Two preserve about half or more of their original size, and each has a tenon in the center of its underside, thus giving a good idea of their original appearance. The frst, T-Top 1, is a rectangular leaf with a round tenon; the second, T-Top 8, is round with a square tenon. The single tenon indicates that both leaves rested upon a single support. Moss has commented on the leaves that have been found with two types of supports in particular, Type 6 in the form of a pillar and Type 7 in the form of a small column.22 In Pompeii and Herculaneum, where the entire table is most likely to have survived, these are two of only three types that have consistently retained their leaves at the time of the eruption of Vesuvius in A.D. 79.23 Type 6 tends to have a rectangular leaf, Type 7 a round one, based on the evidence from Pompeii, especially, where many examples of both types are executed in travertine or limestone, materials used in late Republican times.24 Since ten of the eleven table tops from Cosa are late Republican, dating from the early second century to ca. 70 B.C., and since the round ones are not represented at Pompeii in the form seen at Cosa, these warrant special attention. The rectangular ones, T-Top 1–5, were quite large, their width somewhat greater than one-half their length, and their raised rims go around all four sides. The profled edges may go around all four sides or just along one long side and the two short sides. They can be sorted into two categories 19

Inv. no. C70.523: Bace 1983, 61 and n. 9 on p. 65, 76–78 with n. 46 on p. 130; see also Scott 1981.

21

The pieces of its shaft have no traces of mortar.

22

Moss 1988, 32 for Type 6, and 34–35 for Type 7.

20

Brown et al. 1960, 139; Bace 1983, 59–63; Fentress 1994, 212–15; Fentress et al. 2003, 63–69, 71. For more details on activity within the House of Diana, limited to the construction of a granary and clearing and reuse of building materials, see the website: http://www.press.umich.edu/script/press/ special/cosa/f5_p_vi.html (accessed 28 July 2014).

23

The other is Type 5 in the form of a miniature herm, Moss 1988, 26–30; these are Imperial in date, however, and have plain rectilinear leaves of marble.

24

Moss 1988, 63–65.

INTRODUCTION

139

on the basis of their profles and their materials. The frst group consists of three pieces, T-Top 1–3, all of which were made of the same rather coarse, cream-colored travertine. All three have very slightly raised rims, varying from 0.01 to 0.019 m high (profles 1–3, p. 140 below); the two higher rims have a two-stepped inner profle, the lower one, a one-stepped inner edge. The outer profles feature, between fasciae, either a cavetto (T-Top 1) or a shallow inward sloping cyma reversa (T-Top 2–3). The two-stepped profle of the rims of T-Top 2 and 3 corresponds to the exterior cyma reversa. Both exterior profles have parallels with travertine, or most likely limestone, examples in Pompeii: the cavetto is featured on a leaf with lions’ heads in the peristyle garden of the House of the Vettii (VI.15.1),25 and the cyma reversa on one stored in the Granaio del Foro.26 On both Pompeian examples, however, there is only a one-stepped rim. None of the Pompeian examples is securely dated, although the contexts in which T-Top 1 and 3 were found surely indicate late Republican workmanship. T-Top 1 was found embedded in the earthen foor in the north corner of Room 21 of the Augustan house in Level I, an occupational level that was constructed in the older Atrium Building I and its annex ca. 25/15 B.C. during the Augustan reoccupation of the town.27 This room was destroyed and its contents sealed in situ when the northwest wall of the basilica fell around A.D. 51. The table top was most likely already broken and pressed into a secondary use in its new setting since both its type and its material are late Republican. This suggests that it was made before the destruction of the 60s B.C.28 T-Top 3 was found in a dump just outside the northeast wall of the basilica near the north corner. This dump continued around the north corner on the northwest side, where a quantity of sigillata pottery of the Augustan period was found.29 The dump consisted of two levels that do not appear to have any chronological signifcance according to Moevs. The two joining pieces of this table leaf found in different levels just around the corner seem to bear out Moevs’s surmise. The Augustan date ascribed to this dump would not preclude the inclusion of earlier material. These three pieces have their closest parallels among the “Hellenistic tables” published by Pernice in 1932 and dated to the second century B.C. (“Tufa Period”).30 These table leaves have profled edges, and most are decorated on the front edge with a pair of tiny lions’ heads in relief. Most lack the raised rims that characterize their Cosa counterparts, but those that do have raised rims have a single narrow step within the rim that resembles that of T-Top 1.31 A few omit the lions’ heads entirely,32 as seems to be the case at Cosa. Of the Pompeian examples made of travertine or marble-like travertine, materials considered by Pernice as indicative of a Republican date in Italy,33 25

Pernice 1932, 7, 10 no. 11; Moss 1988, 684–85 A352.

26

Autopsy 1984 (see T-Top 3, n. 159); not in Pernice 1932.

27

On this fndspot see Moevs 1973, 30.

28 A more precise date is not possible, but see remarks in the catalogue entry. 29 30

On this see Moevs 2006, 38–39.

Pernice 1932, 5–11. See also Moss 1988, 32, 34–35 for similar rectangular leaves found with Types 6 (pillar) and 7 (columnar) supports. Many of these I was able to examine in Pompeii in June 1984. I am grateful to M. Giuseppina Cerulli Irelli, then Soprintendente di Pompei, for permission to study this material and to Drs. Stefano De Caro and Antonio

D’Ambrosio, then of the Scavi di Pompei, for their help in facilitating my work. Pernice did not publish profles for the table tops in his list on pp. 10–11. 31

For the ones with raised rims see Pernice 1932, 8: tables in VI.15.6; VI.16.19; and one formerly in the garden of G. Spano (no. 16 in Pernice’s list on p. 10). To these may be added the one in VI.15.1 (House of the Vettii) (autopsy June 1984, rim not described by Pernice, but the leaf is listed on p. 10 no. 11); and a fragmentary leaf seen by the author in the Granaio del Foro in June 1984. 32

Pernice 1932, 8: those in houses at V.1.26, VI.15.6, and VII.2.51. To these add one in the atrium of 1.8.5 (autopsy June 1984). 33

Pernice 1932, 6, 8.

140

TABLES

Profle 1: T-Top 1

Profle 3: T-Top 3

Profle 4: T-Top 4

Profle 2: T-Top 2

Profle 5: T-Top 5 Profles 1–5. Rectangular Table Tops, scale 1:2 (drawings L. Sterner).

the exterior moldings that predominate are the cavetto or the cyma reversa, always set below a vertical fascia-like upper edge and sometimes, but not always, having a lower fascia-like vertical border at the lower edge that is inset from the central molding. This parallels the profles on the Cosa pieces, though Cosa’s cyma reversas are not very pronounced. This detail would reinforce the contemporaneity of the Cosan and Pompeian examples. Related to these, but different in details especially pertaining to the profled edges, is the second category of rectangular table tops. This consists of two examples of even more homogeneous character, T-Top 4–5. Both are made of a very fne, crystalline or marble-like travertine, grayish in color, with a tendency to split. They have strongly projecting, raised, and molded edges that are nearly identical (profles 1–2). Their fner material and their exaggerated profles compared with those of the previous category suggest a later date within the late Republican form. Their remarkable similarity further suggests that they were the product of the same local workshop, for, to my knowledge, there are no close parallels for these in Pompeii. The rims are raised signifcantly higher than those of the previous group, both 0.023 m high (compare profles 1–5). The two-stepped inner profle is very curvy, with a distinct dip in the middle compared to the sober understatement of T-Top 2 and 3. The outer moldings, however, repeat the cyma reversa as in T-Top 2 and 3, but with both upper and lower fasciae. The fndspot of T-Top 4 seems to corroborate the slightly later date

141

INTRODUCTION

Profle 6: T-Top 6 Profle 9: T-Top 9

Profle 7: T-Top 7

Profle 10: T-Top 10 Profle 8: T-Top 8 Profles 6–10. Round Table Tops, scale 1:2 (drawings L. Sterner).

ascribed to these examples. It was found near the foor of the tablinum/exedra aestiva of the House of the Skeleton in a stratum of loose red-brown earth and debris from the walls and roof when they collapsed during the period of abandonment of the house after the raid around 70–60 B.C.; later, when the House of the Birds was constructed in the Augustan period by joining two Republican houses along Street N, the ruins of the House of the Skeleton were apparently cleared and made No. 10 into a kitchen garden and pens for animals.34 Thus, the table could have belonged originally to this house, which was constructed ca. 89 B.C.35 Whether this was so or not, the context is certainly late Republican. One might hazard a date for these rather more elegant forms at the end of the second or the beginning of the frst century B.C. The round leaves, T-Top 6–10, were generally smaller, 0.63–0.676 m in diameter, though one, T-Top 8, measures 0.84 m across (profles 6–10). Their outturned rims, fat on top, rise in a gentle curve between 0.11 and 0.17 m from their fat upper surface; one, T-Top 7, however, steps down in the same manner as the rectangular leaf T-Top 1, whose step is much more angular. The outer profles are all very shallow cyma rectas, in contrast to the cyma reversas of the rectangular leaves. The undersides are convex. All but one are made of a cream-colored travertine that can take detail well; the exception, T-Top 10, is a gray, coarse, and fossiliferous travertine. The round leaves from Cosa have no counterparts in Pompeii to my knowledge and were likely produced by a local workshop.36 Three, T-Top 6–8, were found in contexts securely dating to the late Republican period. T-Top 6, the earliest dateable piece of furniture from Cosa, was found in fll beneath the foor of the basilica near the northwest end of the nave (Sounding N1). The basilica, built between 150 and 140 B.C., was sited on open space that sloped downward toward the north; this required a deep fll to provide a 34

Bruno and Scott 1993, 103; also excavation notebook “SUNY House” 2:176 and Cosa Journal 2:275. 35

Bruno and Scott 1993, 146–47 on the construction date.

36

I have considered these as table leaves rather than shallow basins, despite their convex undersides. The upper surfaces, though not completely fat, are fat enough to serve as rimmed table leaves. Ambrogi 2005, 79 and 81 (profles of basin types) does not include forms as fat as these among the basin types.

142

TABLES

level surface at the time of construction.37 This fll contained a quantity of black gloss pottery of the same date as the table ware in use when and before the basilica was built, between ca. 167 and 145 B.C.38 Since this table leaf must have been broken before it was thrown into this fll, the terminus post quem must be after 197–180 B.C., when it would have been made, most likely for household use when the atrium houses around the forum were built.39 T-Top 7 and 8 were found in the context of houses in the blocks between Streets L and N near Street 5, thus reinforcing the domestic setting for these tables. T-Top 7 fell into the soakaway pit of the house in Lot 1 of the block of houses facing Street M, apparently when the house collapsed after the raid of ca. 70–60 B.C.40 The material in the cesspool would be the remains of what had been thrown there after its last cleaning, possibly when the house underwent modest rebuilding ca. 100 B.C., though the table could have been made before then. T-Top 8 was part of a deep fll below the foor of Room 4 of the Augustan House of the Birds when a work room at the back of the Republican house was flled to make a level surface for a new triclinium in the Augustan house. Since this fll consisted of “debris collected from the ruins of the Republican town,”41 it tells us only that the table leaf is late Republican, dating to the second century or early frst century B.C., and that it would not necessarily have been part of the furniture of the Republican predecessor of the House of the Birds. The dating of both T-Top 7 and 8, however, could be narrowed by analogy in form and material with the more closely dated T-Top 6. Despite the lack of securely Republican fndspots for T-Top 9 and 10, they, too, can be dated to the second century B.C. by analogy in form and material with T-Top 6. As noted above, the most common support for the rectangular leaves found in Pompeii takes the form of a small pillar, Moss Type 6, futed in front, left plain, or decorated with a star or rosette on the front.42 Most of those are travertine. A fragment of such a pillar has been found at Cosa, T-Supp 2, decorated with a rosette on the front and made of the same travertine as T-Top 1–3, to any one of which that support may have belonged. Round table leaves tend to rest on columnar supports, either plain or futed, which held either a basin or a table top to judge from the evidence from Pompeii.43 Although Moss has noted the round leaves found with their columnar supports, Moss Type 7,44 they are now lost and, where known, are marble and therefore probably Imperial. Although two intact columnar supports have been found at Cosa, only one has been classifed as a table support, T-Supp 13, based on two similar examples from Pompeii.45 BASES AND PLINTHS FOR TABLES In contrast to the numerous table supports discovered at Cosa, only four bases and one plinth have survived; all can be associated with monopod tables. One is intact, T-Base 4; another, a facing for a base, is also intact, T-Base 3. Three of the fve come from the House of Diana. All are early Imperial, mostly Julio-Claudian, based on comparanda among bases and plinths from Pompeii so well described by Moss.46 37

Brown 1980, 56 and Brown et al. 1993, 213. On the fndspot see Taylor 1957, 91–94 Deposit B and Moevs 1973, 21.

41

Bruno and Scott 1993,163; see also p. 48.

42

Moss 1988, 32.

43

Pernice 1932, 7–8, 9.

44

Moss 1988, 35 n. 54.

45

The other is a basin support, B 10.

46

Moss 1988.

38

See Taylor 1957, 91–94 Deposit B for a detailed analysis of the criteria for dating this deposit. 39 See Brown et al. 1993, 57–97 on the construction of these atrium houses. 40

For the cesspool in Lot 1 see Bruno and Scott 1993, 13–15, 19, 21, 23, and 79.

TABLE SUPPORTS

143

One base merits special attention for its decoration on three sides with small round and rectangular plaques of giallo antico, T-Base 1. Its type is not common at Pompeii, nor is its clear association with a support in the form of a herm (Moss Type 5). Another similarly decorated base from Cosa, though missing its inserts, is one that supported a statuette of Pan (DS-St 1).

In the catalogue below I have used the systems of classifcation of R. Cohon and C. Moss for the supports, with the tables of Cohon’s types preceding those of Moss. The catalogue begins with the supports themselves, followed by table tops, and ending with those bases and plinths most likely belonging to tables.

Table Supports LATE REPUBLICAN: LATE SECOND CENTURY–CA. 70–60 B.C. T-Supp 1: Bearded Herm Early frst century B.C.

Moss Type 5 Figs. 167–71

C68.10. Found in 1968 in Shrine of Liber Pater, reused in fourth century A.D. context. Parian marble from Lakkoi Quarry (Parian 2). H. 0.825, W. between ends of armbars 0.248, W. of shaft 0.14 at top tapering to 0.133 at bottom, Th. of shaft 0.11 m. Missing: small bits from taeniae and loop of hair on proper right side of head. Chipped, earth stained. Surface of head and top of back pillar corroded. Head over-cleaned. Collins 1970, 32–33, 35, 42, 155–60 no. 23, fgs. 57–58, 60–61; Collins-Clinton 1977, 14, 17, 52–53 no. 4, fg. 25; Moss 1988, 543 no. A193, also 26–30 on the type; Rückert 1998, 196, 205; Collins-Clinton, Attanasio, Platania 2008, 29, 38–40, fg. 13, also fg. 4 no. CO22, tables 1 and 3 no. CO22; Knoll, K., Vorster, C., and Woelk, M., Katalog der antiken Bildwerke, Idealskulptur der römischen Kaiserzeit 2, Munich: Hirmer, 2011, 1039 n. 14 and 1042 n. 10 (F. Sinn). This is a nearly complete, monolithic table support in the form of a bearded herm, perhaps Dionysus (fg. 167); it belongs to Moss’s Type 5: Herms.47 Missing is only the crowning element above the head of the herm, designed to be attached separately, on which the table leaf rested. The shaft is rectangular, with a slight taper, and no phallus. At shoulder level are two armbars. Behind the shaft is a narrow back pillar, 0.045 m deep, increasing to 0.065 m above the level of the armbars to provide extra support for the head (fgs. 168–69). Its top is almost level with the top of the head and has a slightly raised border with a dowel hole in the center for attaching a crowning element that would have raised the table leaf above the head (dowel hole: 0.012 m in diameter, 0.035 m deep). At the foot of the shaft is a rough-picked tenon for insertion into a base; the tenon is 0.06 m long and measures 0.099 m wide tapering to 0.091 m by 0.078 m thick tapering to 0.075 m. 47

Moss 1988, 26–30. The identifcation as a table support rests on its form, which has a narrow back pillar that reinforces the front shaft; it is the back pillar that bears the weight of

the table leaf. On herms in general see Wrede 1985. This catalogue entry has benefted from discussions with C. Moss and Brunilde Ridgway.

144

TABLES

The head turns slightly to its left (fg. 170). The low triangular forehead surmounts sharply defned, rather bulging brows, deeply set almond-shaped eyes with thick lids, a long thin nose, and a partially opened mouth. The hairdo is very complex. On top of the head the hair waves forward in shallowly chiseled strands without a part. These locks terminate over the forehead in a fringe of tiny curls with drilled centers, not arranged in rows. A tubular band or fllet holds the hair in place.48 Beneath the fringe of curls emerges longer forehead hair, combed to each side in two waving locks from an invisible central part. These long strands pass under the band and are twisted up to form a puffed loop above the band before returning under it (fg. 171). The ends hang in bunches of small curls, rendered exactly as the forehead curls in front of the ears. A long taenia is twisted around the band so that it loops over it behind the ears on both sides and hangs down the neck. The rounded, tasseled ends are folded over the armbars. The long hair at the back is carved in relief on either side of the back pillar. It falls to below shoulder level and has its separate strands clearly indicated by undulating chiseled grooves. At the bottom it is looped up and tied, so that the ends fip out in tiny curls, again with drilled centers. The spade-shaped beard is carved free from the neck and chest. The long wavy locks are arranged in two rows, of which the upper includes the ends of the long, drooping moustache, and two locks under the lower lip. The ends of all the locks curl in different directions, each containing a lightly drilled center. The smoothed surfaces of the face are subtly modeled, particularly the cheeks; the facial features are crisply rendered. The long wavy hair is everywhere treated in broad, shallowly chiseled strands. The drill is used judiciously: to separate the lips with slight holes at the corners of the mouth, to separate the puffs of hair before the ears from the cheeks, to defne the folds and loops of the taenia and the looped-up hair at the back, and, above all, to punctuate the centers and interstices of the curling ends of hair. The treatment of the face and the beard is close to that found on certain larger-scale archaistic herms patterned after the Hermes Propylaios of Alkamenes, in which the irregularly curling locks in the beard have been organized into two or, more commonly, three rows of long locks ending in curls not always with drilled centers.49 But the coiffure is different and contrasts strongly in its busy, pictorial effect with the calm, classicizing face. The careful execution and the complexity and uniqueness of the hairdo of the Cosa herm warrant a rather more detailed analysis than would normally be accorded such a small decorative object. Whereas the Alkamenoid herms have three rows of stiff corkscrew locks framing a semicircular forehead, the Cosa hair is done in two distinct and unrelated styles: the shorter, curled hair directly above the forehead and the longer strands that form the triangular forehead, the puffed loop, and the curls before the ears. There are no parallels for this particular combination.50 The curls in the central mass 48 This is not a struppus as originally interpreted by Collins 1970, 157 and Collins-Clinton 1977, 52. 49

See especially an archaistic herm from the House of the Herm in Delos dated to the frst quarter of the frst century B.C., Marcadé 1969, 152–53, 293–300, pl. 14 (inv. A4118). The facial features of the Cosa herm are strikingly close to those of this one. On the increasing popularity of archaistic bearded herms ca. 100 B.C. see Harrison 1965, 127. On the stylized treatment of the beard see the discussion by J. Marcadé, “Les Trouvailles de la Maison dite de L’Hermès, à Délos,” BCH 77 (1953) 505–10. A few other examples may also be cited. One formerly in the Granada Museum, AA 29 (1914) col. 380, fg. 54; one in the Fogg Museum, Cambridge, MA, acc. no. 1960.463, J.R. McCredie, “Two

Herms in the Fogg Museum” AJA 66 (1962) 187–88, pl. 56, fgs. 1–2. A herm found in Peiraeus in 1959 and possibly contemporary with Delos A4118 exhibits a tendency to organize the beard into layers; see Vanderpool 1960, 265, 267, and pl. 7, fg. 13 and Harrison 1965, 127 with bibliography. Of these only the Piraeus and Granada examples have curls with drilled centers. 50

Cf., however, a rather different coiffure combining a central mass of short curls with longer side hair that appears in a series of archaistic beardless heads originating in the frst century B.C.; H. Herdejürgen, “Archaistische Skulpturen aus frührömischer Zeit,” JdI 87 (1972) 308–11. In these, three rows of tight spiral curls, sometimes with drilled centers, appear with long, wavy hair that droops before the ears.

TABLE SUPPORTS

145

do not form tight spirals, and their separate strands are not rendered; instead, the curls appear globular and spongy. No parallels can be cited for this treatment. The long hair waving toward the temples and the triangular forehead resembles the hairstyle of Curtius’s Type G, altered to accommodate the loops projecting above the fllet.51 These loops are an integral part of the hair of the Cosa herm and belong to the mass of curls before the ears. Other hairstyles featuring loops above a fllet can be found, although none exactly resemble Cosa’s.52 These loops are found only on archaistic works and thus seem to be a new development in the archaistic decorative vocabulary.53 Long tresses falling onto the shoulders, which are a common feature on herms for contributing a smooth transition from head to shaft, are missing here. Instead, the ends of the long taeniae folded on the armbars fll that purpose.54 The treatment of the long hair in back, looped and tied as it is, is unique in herms (fg. 168). Originally a late archaic style, it enjoyed a renewal in freestanding archaistic works, both male and female.55 Several parallels can be cited although none are exactly the same in every detail; in only one, the Apollo Piombino, do the ends terminate in tiny curls, but those are differently rendered.56 51

L. Curtius, Zeus und Hermes: Studien zur Geschichte ihres Ideals und seiner Überlieferung, RM suppl. 1, Munich: Bruckmann, 1931, 72–73 and fgs. 32–33. There the long forehead hair waves away from the part in four tresses and passes over a tubular fllet before being tucked under it. The ends hang down before the ears in waving locks, each ending in a tiny curl. The Cosa herm presents the lower two of the four tresses waving from the part but alters the relationship with the fllet. Instead of waving over and passing under the fllet, the tresses pass under it and then loop up before going back underneath. 52 The loops appear in a variety of hairstyles, though most often with forehead curls of some sort, and they do not always relate to the hair in front of the ears. They are more common on beardless heads. An exception is the bearded herm on a monolithic table support from Pompeii (Pompeii Antiquarium No. SN 1351 [20454]). Its loops are formed in the same way as those in the Cosa herm, and the ends terminate in front of the ears in the same manner. There are no curls above the triangular forehead, however, so the effect is simpler. See Moss 1988, 590–91 no. A239. I thank C. Moss for pointing this out to me and for supplying copies of his photographs. A beardless Roman double-herm in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, exhibits such loops along with three rows of loosely twisted curls, not quite corkscrews, with drilled centers framing the entire forehead. Here it is not clear whether the loops belong with the loose curls hanging before the ears, as is the case with the Cosa herm, or with the shoulder locks. See Budde and Nicholls 1964, 19, no. 38, pl. 11. A beardless herm in Erbach (K. Fittschen, Katalog der antiken Skulpturen in Schloss Erbach, Archäologische Forschungen 3, Berlin: Mann, 1977, 15–16, no. 3, pl. 4) and a bearded/beardless double-herm in the Louvre (M. Bieber, “Die Herkunft des tragischen Kostüms,” JdI 32 [1917] 53, fg. 84) combine loops with Alkamenoid corkscrews, but the loops are very different: broad and fat, they droop over the fllet and belong with long shoulder locks. Two other heads with different loops and very different hairstyles are (1) the female half of a double-herm in the Vatican, Galleria dei Candelabri; Herdejürgen (above n. 50) fg. 15 on p. 307 and (2) the Zeus Talleyrand in the Louvre, H. Bulle, Archaisierende griechische Rundplastik, Munich: Verlag der

Königlich bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1918, 31, no. 54, pl. 8. 53 These loops are most likely elaborations of certain early Classical hairstyles in which long hair loops over or around a fllet in various ways, generally associated with beardless heads. See Budde and Nicholls 1964, 19; Harrison 1965, 137–38; Ridgway 1970, 136–38, 147–48. 54 The substitution of the ends of a taenia for shoulder locks is not unique; cf. the bronze herm from the shipwreck off Mahdia dated ca. 120–100 B.C. and signed by Boëthos of Kalchedon, where only one shoulder lock is visible, and the identical one in the J. Paul Getty Museum, Malibu, CA; on these herms see C. C. Mattusch, “Bronze Herm of Dionysus,” in Hellenkemper Salies 1994, 1:431–50. Both herms were displayed side-by-side in a recent exhibition; see J. M. Daehner and K. Lapatin, eds., Power and Pathos: Bronze Sculpture of the Hellenistic World, Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2015, 282–85, nos. 45 and 46, both dated to the second century B.C. Roman herms and herm busts also exhibit this substitution, as the many examples from Pompeii show; see Carrella et al. 2008, passim. 55

This treatment is a longer version of the loop/chignon hairstyle analyzed by Ridgway and which was likewise revived in the frst century B.C.; B. S. Ridgway, “The Bronze Apollo from Piombino in the Louvre,” AntP 7, 2 (1967) 61; Ridgway 1970, 136. 56

The closest parallel to the Cosa version is that of the archaistic Artemis from Pompeii now in the Naples National Museum, inv. 6008, and probably frst century A.D. in date; see L. Richardson, jr., “The Archaistic Diana of Pompeii,” AJA 74 (1970) 202. See also A. Giuliano, “Fuit apud Segestanos ex aere Dianae simulacrum,” ArchCl 5 (1953) 48–54, pls. 19, fg. 1 and 21, fg. 1; for an illustration of the back hair see F. Studniczka, “Die archaische Artemis—Statuette aus Pompeii,” RM 3 (1888) 282: there are no curls on the ends. Compare also a bronze statuette of Apollo with a Hind from the House of the Theatrical Panels in Pompeii now in the Naples National Museum, Ridgway 1970, 61, fgs. 25–27,

146

TABLES

The terminal curls with their drilled centers, as well as the loop, on the back hair seem to have been added both to continue the decorative effect and to unite the various hairstyles, front and back, into a more homogeneous whole. The artisan or workshop that produced this table leg devoted a degree of attention unusual in a piece of furniture by creating a new combination of details, some based on existing prototypes, others his own inventions. The spongy curls with drilled centers, the loops projecting from the fllet, and the curls at the ends of the long back hair are his own embellishments. Each element of this elaborate confection, new or borrowed, is based on motifs common in the archaistic repertory of the frst centuries B.C. and A.D. In addition, the predilection for a complex hairdo, the ornamental favor, the pictorial contrasts of value and textures in face and hair, even the clarity and sense of order underlying the decorativeness and complexity of the coiffure and beard, are all characteristics of the eclectic late Hellenistic or early Roman taste of the frst centuries B.C. and A.D.,57 a time of creative innovation in archaistic sculpture in decorative as well as larger works of art.58 It is diffcult to date this piece within this period on a purely stylistic basis. The high quality of execution and the use of Greek marble suggest Greek workmanship, especially since monolithic herms are not common in Pompeii, and such fnely carved ones are even rarer.59 The unusual treatment of the back shaft behind the head, where it extends back to support the head (and to allow for the representation of the hair in relief behind the head) has parallels in two herms of Hermaphrodite from Delos.60 The slight turn of the head, very unusual in a herm, seems to be a Greek trait, although I have found no parallels dating before Roman times.61 In addition, the plastic treatment of the taenia, which falls free from the neck before folding forward and and the Apollo Piombino in the Louvre, Ridgway, “Apollo Piombino” (as above) 55–56, 61, text fg. 1 and plates passim. Late archaic originals with long hair in back tied in a similar way have been collected by Ridgway, “Apollo Piombino” (above n. 55) 55–56 and N. Degrassi, Lo Zeus Stilata di Ugento, Archeologica 25, Rome: G. Bretschneider, 1981, 67–70. 57

Elaborate combination hairstyles: Ridgway, “Apollo Piombino” (above n. 55) 62; Ridgway 1970, 136; Herdejürgen (above n. 50) 299–313. Tonal contrasts: Ridgway 1970, 23.

58

Fittschen (above n. 52), 16 esp. n. 7; N. Hackländer, Der archaistische Dionysos: Eine archäologische Untersuchung zur Bedeutung archaistischer Kunst in Hellenistischer und römischer Zeit, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1996, 61–63, 76–87, 163–64.

59

On the rarity of monolithic table supports in the form of herms, see Moss 1988, 549 no. A199; other examples are listed on p. 28 n. 31.

60

Deonna 1938, p. 36 no. 3867 and A 466, pl. 119; fg. 45 illustrates the back pillar; p. 36 no. 3868, pl. 116. I would disagree with the date given these by Wrede 1985, 25, as late frst century B.C. or early Imperial, despite the mediocre execution. Two examples from Pompeii also have this form of back pillar behind the bust (Moss 1988, 607–8, no. A256, a female herm dated early frst century/A.D. 79, Pompeii Antiquarium inv. 11484; and 608–10 no. A257, a Hermaphrodite herm dated

late Julio-Claudian/A.D. 79, Pompeii Antiquarium inv. P2895. 61

Roman parallels do exist. A herm of a beardless Dionysus from Megara, near Athens, inv. no. 2495 in the Athens National Museum, turns its head very slightly; it is not dated but appears to be Roman (P. Kastriotes, “Νεα προσκτηματα Εθνικου Μουσειον απο του 1923–1925,” Deltion 9 [1924–25] 26 no. 12, and fg. 16). A herm from the Athenian Agora also turns its head slightly; Harrison 1965, 162–65 no. 210, dated in the second century A.D. This herm serves as a support for a group of Dionysus and Child; according to Harrison the turn of the head toward its right may be to have it face a viewer standing in front of the group. A sardonyx cameo depicts a turbaned herm of the bearded Dionysus in the background looking toward a scene of Troilos and Polyxena watering their horses outside Troy; this has been dated to the Augustan or Julio-Claudian periods; see C. C. Mattusch, Classical Bronzes: The Art and Craft of Greek and Roman Statuary, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996, 181 with bibliography. It seems clear from the last two examples that herms may turn their heads when they interact with another fgure or within a narrative scene. Two painted herms turning their heads toward the center of their composition appear in the socle of a wall painting of the Second Style of Pompeian wall decoration in Oecus 3 of the House of Obellius Firmus in Pompeii (IX.14.4); see PPM 10 (2003) 394 fg. 58, 395 fg. 59, and 405 fg. 77. Here it seems clear that paired herms may also turn their heads toward each other symmetrically according to compositional requirements.

147

TABLE SUPPORTS

back twice over the armbars, is unique among Italian examples.62 The only parallels for such a treatment may be seen in the late Hellenistic bronze herm from the Mahdia shipwreck and an almost identical bronze herm in the J. Paul Getty Museum,63 where the ribbons belong, in fact, to a type of turban and not to a taenia.64 This last feature, along with the eclectic late Hellenistic style in the head, the unusual treatment of the back pillar that both strengthens the region of the bust and allows a fuller treatment of the head than would be possible with the high back pillar more common in Roman monopodia, the monolithic form itself, and the high quality of execution in every detail,65 are all unusual if not unique in Roman decorative herms. These features combine with the use of Parian marble to encourage an attribution to a Greek workshop in Athens, or more likely, Delos,66 that produced furniture to satisfy the Roman market around 100 B.C. or soon after.67 Workshops on Delos produced some of the frst marble furniture to arrive in Italy before the island fell in the pirate raid of 69 B.C.68

T-Supp 2: Fragment of Pillar with Twelve-petaled Rosette Late second century B.C.

Moss Type 6 Fig. 172

CE 547. Found in 1952 built into late wall on southwest side of Street 6 near entrance to forum between archway and northwest portico (VIII-D). Creamy, fnely textured travertine containing fossils. Max. Pres. H. 0.169, W. 0.156, Th. 0.107 m. Broken across top and bottom; worn, chipped; encrusted with lime; traces of mortar. Unpublished. This is most likely a piece of a table support in the form of a pillar corresponding to Type 6 in Moss’s typology.69 It belongs to a version that is decorated with a rosette on the front or on both front and back. The type has moldings at the top and base. Here the rosette appears on just one side. The fnely carved rosette with twelve narrow, pointed tips rests within a raised disk; its petals undulate outward from the raised center, ending with lifted tips. The petals alternate with one or two grooves along each. The raised center of the rosette has a drilled hole, perhaps where the point of the compass was set for marking the circumference of the disk. The sides and front are fnished smooth; the back is more roughly fnished with the claw chisel. The coarser treatment of the back suggests that the table was placed against a wall. Roman table supports of the pillar type have Hellenistic parallels, as the ones found on Delos show. The Delian examples are either undecorated or have a rosette on one side; they also have 62

C. Moss, personal correspondence and verifed in the many herms and herm busts, mostly serving as table supports, from Pompeii in the Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli (see Carrella et al. 2008, passim, altogether 38 pieces in which the taeniae fall onto the chest and are very simply, even crudely, rendered).

63

Mattusch in Hellenkemper Salies 1994, 1:431–50 and Mattusch (above n. 61) 169–90. On the Mahdia herm see also B. S. Ridgway 2000, 247–52. 64

On the turban see Mattusch (above n. 61) 180.

65

Moss 1988, 207, 216.

66 The Delian workshops’ preference for using Parian marble reinforces a Delian origin for the Cosa support; see Moss 1988, 125–26 with n. 50. 67 For further discussion, especially as this attribution relates to Cosa, see above, p. 20. 68

Moss 1988, 127–29.

69

Moss 1988, 30–33.

148

TABLES

moldings at the top and base and a squared mortise in the upper surface to secure a rectangular table top. Most are undated, but one has been dated to the second century B.C.70 Pernice has gathered many from Pompeii executed in travertine, which he considers late Republican (“Tufa Period”). These have more varied decorations: a fgure or a rosette in low relief and futed or plain sides.71 Unknown to him is a table support now in the atrium of the opulently appointed thermopolium of L. Vetutius Placidus in Pompeii.72 Two more travertine supports are in the National Museum in Rome.73 Another possible example is a white stone “stele” from Alba Fucens; its height fts within the range of heights for these supports, and it was found in an area with remains of Republican houses.74 The rosette with twelve petals requires further comment, for its form is quite unusual, and its popularity is limited in its geographic and chronological range to late Republican times in central Italy and the late Hellenistic Aegean area.75 In central Italy this rosette appears in the metopes of Doric friezes decorating travertine, limestone, or tuff monuments, such as tombs, podia, altars, or sarcophagi in the form of an altar, dating from the third century through the early frst century B.C.76 A Doric frieze with this rosette in the metopes also decorates the top of the shaft of a white limestone puteal in the atrium of the House of the Citharist at Pompeii (at I.4.5).77 It may also appear in other contexts, such as a frieze decorated with a long garland supported at intervals by Cupids now in the Museo Nazionale in Chieti and Sullan in date.78 Another context is an Etruscan cinerary urn from Chiusi.79 The alabaster urn takes the form of a kline that has between the upper parts of 70 For the examples from Delos see Deonna 1938, 34–36, Type 15a; the second-century B.C. support: p. 34, pl. XVI, no. 113. 71

Pernice 1932, 7–11, pls. 4–5.

72

Located in Pompeii at I.1.7–8; Moss 1988, 642–43, A300.

73

Moss 1988, 655–57, A316, A317.

74

This may not be a table support, though it resembles one since it is not fnished on the back. It has a profled top and base in which the moldings only go around three sides; the rosette appears on the front, and the back is less well fnished. See De Ruyt 1982, 155, no. 189, not illustrated.

75 Here I must clarify a point stressed by Moss (1988, 145–46) regarding the rosette ornament found on his Type 6 examples. He refers to the rosette motive in general (italics mine) and not specifcally to the twelve-petaled form. He is basically correct, but not concerning this special form. 76 On these Doric friezes in general see R. Delbrück, Hellenistische Bauten in Latium, Strassburg: Trübner, 1912, 148–53; the earliest dated piece is the Vulci tuff (nenfro) sarcophagus of L. Cornelius Scipio Barbatus in the Vatican dated epigraphically to the third century B.C.; Delbrück (as above) 153; Helbig4 1:213–15 no. 266; and F. Coarelli, “Il secolcro degli Scipioni,” DialArch 6 (1972) 36–106; reprinted in F. Coarelli, Revixit ars, Rome: Quasar, 1996, 179–238, fgs. 62, 63, 72, 73; the reference is to Revixit ars. The metopes contain rosettes of different forms, but none is a twelve-petaled type. On the twelve-petaled version see T. Kraus, “Überlegungen zum Bauornament,” in Zanker 1976, 458.

The twelve-petaled rosette appears in Doric friezes on the following monuments: (1) Praeneste, Podium in the Apsidal Hall, late second century B.C.; Delbrück (as above) 84–85, fg. 81, pl. XX, 153 for the date and Kraus (as above) 458, fg. 2; (2) Rome, Tomb from the Esquiline cemetery, late second century B.C. or earlier; Delbrück (as above) 148, fg. 86 and p. 153 for the date; Mustilli 1939, pl. IX, no. 32; (3) Rome, Temple A in the Area Sacra di Largo Argentina, associated with Phase 3, ca. 55–30 B.C.; F. Coarelli et al., L’Area Sacra di Largo Argentina, Rome: Comune di Roma, 1981, 17, pl. VI, 2; and I. Iacopi, “Area Sacra dell’Argentina: Considerazioni sulla terza fase del Tempio A,” BullComm 81 (1968–69) 118, 124, pl. 41, 1; (4) Benevento, Museo Provinciale, inv. 6491, Tomb of a veteran of Legion VI or XXX settled in 42 B.C. under the Triumvirate; Felletti Maj 1977, 204–5, pl. 28, fg. 71b; (5) Alba Fucens, limestone fragment of Doric frieze from unknown monument; De Ruyt 1982, 248 no. 173, pl. 50; (6) Tivoli, Villa Gregoriana, frieze crowning a funerary monument from Tibur, early frst century B.C., A. Degrassi, Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei Publicae, Imagines, CIL Auctarium, Berlin: De Gruyter, 1965, 81 no. 120. 77 Pernice 1932, 30, pl. 19, 4; he placed this in a group “diffcult to classify” because its Doric frieze is so typically Hellenistic though its material is marble; he considers it Sullan. I believe the material is a fne white limestone based on autopsy May 2010. 78 79

Kleiner 1980, 39–40, fgs. 12–13.

S. Steingräber, Etruskische Möbel, Archaeologica 9, Rome: G. Bretschneider, 1979, 283 no. 450, pl. 23, 1; considered Hellenistic.

TABLE SUPPORTS

149

the elaborate legs a narrow frieze containing a row of fve rosettes of which the ones on each end have twelve petals. The motive also appears on a fragment of a cornice of tuff or travertine from a house in Vulci, dated to ca. 100–50 B.C. on the basis of the type of pavement mosaic in the portico to which the cornice most likely belonged.80 This rosette is also found in foor decorations of the late Republican period. The only one from central Italy belongs to a redecoration of the Sanctuary of Hercules Curinus near Sulmo in the frst half of the frst century B.C. It is inscribed within a circle in the center of the new mosaic pavement of the sacellum.81 Several examples come from Pompeii and Herculaneum, where it is called a “Hellenistic rosette” in recent Italian publications. Dating to the end of the second century B.C. is the well-known Alexander Mosaic from the House of the Faun in Pompeii (VI.12.1–8), which features this motive in the corners of the border.82 Another mosaic from the same house also shows a twelve-petaled rosette in the corners of a border consisting of a three-dimensional meander alternating with three-dimensional boxes containing different rosette-like motives.83 A rosette forms the center of a large circular design of overlapping concentric and radiating feathers, itself inside a square carpet, in ala h of the House of Joseph II in Pompeii (VIII.2.29).84 The design is picked out by white tesserae set into a signinum pavement contemporary with the First Style wall decoration. The black and white mosaic foor of cubiculum f in the house at VIII.2.14–16 in Pompeii has in the center a twelve-petaled rosette enclosed within a circular border inside a lozenge.85 The striking parallels between this design and a polychrome one from Delos will be discussed below. Two variations of this type of rosette appear in the House of Triptolemus and the House of the Marinaio, both at Pompeii (VII.7.5 cubiculum x and VII.15.2 tablinum t respectively). Both are black and white mosaic pavements whose central rosette has six petals each alternating with a larger “petal”

80

The rosette appears in a coffer between two brackets in a strongly projecting cornice; see H. von Hesberg, Konsolengeisa des Hellenismus und der frühen Kaiserzeit, RM suppl. 24, Mainz: Zabern, 1980, 133, pl. 19, 1–2. The house, still not fully published, must be the House of the Cryptoporticus; see Carandini 1985a, 645–73. The portico to which the cornice must have belonged overlooks a large garden at the back of the house. It and its pavement belong to the construction phase of the house, late second/early frst centuries B.C. The pavement mosaic is a type used in the late Republic in which pairs of rectangular tesserae of white limestone are set perpendicular to each other in imitation of basketwork; interspersed are mostly squared crustae of colored marl, litomarga. The dating of the construction of the house and of this type of foor mosaic are the criteria on which the date of the cornice, and its twelve-petaled rosette, are based. I stress this in the light of the discussion of C. Moss. On the “Crustae Mosaic” type see Dunbabin 1999, 53–54 and Vos 1991, 40–41. 81 F. Van Wonterghem, “Archäologische Zeugnisse spätrepublikanischer Zeit aus dem Gebiet der Peligner,” in Zanker 1976, 143–59, fg. 8; the sacellum also received a new wall decoration in the First, or Masonry, Style at the same time. 82

Now in the Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli, inv. no. 10020. See most recently Dunbabin 1999, 40–43 with discussion and bibliography; fg. 41 illustrates in black

and white the entire mosaic, including the border of dentils in perspective with the rosettes in the corners. A detail of the lower right corner is illustrated in H. von Hesberg, “Lo sviluppo dell’ordine corinzio in età tardo-repubblicana” in L’Art decorative à Rome à la fn de la République et au début du principat, CÉFR 55, Rome: École française de Rome, 1981, 57, fg. 1. See also PPM 5 (1994) fg. 57 in color, with caption on pp. 124–25: the frame of dentils with a rosette in the corners was inspired by local architectural architraves of tuff from the period (M. de Vos). The dentils and rosettes are set against a background of black tesserae. 83 See PPM 5 (1994) 134, fg. 72 with caption on p. 133; see also p. 132, fg. 70. This mosaic formed the emblema of a simple white and black mosaic in an exedra on the south side of the second peristyle. It has now disintegrated and is known only in a reconstruction drawing. 84 85

See PPM 8 (1998) 321, fg. 21.

See PPM 8 (1998) 80, fgs. 12–13. The lozenge is set inside a frame consisting of two narrow bands and a pair of slightly wider bands bordering a flling of black and white tesserae set in a checkerboard pattern. From this point on the references to Campanian and Hellenistic mosaics are for tessellated mosaics formed by setting cubes of colored stone into a foor to create elaborate compositions or pictures. On these see most recently Dunbabin 1999, 18–37.

150

TABLES

that resembles a lotus bud.86 The most impressive and possibly the latest of these rosettes appears in the square panel in the center of a mosaic foor in the antechamber of cubiculum D in the House of M. Pilius Primigenius Granianus in Herculaneum.87 The polychrome rosette appears within a circular medallion against a feld of black tesserae and surrounded by a double row of black and white tesserae set in a checkerboard fashion; a square black frame encloses the panel; its inner sides are tangent to the circular checkerboard border. The twelve-petaled rosette appears in two mosaics belonging to houses on Delos. One is prominently displayed in the center of the peristyle court of the House of the Lake.88 The rosette, whose petals are alternately white and polychrome, is placed within a circular medallion against a black background; a rose-colored frame surrounds the rosette, which appears against a black background. The polychrome rosette against a black background resembles the treatment of the rosette in Herculaneum. The second rosette is found within the rectangular entrance panel of House IIIQ in the Theater Quarter.89 The petals of this rosette are quite plain, alternating rose and yellow against a black background within a narrow, circular, white band forming a medallion. This, in turn, is set within a lozenge flled in with black and bordered in rose. The slightly obtuse angles of the lozenge are tangent to the white ring around the rosette. These, along with most of the mosaics from the houses of Delos that are not frmly dated, are considered on the basis of their technique and style to date between ca. 130 and 88 B.C.90 The motive also appears in the center of a rectangular panel in the pavement of the cella of Temple B in the Letoon at Xanthos.91 Here the polychrome rosette is set against a light blue background within a circular medallion; this medallion in turn appears in a rose feld, almost square, bordered at top and bottom by alternating black and white triangles. This mosaic has been dated by comparison with those on Delos between ca. 150 and 80 B.C.92 There are striking correspondences among this rosette, the ones from Delos, and the one in Herculaneum: all are set within a circular medallion, although only that from Xanthos lacks a border, and the rosettes are polychrome, although the petals of that from House IIIQ on Delos are solid, alternating colors. The petals of the rest are treated in different colors, most likely to give the impression that the petals undulate in three dimensions. The rosettes in the corners of the Alexander mosaic also have strongly undulating petals, though the medallion effect is lacking. Translating this effect into stone would yield not only a rosette with undulating petals in low relief but also a rosette within a raised disk, as in the table supports from Cosa and one of those in Rome.93 These are the only two Italian examples carved onto a disk, though some

86 House of Triptolemus: PPM 7 (1997) 256, fg. 48; House of the Marinaio: PPM 7 (1997) 735, fgs. 62a, b and 63. 87

Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006, 244–45, fg. 140 for the panel in color; fg. 139 shows the pavement of the antechamber: mostly white with a black border near the walls and door; the walls of this space are decorated in the Second Style. The house has been dated to the third quarter of the frst century B.C. (as above, p. 242). 88 Bruneau 1972, 184 no. 93, fgs. 102–4. See also Trümper 1998, 213–14, no. 23 and fg. 17. 89

Bruneau 1972, 279–83, no. 267, fgs. 234–36 and Trümper 1998, 280–81. See also Dunbabin 1999, 31, fg. 30.

90

Dunbabin 1999, 30 following Bruneau 1972, 95–99.

91

H. Metzger et al., “Fouilles du Létoon de Xanthos (1970–1973),” RA 2 (1974) 324–26, fgs. 18–19. This panel is divided into three parts, from left to right: the crossed bow and quiver of Artemis, the rosette, and the cithara of Apollo. Artemis and Apollo are the twin children of Leto. I thank Bettina Bergman for sharing her color photographs of this mosaic with me.

92 93

Metzger et al. (as above) 326.

Moss 1988, 655–56, no. A316: Museo Nazionale Romano inv. no. 30080.

TABLE SUPPORTS

151

appear within an inscribed disk, and most of the Italian rosettes have undulating petals, some more pronouncedly so than others. Considering that art historians tend to think that the Roman art of the late Republic was strongly infuenced by Greek art, the absence of twelve-petaled rosettes in the late Hellenistic art of the Aegean area before ca. 150/130 B.C. leaves open the question of the origin of this motive and of its eventual spread.94 The motive could just as easily have originated in Italy and been carried eastward as the other way around, considering the increasing trade and commerce between the eastern and western Mediterranean in late Hellenistic/late Republican times.

T-Supp 3: Lion’s Head from Three-legged Table Early frst century B.C.

Moss Type 9 Fig. 173

CE 952. Found in 1952 in Room 16 of Atrium Building I near surface (VIII-D). Pentelic marble. Pres. H. 0.165, Pres. W. 0.121 m. Broken unevenly from top front of leg; lower jaw and proper left side broken away. Upper teeth worn and chipped; small chips all over; surface at back coated with mortar and lime deposits; earth stains; root marks. Collins 1970, 32, 34, 181–82 no. 32, fg. 75; Moss 1988, 251, 718–19 C21; Collins-Clinton, Attanasio, and Platania 2008, 33–35. This small head must have broken from a feline leg that once belonged to a three-legged table corresponding to Moss’s Type 9: Tables with Three Supports.95 This was a very common type of table in the Greco-Roman world. Its history began in the fourth century B.C., when the legs were very simple; sometime around the end of the second century or in the frst century B.C. an animal protome, most often a lion’s head, was added to the top of the leg on a collar of acanthus leaves.96 This little head preserves most of the face, its right ear, and the right side of the mane in front of and below the ear. The modeling is lively and full of contrasts. The surfaces of the face are smoothed, the muzzle rounded, the brows pulled together between the semicircular eyes, the cheekbone prominent. Short tufts of hair rise stiffy from the forehead, and there is a lumpy mass of short hair in front of the ear. The mane framing the face is composed of short, crescent-shaped locks. The composition is punctuated by deep shadows created by the inset eyes, whose inner corners are drilled, the drilled nostrils, and the open mouth. The upper and inner edges of the eye are undercut. The drill has been used judiciously, however, for the hair around the face has been rendered with the chisel only. The closest parallels to this piece, based on the faces of the protomes, are Hellenistic and not Roman. The careful use of the drill, avoided in the hair framing the face, the inset eyes, the 94 Kraus (above n. 76) 458 notes that this rosette resembling a star often appears as architectural ornament in Italy, this in the context of these rosettes in the Doric frieze of the podium in the Apsidal Hall in Praeneste. His paper is concerned only with architectural ornament and does not note the rosettes in contemporary mosaic foors. He does, however, note some parallels in Etruscan art, echoed later by A. Ambrogi, “Monumenti funerarie di età romana di Foligno, Spello e Assisi,” Xenia 8 (1984) 52 no. 31, who also notes the long, pointed

petals giving a star-like form to the rosettes on these pieces; two even have twelve-petaled rosettes: no. 29 on pp. 32 and 50; no. 35 on pp. 51 and 53. All date to the late second and early frst century B.C. 95 96

Moss 1988, 37–43.

Moss 1988, 38–40 for a description of the type, which usually has a round leaf. It is sometimes called a delphica.

152

TABLES

irregular crescent-shaped locks in the mane, and the short tufts between the ears, can be seen in a particularly similar example from Delos,97 which must antedate the mid-frst century B.C., and also in pieces from Thespiae98 and Delphi.99 Another was found in a cache of mostly late Hellenistic statuary from a late Republican villa at Fianello Sabino in northern Latium.100 Table supports found in Pompeii, by contrast, exhibit much more drillwork and more regularized patterns of hair in their manes, between the ears, even in front of the ears.101 On the basis of style, the Cosa piece looks more Hellenistic than Roman, and the use of Pentelic marble reinforces this attribution. The table to which this head belonged must have been imported to Cosa before the destruction of ca. 70–60 B.C.

T-Supp 4: Stretcher for Three-legged Table, Inscribed with Letter K Early frst century B.C.

Moss Type 9 Figs. 174–75

C69.285. Found in 1969 in front of Atrium Building IV in a disturbed context near the surface. Fine- to medium-grained white marble, possibly Pentelic. Max. Pres. L. 0.313, H. to top of central surface 0.093; L. of each arm from center: 0.13, 0.157, and 0.191 m. Ends broken away; chipped; a few traces of mortar adhering to crevices on underside; earth stained, root marks. Moss 1988, 251, 719 C22. This is a piece of a three-armed stretcher for a table with three legs, Moss Type 9.102 The center is roughly circular and fat, incised with the letter K (fg. 174). The upper surface of each arm is slightly ridged, and the entire stretcher arches upward toward the center. The upper and side surfaces are smoothed. The underside is concave, deeper in the center, and roughly fnished: the deeper portion with a fne point, the sides with the claw chisel (fg. 175). The missing ends would have been fnished fat and shaped to ft against a matching fat surface behind the support, cf. the similar stretcher, T-Supp 15 below. The crystalline structure and warm tonality of the marble as well as the kappa inscribed in the center suggest Greek workmanship. It may possibly have belonged to the table above, T-Supp 3.

IMPERIAL: AUGUSTAN–SECOND CENTURY A.D. T-Supp 5: Fragment of Console-shaped Table Support: Paw Early Augustan 97

Deonna 1938, 45, no. B4679 and pl. XX, fg. 144.

98

A. de Ridder, “Fouilles de Thespies et de l’Hiéron des Muses de l’Hélikon: Monuments fgurés,” BCH 46 (1922) 258–59, no. 78 and fg. 36.

99

Richter 1966, 71 and fgs. 374–76.

100

Vorster 1998, 48 and 72 cat. no. 38.

Cohon Type II Figs. 176–77

101

A large three-legged table in the peristyle of the House of the Vettii in Pompeii (VI.15.1, 27) is a good example; see Moss 1988, 756–58, C67 and PPM 5 (1994) 502, fg. 54; 522, fg. 94, Carrara marble.

102 Moss 1988, 37–43 for the type, 40–41 for the stretcher, there called “horizontal brace with three prongs.”

TABLE SUPPORTS

153

C73.55. Found in 1973 in the reservoir at the west corner of the forum. Gray, very fne-grained travertine. Max. Pres. H. 0.13, Max. Pres. W. 0.11, Max. Pres. D. 0.141, H. of plinth in front 0.07 m. Chipped; broken at back and along proper right side; badly weathered and pitted. Cohon 1984, 49, 159, 226–27 no. 68: Type II: Console-shaped Supports, Class B: possibly 100–20 B.C. This piece preserves three knobby toes and parts of the tendons of a lion’s paw with long claws resting on their pads. A fourth toe is broken away on the proper right side. The paw rests on a plinth that is rounded in front. The preserved sides and underside of the plinth are worked smooth with a claw chisel. The fnely textured gray travertine almost resembles marble. On the underside of the plinth can be seen the irregular texture with inclusions of other matter that is typical of travertine. It has a tendency to split. This fragment belongs to a rectangular table supported by a pair of heavy, slab-like legs, generally of limestone or travertine. In these supports the front end is carved in the curved shape of an animal’s leg; the back end may resemble the front so the table could be freestanding or left vertical and plain so that it can be placed against a wall. The front (or front and back) end terminates in a four-toed lion’s paw resting on a plinth rounded at the end, just as in the Cosa piece (fg. 176).103 Above the tendons of the paw is a fllet, which separates the paw from a zone of futes, usually four on the front and two on each side, which extend to the convex “knee” of the leg. The knee is decorated with three to seven rows of overlapping feathers, their ends pointing downward. Above this is a projecting fllet that provides a border at the top to support the table leaf. On both sides of the knee the leg turns into a volute with one or two acanthus leaves at the top (fg. 177). Springing from these is either a bell- or a kelch-fower, and under the volute, between it and the futes, is either a half-palmette or another kelch-fower. The rest of the support is left plain. This type of support is an early form that dates back to the second century B.C. and continued to be made in the early Imperial period. Although most date from the late Republican period, a few, marked by declining workmanship, date to early Augustan times, when the type fell out of fashion just when the relatively inexpensive marble from the Carrara quarries was becoming more readily available.104 The dating of the Cosa fragment must rest primarily on the rendering of the paw, whose toes are carved much less plastically than those of the earlier supports. The channels between the toes are shallower, the one preserved side is very fat and schematic, and the whole execution seems uninspired.105 The use of such a very fne-grained limestone also indicates that the Cosa piece must belong among the later supports; an early Augustan date is likely.

103 On the type see now Cohon 1984, 47–58, 214–29 nos. 50–71, where detailed descriptions of the variations may be found; see also Pernice 1932, 1–4, and pls. 1–3; for a critique of Pernice see Cohon 1984, 489 n. 1. See also Deonna 1938, 29–30, Type 14d, although the Delian examples lack decoration. My analysis has benefted from discussions with Robert Cohon.

104

Cohon 1984, 54, 57–58.

105 The treatment of the side of the Cosa paw is very close to that visible in Pernice 1932, pl. 2, fg. 2 and pl. 3, fg. 1; these are the later examples that show the fattened pad under the side toe, a treatment very clearly similar to that of the Cosa paw.

154

TABLES

T-Supp 6: Slab-like Support: Hybrid Lion Griffn, Fragment Early Augustan

Cohon Type III Figs. 178–79

Two joining pieces: CB 698, CB 1076. Both found in 1949 near northwestern arx wall, CB 698 (body) in medieval gate, CB 1076 (head) a short distance outside on surface. Fine-to medium-grained white marble with an irregular crystalline structure and a streak of mica: Pentelic. Max. Pres. H. 0.375, Max. Pres. Th. 0.111 m. Tops of head and wings, back of wings, and leg broken away. Chipped and battered all over; proper left eyebrow sheared off. Weathered, more so on proper right side, where upper part of face and nose worn smooth. Traces of mortar; earth stained. http://www.cosaexcavations.org/cosa-virtual-museum (3D image): Winged Lion Table Leg; Collins 1970, 186–88 no. 35; Cohon 1984, 96, 98 n. 96, 160, 269 no. 118; Type III: Hybrid Lion Griffn. Only a portion of one end is preserved and shows the head and body, except the leg, of a winged lion griffn from a slab-like support in the form of two addorsed grotesques (fg. 178). The base of the erect pointed ear of a griffn may be seen on the better-preserved right side, next to which are the remains of the corrugated surface of a horn. The head is very strongly, though schematically, modeled (fg. 179). It has heavy brows knit together over large, bulging eyes. The nose is wrinkled and the muzzle grooved to indicate whiskers. From the open mouth the long tongue lolls out, its tip resting on the breast. The lower jaw and tongue are held well away and carved free from the neck and breast. By each cheek a thick, half-crescent-shaped lock carved in long strands extends along the neck. More hair grows from under the chin, splitting into three waving locks on the breast, where the tip of the tongue rests. The mane is rendered naturalistically down the back of the neck. The long sickle-shaped wings have four rows of short bifurcated feathers at their base. Next to the lion’s neck hair on the proper left side the end of one of the long wing feathers projects outward. Below the feathers on this side appears the bulging muscle belonging to the top of the long ridge that would have led to the corresponding toe of the missing leg. The plasticity of the modeling is subdued overall, though it is especially pronounced in the lolling tongue carved free of neck and chest and more obvious on the proper right side, which may have been the outer side of the support. Otherwise the conception, especially in the face and hair, tends toward abstraction. These qualities indicate a date between ca. 50 and 20 B.C., and the restrained plasticity here points toward the early Augustan period.106 The combination of certain “robust” features occurring in the modeling of earlier grotesques with the plainer ones of later date yields the “hybrid” treatment of the grotesque as seen here.107 An early Augustan date seems likely, reinforced by the use of Pentelic marble, since after ca. 20 B.C. the less expensive Carrara marble would have been used.108 The Cosa piece may well have been made in Rome by Attic or Attic-trained artisans working with their familiar material.109 106

Cohon 1984, 78; 81 for the lolling tongue. To Cohon’s examples of the lolling tongue add a lion griffn support from Nomentum, cut in half, now in the Casali di Mentana; Pala 1976, 72–73; I, 98 no. 6 and fgs. 180–81.

108

107

109

Cohon 1984, 67, 269 no. 118.

Cohon 1984, 105. It is clear that I have proposed an earlier date for this piece than that given by R. Cohon. The Cosa fragment exhibits more plasticity than he notes, and an earlier date fts well with both the material used and the history of the town. Cohon 1984, 98.

TABLE SUPPORTS

155

T-Supp 7a, b: Pair of Slab-like Supports with Herm at Either End: Fragmentary Cohon Type VI Tiberian Figs. 180–84 (a) Upper half of one support, inscribed: CB 1430. Found in 1949 on arx just north of “Capitolium” on surface, carefully laid in fll of ramp of second medieval period. Stolen in July 1965. Fine-grained white marble. Pres. H. 0.45, L. 0.73 m, Th. 0.135 m. Weathered; chipped around edges; splitting. (b) Fragment from center of other support: CC 11. Found on arx in 1950 in Via Sacra on surface. Fine-grained white marble with irregular crystalline structure. Max. Pres. H. 0.234, Max. Pres. W. 0.226, Gr. Th. 0.134 m. Broken on all sides. Front and back surfaces very worn and weathered, earth stained; lime flm; minor chips. Brown et al. 1960, 139; Collins 1970, 38, 91–94 no. 37; Saladino 1977, 148–51; Bace 1983, 41, 74–75 no. IIA1; Cohon 1984, 125, 129, 160, 405–7 no. 272, Type VI: Herms; Papi 2000, 14; Eck and Hesberg 2004, 172, 174, 175, 183–84 A6. Since the inscribed leg, CB 1430, was stolen from the excavation site, the above data have been taken from the excavations records, and all descriptive information is based on the photographs (fgs. 180–82). The ends take the form of two herms of Eros. Although their faces appear battered, it is clear that two rows of large curls hang to their shoulders. Above the heads is a crowning fascia, which continues along the entire top of the slab. The inscription would have appeared on the outer side of the support (fg. 180). Above the inscription is an inset panel corresponding to the heads and chests of the herms. This contains wings sprouting from the Erotes’ shoulders and, between the wings, an amphora from which grows a plant whose curving, leafed stems fll the feld above each wing. Two birds fank the amphora. The inscription appears below this panel on a surface fush with the sides of the herms and edged with grooves. The inner side is less ornate (fg. 182). The entire area between the herms has been rendered as an inset panel without moldings. Again, wings sprout from the shoulders of the herms. Below these are the tips of fve leaves of a palmette. The reliefwork appears more simply rendered than that on the other side. The edges are sharper, and the surfaces are fat, as though only blocked out. Only two lines of the inscription are preserved with slight traces from the top of a third: DRVSO CAESARI / TI · AVGVSTI · F · DIVI · AVGVSTI · N It records a dedication to Drusus Caesar, son of Tiberius Augustus and grandson of the divine Augustus, who died in A.D. 23.110 The second of the pair, CC 11, is a fragment from the center; its thickness is virtually the same as that of CB 1430. It is carved in relief on both sides with the more elaborate design on the outer (fg. 183), the simpler on the inner side (fg. 184). The three thin leaves on the inner side can only

110

Saladino 1977, 150; Bace 1983, 74–75 no. IIA1; and Eck and von Hesberg 2004, 185 A6. According to Papi 2000, 14 patronage by young Julio-Claudian princes was not unusual.

For a fragment of a portrait of Drusus Caesar and possible fragments of its body see above PS-Head 1. The statue would have stood in the forum.

156

TABLES

belong to the right half of a palmette, whose orientation provides that for the vegetal decoration on the other side. There an acanthus stalk curves downward toward the left, terminating in a very damaged piece of leaf. In the feld to the right are other leaves and fowers. The relief on both sides is very low. The palmette leaves are very simply carved. The acanthus leaves, however, despite their worn condition, were undercut here and there and their edges heightened with small drilled holes. Extremely low relief is used for some leaves, thus increasing the pictorial effect. Nevertheless, the workmanship appears schematic and lacking in subtlety. These supports belong to a large, rectangular table with two slab-like supports decorated with addorsed herms of Eros on the ends, Cohon Type VI.111 Across the top of both sides of each slab appear Eros’s wings. A dedicatory inscription is on the outer side of one of the supports below the wings. Below that would be a foral design springing from a central acanthus. On the inner side there most often appears a large, simply rendered palmette sprouting from an acanthus-like plant at the base of the support. The outer side of the uninscribed support, under the Erotes’ wings, has an elaborate design of acanthus scrolls with leaves, buds, and fowers winding symmetrically on either side of a tall, central stalk. The inner side of the second leg normally contains a large palmette under the wings, matching that on the inner side of the inscribed leg. This is clearly the pattern followed by the Cosa pieces. It is partly on this basis that the small fragment, CC 11, can be assigned to the same table. This association is confrmed by the matching thicknesses of the two pieces. The Cosa table has as its closest parallel an inscribed example in the Museo Nuovo Capitolino in Rome; this also exhibits, between the wings of the herms and above the inscription, a very similar vegetal decoration in which a plant grows from a central vase fanked by birds. This support is securely dated by its inscription to L. Cassius Longinus, consul in A.D. 30 in the reign of Tiberius.112 The inscription on the Cosa table mentioning Drusus Caesar, who died in A.D. 23, also dates it securely to the Tiberian period.113 This type of table seems to have been almost exclusively used for dedicatory purposes, and most are dated to the Augustan and Tiberian periods on the basis of their inscriptions.114 Many were dedicated to a patron, which was the case for the Cosa table, whose inscription strongly suggests that Drusus Caesar may have been an important patron of Cosa.115 Found on the arx very near the “Capitolium,” this table must be remnants of one that would have been set up in or near the “Capitolium,” possibly as part of the paraphernalia of a small imperial cult, begun in the Augustan period.116 It may even have served as an altar table, used for offerings in honor of the imperial family.117 More recently W. Eck and H. von Hesberg have proposed that tables of this type were used 111

Cohon 1984, 123–34, 398–414 nos. 265–79 of which nos. 269–73, 276, and 278 are inscribed; 428–29, appendix no. 2, also inscribed. Note that the last example is from Méria on the island of Corsica, not from southern France. Add: An inscribed fragment from Nomentum, Pala 1976, 70–71; I, 92 no. 22, and fgs. 176–77; Casali di Mentana, no. 80620; see also Eck and von Hesberg 2004, 182 A3. The upper center shows ends of wings of Erotes between which are two birds facing a central, very abstract plant, inscription below; other side shows tip of one wing and feather of other above top of a palmette. This was found in a funerary zone north of the ancient town along the Via Nomentana; it must be Julio-Claudian in date. For Julio-Claudian material from the town see Pala 1976, 14.

112

Cohon 1984, 407–8 no. 273 with bibliography; Eck and von Hesberg 2004, 180–81 A1 and passim.

113

Saladino 1977, 150 and Bace 1983, 74.

114

On the chronology see Cohon 1984, 123, 128–30, based on both epigraphical evidence and stylistic analysis of the foral decoration.

115

Bace 1983, 74–75 is less certain, but see Cohon 1984, 123, 133–34. The word patrono actually appears in the inscriptions on some of these table supports: Cohon 1984, cat. nos. 269, 271, 273, and appendix no. 2.

116

Saladino 1977, 151. On the imperial cult at Cosa see below, A 5.

117 Tables, especially those with slab-like legs, were sometimes used as altars throughout Classical antiquity; see H. von Hesberg, “Tischgräber in Italien,” AA (1980) 438, esp. n. 53. See also Saladino 1977, 150–51 and T. Fischer-Hansen, “Some Sicilian Arulae and Their Signifcance,” AnalRom 8 (1977) 15. The frst and last references I owe to Robert Cohon.

157

TABLE SUPPORTS

as bases for honorary equestrian statues of bronze, half life-sized.118 No trace of such a statue has come to light at Cosa, however. According to the excavators the inscribed support may have been reused as part of the altar of the medieval church built into the cella of the “Capitolium” in the frst medieval occupation of the arx.119 The table top has either not been found or not identifed as such.

T-Supp 8: Winged Goat Table Support Early frst century A.D.

Moss Type 4 Fig. 185

C9605. Found in 1996 in the garden of the House of Diana among the decorative pieces piled in the shrine of Diana, SU 227. Fine- to medium-grained white marble, possibly Pentelic. H. 0.75; Columnar Support: Diam. tapers from the top to bottom, 0.093 as preserved to 0.104; Plinth: L. front to back as preserved 0.122, W. as preserved 0.12 m. http://www.cosaexcavations.org/cosa-virtual-museum (3D image): “Pegasus” Table Leg; Taylor 2003a, 195–96 no. 5, pl. 84. For the complete description including the condition see Taylor (above). The support is a well-preserved, rare example of a stylized winged goat addorsed to a column that actually supported the table leaf. The composition conforms to Moss’s Type 4: Monopod Table Supports with Protomes on Feline Legs.120 The column behind the fgure is also rare within this type, where it appears only with goat protomes.121 One very similar example from Pompeii even preserves its cloven hoof, unusual in table supports that mostly have feline paws.122 It also clearly shows the dewclaw just above and behind the hoof. Goats have a two-part dewclaw on both front and rear legs, each resembling a miniature hoof,123 a detail very clearly shown in the Cosa piece, where it grips either side of the column. This detail strongly suggests that the Cosa leg also had a cloven hoof. Based on an example from Pompeii, the plinth would have been quite long in order to accommodate the hoof, and its front would have been curved.124 The Cosa piece and that from Pompeii date in the early frst century A.D. The workmanship of the Cosa support, however, is superior.

T-Supp 9: Fragment, Feline Foot Early frst century A.D. 118 Eck and von Hesberg 2004, 151 and 167–79 for the herm type; 146–51 and 178 on tables as statue bases. 119

Brown et al. 1960, 4–5; Fentress et al. 2003, 72–73.

120 Moss 1988, 20–26, although the Cosa support shows a goat’s protome over a goat’s leg. 121 122

Moss 1988, cat. nos. A111, A136, and A153.

On this see most recently J. Pollini, “A New Winged Goat Table Leg Support from the House of Numerius Popidius Priscus at Pompeii and the Rediscovery of Related Finds Lost for a Century and a Half,” Vesuviana 4 (2012) 151–53, fg. 20, now in Naples, National Archaeological Museum, inv. 110025; also Moss 1988, 480 no. A111.

Possibly Moss Type 4 Fig. 186 Though the head is missing, the tip of the goat’s lolling tongue rests on its chest. Cf. a late Hellenistic support for a tripod table from Delos that has the head of a ram or goat above a feline leg and ruff of acanthus leaves. It arches its neck so that its head bends down vertically, its muzzle and beard touching its chest. There may be a narrow semblance of a wing. See Deonna 1938, 46 inv. no. B3274-A1725-6001, pl. 137, from the Maison de l’Éphorie. 123

I thank the staff of my dogs’ veterinarian for help in identifying this part of caprine anatomy. See also Wikipedia. org, s.v. Dewclaw; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/dewclaw (accessed 2 June 2013).

124

See Pollini (above n. 122) 143–55 and fg. 20.

158

TABLES

CC 111 (lower leg) and CC 464a–c (paw). Found in 1950 on the arx, CC 111 in the forecourt of Temple D and CC 464a–c to the north of the “Capitolium”; both were found on the surface. Fine- to medium-grained marble with some gray veins and a streak of mica, possibly Pentelic. Max. Pres. H. 0.26, W. across front of plinth 0.167, Pres. L. of plinth front to back 0.134, H. of plinth at front varies 0.036 to 0.039 m. Badly weathered and battered, especially around the claws; right claw chipped away; back of plinth along with backmost pad of the paw also broken away, revealing dowel holes for ancient repairs. Earth stains, traces of mortar, root marks. Collins 1970, 34, 183 no. 33, fg. 77; Moss 1988, 693 no. B6 (fragment not assignable to either a monopod or tripod table). This piece preserves only a heavy, rather stiffy vertical lower leg with prominent tendons and veins extending onto the long, knobby toes, whose long claws rest on thick, puffy pads. Strands of hair appear on one of the front toes framing the root of the claw. The paw rests on a squared plinth whose underside is worked level with a fne point. The foot and plinth were broken at the back and repaired in antiquity in a rather complex manner. There are three dowel holes, two of which contain bits of the iron dowels: two vertical ones on the sides fank a third central one that slants downward toward the front. The vertical ones in the plinth must have joined the plinth to a separate base. The angled dowel must have joined the back of the paw, now missing, to the plinth, thus reinforcing this area. This reinforcement may suggest that the leg belonged to a monopod table of Moss’s Type 4: Protomes on Feline Legs.125 The rather vertical orientation of the leg also suggests that it was a monopod support.126 According to Moss, this type of support may originate in Julio-Claudian times based on their fndspots in Pompeii.127

T-Supp 10: Fragment: Griffn’s Foot Augustan/Julio-Claudian

Possibly Moss Type 4 Fig. 187

C68.173. Found in 1968 at edge of forum toward the southern corner near surface. Fine-grained white marble. Max. Pres. H. 0.079 m. Broken through leg just above paw. Battered and chipped, tip of two claws chipped away. Heavily lime encrusted, root marks. Collins 1970, 185 no. 34, fg. 78; Moss 1988, 693 no. B 7 (fragments not assignable to a type). This slender remnant of a lower leg and paw has four long birdlike toes at the front; a ffth at the back is short and hooked under, resembling a dewclaw. It rests on a lobed pad without a plinth, so 125

Moss 1988, 20–26, 180. A more defnite attribution of a fragment such as this is only certain if the leg is well enough preserved to show whether or not there was a provision for attaching the stretcher of a tripod table (Moss 1988, 22–23). The complexity of the repair points toward the value of the table, especially since the marble seems to be Pentelic, as the streak of mica surely suggests. On grayish veins in Pentelic marble see Attanasio et al. 2006, 91; P. Pensabene,

“Le principali cave di marmo bianco,” in De Nuccio and Ungaro 2002, 207–8. 126

Compare a lion-headed monopod table support in the Lever Collection, G. Waywell, The Lever and Hope Sculptures, Berlin: Mann, 1986, pl. 19, 3: Lever no. 12. 127

Moss 1988, 180.

159

TABLE SUPPORTS

that it appears to stand on uneven ground. A raised tendon extends up the leg from each toe. The modeling is strong and the forms well articulated. The toes are separated by drilled channels, though almost all traces of the drill have been smoothed away except at the very ends of the channels. The quality of the workmanship is high. The underside is worked fat with a claw chisel. The birdlike appearance of the long knobby toes is usually associated with supports in the form of a griffn protome.128 The preserved bit of lower leg slants backward over the rear of the paw with its dewclaw, carved free from the leg and body of the creature to which it belonged. This could mean that the foot likely belonged to a griffn protome backed against a column or pillar in the manner of Moss Type 4. Two table supports of this type exhibiting the same slanting leg give an idea of what sort of table support the Cosa foot had belonged to, though the Cosa foot seems rather delicate in its slender proportions.129

T-Supp 11: Table Support in the Form of Herm Julio-Claudian

Moss Type 5 Figs. 188–92

CD 303 (head) and C9612 (shaft). CD 303 found in 1951 in basilica amidst fallen debris at foot of the southeast side of the southeast tribune of Neronian odeum. C9612 found in 1996 in the garden of the House of Diana among the decorative pieces piled in the shrine of Diana, SU 227. Fine-grained bluish gray marble streaked with lighter gray, bardiglio. Total H. as preserved 0.783 m. CD 303: H. 0.203, W. 0.094, D. 0.104, H. to top of head 0.144, W. of back pillar 0.079, D. of back pillar 0.047 m. C9612: H. 0.592, W. at top 0.097, W. at bottom 0.103, D. 0.103 m; back pillar W. 0.08, D. varies from 0.042 at top to 0. 044 at proper left and 0.041 m at proper right of bottom. CD 303: Broken off through shoulders. Top and edges of shaft chipped. Lower right portion of nose and most of mouth, mustache, beard, and neck broken away. Minor chips in hair and left eyebrow. Earth stained, some lime flm. Surfaces on its right side corroded; those on its left are smooth. Traces of mortar. C9612: Two joining pieces broken above middle. Chipped in front; surfaces of break weathered (an old break?). Lime flm. http://www.cosaexcavations.org/cosa-virtual-museum (3D image): Herm Table Leg CD 303: Collins 1970, 161–64 no. 24, fgs. 62–63. C9612: Taylor 2003a, 203 no. 17, not illustrated; considered a mate for C9680, a herm.130 128

Moss 1988, 511 A 151: a similar paw from Pompeii. This sort of paw may also be seen at the bottom of the legs of tables with four supports, Moss Type 10; see Moss 1988, 811 D21 with bibliography and p. 836 D54. Another table support from Pompeii of this type has similarly separate pads beneath the toes, illustrated in J. C. Watt, Examples of Greek and Pompeian Decorative Work, Measured and Drawn by James Cromar Watt, London: Batsford, 1897, pl. 39 right. 129

One is the winged goat support from the House of Diana at Cosa, T-Supp 8 above. The other is from Ostia; see De Nuccio and Ungaro 2002, 375 no. 76 with bibliography (C. Valeri). Both lack their feet, as this design invites easy breakage.

130

The height, width, and depth given there for the shaft are incorrect, although the presence of a back pillar and its dimensions do pertain to it. The presence of the back pillar signifes that this piece is not a herm but a table support in the form of a herm. Only C9612 matches the description given there; it is actually smaller and has the dimensions given above. The mate for the herm C9680 (DS-Herm 1) is not C9612; it is a much larger, plain pillar, also of bardiglio, with a tenon at the bottom, fat top, and no back shaft. It was not a table support. For this and its mates, also similar pillars of bardiglio, see DS-Herm 6–8.

160

TABLES

This small table support in the form of a herm was broken in antiquity (fg. 188 shows a reconstruction by M. Brennan). Its shaft, in two pieces (fg. 189), was found in the Shrine of Diana in the House of Diana on the forum, whereas its head was found in the ruins of the Neronian odeum almost directly across the forum from that house. The top of the shaft corresponds to the chest of the head and preserves the ends of the two pairs of long locks, which align precisely with the archaistic braided locks of its head (fg. 190).131 The underside is smooth-picked fat. The form corresponds to Moss Type 5: Herms. Monolithic examples such as this, in which the head, shaft, and back pillar are carved in one piece of marble and set into a separate base, are not common among Roman supports.132 A support from the House of Menander in Pompeii (I.10.16) is a good Roman parallel for a monolithic support that preserves the head of a youthful, beardless Dionysus with two long, wavy tresses falling upon the chest on either side of the neck.133 The small bearded head, representing the older Dionysus, is carved in high relief against the back pillar, which extends above the head (fg. 191). The head and remnants of the shoulders are very slightly wider than the back pillar. The locks of hair along the sides of the head and neck extend beyond the edge and are partially carved in relief along each side of it, thus creating an interesting profle view (fg. 192). The front of the back pillar above the head, the sides, and the intact bits of the top are smooth; the back is worked with the claw chisel and rasp and partially smoothed as though not meant to be seen from the back or for attachment to another surface. The hair on the crown of the head waves away from a central part in chiseled grooves. At the center of the forehead two masses of hair are pulled together toward the part, where they are slipped backward under a narrow tubular fllet. The ends fip forward over the fllet in three crudely rendered corkscrew locks. The rest of the hair waves along the forehead toward the temples. There it hangs down, covering the ears, loops up and passes under the fllet, and fips over and drops down on top of the lower loop in three corkscrew locks. Conspicuous drill holes accentuate the ends of all the twisted locks and the sides of the loops. A long twisting lock falls to the chest on either side of the neck from behind the side loops. The preserved parts of the beard on the sides show one row of stubby curls, each winding outward. The face has a low, fat forehead, thick, sharply rendered eyelids surrounding narrow, slightly hollowed eyes whose inner corners are conspicuously drilled, fat cheeks, and faring, drilled nostrils. The elaborate hairstyle, with twisted locks looping up at the center of the forehead and at the sides of the head, has some close parallels, but none correspond exactly to the coiffure of the Cosa example.134 The long looped-up hair illustrates a creative way in which the Roman artisan has elaborated upon an early Classical Apollo coiffure and combined it with a bearded image of Dionysus in keeping with the eclectic spirit of late Hellenistic and early Roman archaistic

131

This was not noticed when it (C9612) was published but was confrmed in 2014 by the author. 132 Moss 1988, 27–28; n. 31 lists the examples, to which add A246 from Pompeii, House of Menander (I.10.16). 133

P. E. Allison, The Insula of the Menander at Pompeii, vol. 3: The Finds, a Contextual Study, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006, 127 no. 737, pl. 53, 1. See also G. Stefani, ed., Menander: La Casa del Menandro di Pompei, Milan: Electa, 2003, 23, 120–21 no. A11.

134

For examples see: (1) Vatican, Galleria delle Carte Geografche; Lippold 1956, 466–67, no. 27, pl. 202: “Libera,” half of a double herm of Liber and Libera; (2) Pompeii, formerly in Antiquarium, inv. no. 56175, herm of giallo antico found in Pompeii, VI.16.19, 26; Moss 1988, 586–87 no. A235; illustrated in Ciarallo and De Carolis 1999, 161 no. 174; here the arrangement of the side loops is particularly close to that of the Cosa herm; (3) a rectangular Dionysiac plaque in the Conservatory Museum, Rome; see Mustilli 1939, 51–52, pl. 36, 149, 8–11, in which the theatrical mask of Ariadne features similar looped forehead locks.

161

TABLE SUPPORTS

herms.135 The hanging corkscrews indicate an Egyptianizing infuence upon the archaistic hairdo, in which features of early Classical looping hairdos are given an Egyptianizing favor by rendering the ends of the locks as corkscrews.136 The workmanship is summary and impressionistic and relies for coloristic effect upon a free use of the drill, suggesting a Neronian date. The drilled holes, judiciously placed, are especially symptomatic of this date.137 How the head could have migrated to the odeum across from the House of Diana can only be explained by circumstances after the house had fallen into ruins. Possibly it was removed from the garden when the pieces of the shaft were placed inside the cella of the shrine. This could have been for reuse later, possibly during the third-century repairs to the odeum under Maximinus Thrax.138

T-Supp 12: Inscribed Monopod Support Late frst/early second century A.D.

Moss Type 5 Fig. 193

C68.40. Found in 1968 in the Shrine of Liber Pater, reused in fourth-century A.D. context. Fine-grained white marble with thick gray veins toward the bottom. H. 0.585, W. 0.139, Max. Th. 0.157, W. of back pillar 0.103, Th. of back pillar 0.059 m. Battered; broken into many fragments. Collins-Clinton 1977, 15, 56–57 no. 9, fg. 30; AE 1979, 225; Bace 1983, 48, 68–69; Fentress 1994, 214; Fentress et al. 2003, 66. All sides are fnished smooth. The top is smooth-picked and contains two rather square cuttings aligned with each other, one flled with lead; of the other only one corner remains. At bottom, two rectangular grooves, one on each side. The pillar-like form with projecting back pillar corresponds to Moss’s Type 5: Herms.139 The bust that formed the herm, now missing, must have been made separately and attached to the top by dowels secured with lead, as the preserved cuttings suggest. The back pillar would have extended above the bust to support the table top. Table supports of this type with separately attached busts and crowning elements are common.140 The grooves at the base must have served to secure a separate base molding. The inscription appears on the upper third of the front face in an area of the marble that is relatively free of gray veins. The inscription reads: 141 135

On archaistic corkscrew locks associated with Apollo and used on herms see Harrison 1965, 136–38. Apollo herms are beardless. 136

On the Egyptianizing aspect see Harrison 1965, 138 and n. 217, reinforced by Marcadé 1969, 421–43, where he discusses Egyptian infuence on the art of Delos with special attention to the use of twisted locks borrowed from those appearing on heads of Isis. See especially the comments of Marcadé regarding a small bearded head perhaps from a herm that has twisted locks falling in front of each ear: Marcadé 1969, 437 no. A1866 and pl. XIII. 137

Such drilled holes are also found on the statuette of Diana, DS-St 7. They also appear frequently on the breast

plates, especially the pteryges, of Julio-Claudian and Flavian cuirassed fgures; on these see DS-St 7, n. 79. 138

These repairs are recorded in an inscription of Maximinus Thrax and his son, C70.523: Bace 1983, 61 and n. 9 on pp. 65, 76–78 with n. 46 on p. 130 and Scott 1981; see also pp. 137–38 above for further discussion. 139

Moss 1988, 26–30.

140

Moss 1988, 26–29.

141

For commentaries see Collins-Clinton 1977, 57 and Bace 1983, 68–69.

162

TABLES

[L]ibero Zoe Mater D(onum) · P(osuit) (Zoe Mater gave this gift to Liber [Pater]). Zoe was a mater collegii in an association devoted to that god, a Roman version of Dionysus. Thus, the table may have served as an offering table, both originally and in the Shrine of Liber Pater, given its placement near the altar. Zoe, whose name appears without a gentilicium, is Greek and must refer to her origin as well as to her social status as either a slave or a freedwoman. Her title, mater, refers to her position within a religious association, most likely a collegium Liberi patris, known to include women.142 The “Mothers” of Roman collegia were generally of a modest social status,143 as Zoe was. Nevertheless, the mater collegii was a position of some authority and prestige within the association, in this case awarded to a woman who could just afford to dedicate this table to Liber.144

T-Supp 13: Columnar Table Support Julio-Claudian

Fig. 194

C9601. Found in the garden of the House of Diana, inside the shrine along with other pieces of furniture and sculpture, SU 227 (Fentress et al. 2003, 51, pl. 10). Fine-grained gray marble, bardiglio. H. 0.70, H. of shaft 0.495, Diam. at base 0.31, Diam. at top 0.265 m. Intact. Large chip in upper molding; upper edge chipped all around. Taylor 2003a, 195 no. 4, pl. 83. See Taylor (above) for description and discussion. This is a complete columnar support most likely for a table; it corresponds to Moss’s Type 7 with a plain, unfuted shaft.145 It has an Attic base consisting of two tori separated by a scotia with a fllet above each torus. The shaft is crowned by a cavetto and fascia. The fat upper surface suggests that it held a table leaf.146 This surface is smoothed with a claw chisel and picked here and there; in the center is a round, shallow hole with straight sides, roughly picked, with a diameter tapering from 0.17 to 0.122 m, for securing the table. 142

On “Mothers” of Roman collegia see E. Hemelrijk, “Patronesses and ‘Mothers’ of Roman Collegia,” ClAnt 27, 1 (2008) 115–62, esp. 123–28, 136–43 on the “Mothers.” See also Hemelrijk 2015, 195 n. 49, 227–69. The examples collected by Hemelrijk include women with non-Roman names, even one without her gentilicium (Hemelrijk, “Patronesses,” 151 table 4, 154 table 5, and 157 table 6: Epipodia, mater, in a collegium Asianorum (CIL III, 870 = ILS 4061, from Dacia, thought to be a slave; Hemelrijk (“Patronesses”) lists only one “Mother” in a collegiium Liberi patris: 152 table 4, 156 table 5, and 158 table 6 (CIL VI, 8796 = ILS 1700): Pomponia Victorina, possibly a freedwoman whose name appears, along with a quinquennalis of the collegium, on a base for a statue of Liber.

143

On the social status of matres collegiorum see Hemelrijk, “Patronesses” (as above) 120–21 and Hemelrijk 2015, 58.

144 A small table would have been indicative of Zoe’s social status; a somewhat wealthier “Mother” could have given an altar or a statue. On benefactions of “Mothers” see Hemelrijk, “Patronesses” (above n. 142), 126 and Hemelrijk 2015, 195 n. 49. 145 146

Moss 1988, 33–36.

See Moss 1988, 34 on the problem of identifying the function of these supports since columnar examples, especially those with futes, could also support basins. Those classifed by Moss as table supports were found along with their leaves.

163

TABLE SUPPORTS

A close parallel for the form is a support also of gray marble (bardiglio) found in the garden triclinium of the House of Sallust in Pompeii (VI.4.2) and now visible there.147 This has been considered Julio-Claudian/Flavian, contemporary with the Fourth Style wall paintings in the house when it became a hotel.148 The fndspot encourages the identifcation of its function as an offering table originally placed inside the Shrine of Diana. See also above, T-Supp 12, which would have served the same purpose within the Shrine of Liber Pater.

T-Supp 14: Fragmentary Leg of Tripod Table Augustan/Julio-Claudian

Moss Type 9 Fig. 195

C9715. Found in 1997 in Room Q of House of Diana in destruction level, SU 326. Fine-grained white marble. H. 0.26 m. Upper part, originally decorated with an animal’s head, and lower half of lower leg broken away; chipped; root marks. Taylor 2003a, 199–200 no. 11, pl. 89; Taylor 2003b, 51 and pl. 11. See Taylor (above) for description and discussion. This is a leg once belonging to a table with three supports, Moss Type 9: a feline leg surmounted by a protome usually in the form of a lion’s head with a ruff of acanthus leaves between it and the leg.149 The protome with the capital-like element rising from the mane above the back of the head is missing.150 The top of the haunch extends back a bit beyond the hock and preserves the fat, rectangular attachment surface for one end of the stretcher for the table. In this surface are the remains of the iron pins. The leg appears to make a rather dramatic S-curve from the back of the haunch forward to the knee, then backward to the hock and down. This movement is echoed by the strong modeling in the muscles of the haunch and stife and especially in the exaggerated triple upper and lower joints of the hock. A very similar treatment of the hocks appears in the eagle griffns on a pair of slab legs from House of the Faun, dated ca. 50 B.C. by R. Cohon, who considers them either imported from Athens or made in Italy by Attic or Greek-trained artisans.151

T-Supp 15: Stretcher for Three-legged Table, Inscribed with Letter E Augustan/Julio-Claudian

Moss Type 9 Figs. 196–98

C9713. Found in 1997 in House of Diana, in garden near wall fountain, SU 340. Fine-grained white marble. 147

The support was not available to Moss in the 1980s.

148

Moss 1988, 684–85 no. A 353; see also Ambrogi 2005, 373 no. S97, 601 and Pernice 1932, 53, pl. 34.6.

149

Moss 1988, 37–43.

150

A good example of such a support with its upper portion

better preserved is one from Alba Fucens; De Ruyt 1982, 136–37, no. 157, pl. 44 (second century A.D.); Moss 1988, 716–17 no. C 18, in Chieti, Museo Nazionale inv. 4304 (Flavian/early second century A.D.). 151 Cohon 1984, pp. 309–10, no. 174, executed in Pentelic marble. Illustrated in Borriello 1996, 208, no. 12a–b.

164

TABLES

Max. Pres. L. 0.33, H. to top of central surface 0.10, L. of complete arm from center 0.23 m. Only one of the three arms is preserved, ends of other two broken away. In one broken arm a hole for repair with iron pin. Earth stained, scratched. Taylor 2003a, 199 no. 10, pl. 88; Taylor 2003b, 51. See Taylor (above) for description and discussion. This three-armed stretcher for a three-legged table, Moss Type 9,152 has one intact arm that includes the joining surface at its end (fg. 196). The arms curve gently upward toward the center. Incised in the center is the letter E. Each arm has a central ridge; the center is circular, edged by a slight groove, and slightly concave. The upper surface is smoothed, and a row of drilled holes borders the sides of each arm (fg. 197). The joint face of the one completely preserved arm is rectangular and bears what appears to be the Roman numeral II (fg. 198).153 It preserves a slot for attachment to the table support and a hole for a reinforcing pin. The underside is slightly concave and roughly picked. The drilled holes bordering the top of each leg become shallower toward the end of the preserved leg. The spaces between the holes are carved in very low relief with a three-lobed foliate design (fg. 197). The reliance on drilled holes for pictorial effect recalls the same technique used on the statue of Diana (DS-St 7) and the table support (T-Supp 11) and may suggest a later Julio-Claudian date. This stretcher most likely belonged to the same table as T-Supp 12, also found in the House of Diana, as Taylor has stated.154

Table Tops LATE REPUBLICAN: SECOND CENTURY–CA. 70–60 B.C. T-Top 1: Rectangular Leaf with Raised Rim Second century B.C.

Figs. 199–200

CE 1370. Found in 1952 in Room 21 of Atrium Building I, Level I. Coarse, creamy travertine. Preserved L. 0.61, W. 0.54, Th. 0.105 m. Upper surface worn. Unpublished.

152

Moss 1988, 37–43, 40–41 for the stretcher, there called “horizontal brace with three prongs.”

153 It is possible that this might be a double iota if the inscription is Greek. In this case, the letter E would be an eta. One or two vertical strokes resembling iotas are found on two somewhat later tables of the slab type; they are also joining marks; see Cohon 1984, 15, nos. 131 and 198. The well-preserved three-legged table that once belonged to P. Servilius Casca Longus and found in the House of the

Theatrical Panels in Pompeii (I.6.11) has the symbol Λ and + incised on the ends of two of its stretchers; these match the same symbol on the back of the neck of two of the lion protomes. Clearly these are assembly marks for attaching one end of the stretcher to its matching leg. On this table see Moss 1988, 754–56, C66. Its date, 40s B.C., and the marble, which might be Parian, suggest Greek manufacture. See Taylor 2003a, 199 no. 10 for further remarks. 154

Taylor 2003a, 199 no. 10.

TABLE TOPS

165

This preserves more than half of a table leaf with molded edges on all sides. Measuring from the center of the tenon on the underside yields an original length of 0.90 m. The fat upper surface was originally smooth (fg. 199). The rim is slightly raised from the surface by a shallow step and projects over an exterior molding consisting of a fascia, cavetto, and fascia (see profle 1, p. 140 above).155 In the center of the underside is a circular tenon, 0.095 m in diameter and 0.03 m high, for setting into a corresponding mortise in the top of its original support (fg. 200). The tenon is surrounded by a roughly circular and slightly depressed area of anathyrosis 0.105 m wide fnished with a claw chisel. The rest of the underside is roughly picked. This was a very large table. The workmanship is careful and precise despite the nature of the material. These features may indicate that this was no ordinary table and not one used in a normal household. It may be possible that it had stood in the original Atrium Building I, placed where it could have been seen from all four sides.156

T-Top 2: Rectangular Leaf with Raised Rim Second century B.C.

Figs. 201–2

CF 1154. Found in 1953 in Street O outside Room 26 of Atrium Building I in Level I, a destruction level. Coarse, creamy travertine. Pres. L. 0.665, Pres. W. 0.41, Max. Pres. H. 0.087 m. Weathered; battered. Edges and underside reworked and central hole added in antiquity. Lime flm, root marks. Unpublished. This is approximately half of a table leaf preserving a corner and two sides; its estimated dimensions are about 0.73 × 0.62 m. Through the center is a hole, 0.085 m in diameter, made for a subsequent reuse (fg. 201). The upper surface is fat and smooth. The raised rim has on its inner surface two shallow, sloping steps resembling those of T-Top 3. Both exterior profles are damaged, particularly on the longer side. Despite this, however, it is possible to retrieve with a template the upper half, approximately, of a simple profle on the shorter, less battered side. The entire profle can be restored on the basis of analogies in Pompeii, as shown with dotted lines in profle 2 (p. 140 above). The original edge preserved on the longer side appears to be vertical for about 0.05 m before curving toward the bottom. Most likely this is the back side of a large table top that had a projecting molded edge on only three sides. This treatment is common among the Hellenistic table tops with lions’ heads studied by Pernice;157 it may indicate that they were originally meant to be placed against a wall. There is no trace of surface fnishing around the hole, such as there is around the tenon on the underside of T-Top 1, so it is not possible to propose that the hole is where there had once been a round tenon. The hole suggests that the leaf had enjoyed a new life as either a fountain or a drain 155

This profle almost exactly matches that of a travertine leaf from the peristyle of the House of the Vettii in Pompeii (VI.15.1); see Moss 1988, 684–85 A 352 and Pernice 1932, 10 no. 11.

156

It was reused later where it was discovered; on the fndspot see Moevs 1973, 30. 157

Pernice 1932, 5.

166

TABLES

cover, though the hole seems too small for a drain and the upper surface is not so badly damaged as the underside (fg. 202).158

T-Top 3: Rectangular Leaf with Raised Rim Second century B.C.

Fig. 203

CD 601a–c. Three pieces found just outside the northeast side of basilica near north corner; (a) in Level II, (b) and (c) in Level I. Fragments (a) and (b) join. Coarse, creamy travertine. Pres. L. along rim of (a) and (b) joined 0.34, Pres. L. along rim of (c) 0.17; Pres. W. (a and b) from rim edge 0.176, Pres. W. from rim edge (c) 0.123; average Th. overall 0.05, average D. 0.17 m. Unpublished. These fragments have a slightly raised rim, stepping down to the upper surface in two shallow, sloping steps, which resemble those in T-Top 2. It projects over a simple profled edge consisting of a fascia over a very shallow cyma reversa; see profle 3 (p. 140 above). The upper surface was smoothed with a rasp; the underside is rougher and was fnished with a claw chisel. The piece as a whole was unevenly made in terms of thickness, height of the raised rim from the interior surface, and consistency of the moldings, so that certain measurements vary by a few millimeters from one fragment to the next. The profled edges resemble those of a fragmentary table leaf from Pompeii in the Granaio del Foro that belongs to Pernice’s Hellenistic type with lions’ heads on the front.159

T-Top 4: Rectangular Leaf with Raised Rim Late second/early frst century B.C.

Fig. 204

C69.147. Found in 1969 in the area of the tablinum/exedra aestiva (Room 13) of the House of the Skeleton in Level I, a destruction level.160 Gray marble-like travertine with a tendency to split. Max. Pres. L. 0.122, Max. Pres. W. 0.11, D. 0.023, Th. bottom 0.058 m. Chipped and worn; earth stains, root marks. Unpublished. This fragment has a raised rim and profled edge very similar to those of T-Top 5; see profle 4 (p. 140 above). The upper and outer surfaces were fnished with a rasp; the underside was smoothed 158

A useful parallel for a shallow fountain basin is a circular one from Lanuvium, also of travertine, dated second/early frst century B.C.; see Helbig4 3 (1969) no. 2391 (H.-G. Kolbe) and Ambrogi 2005, 39–40 with later bibliography but incorrect date and material.

0.245 × 0.049 m thick including the raised rim (autopsy July 1984). The inner profle of the raised edge differs in having only one rather broader step instead of two. It is made of a fne marble-like travertine and is not included in the list of Pernice 1932, 10–11.

159

160 For the location see Bruno and Scott 1993, 108–9 with plan.

This is a broken piece preserving one corner and one lion’s head on the front edge; as preserved it measures 0.42 ×

TABLE TOPS

167

with a claw chisel. The fndspot could mean that this table was actually used in this room or at least within this house, for its type and especially the fne travertine ft the brief foruit of the house (ca. 90–70 B.C.).161 The fne quality of the material indicates a later date within the chronological range of the late Republican leaves from Cosa.

T-Top 5: Rectangular Leaf with Raised Rim Late second/early frst century B.C.

Fig. 205

CE 658ab, CE 929. Both found in 1952; CE 658ab in Room 13 of the Atrium Building I, CE 929 in Room 24 annexed to the Atrium Building I, in a destruction level. Gray marble-like travertine with a tendency to split. L. 0.51, W. 0.315, average Th. of bottom 0.0555, H. to top of rim 0.079 m. Chipped, worn; encrusted with lime and root marks; traces of mortar. Unpublished. The three joining pieces form a portion of a large table top; see profle 5 (p. 140 above). The upper surface and the surfaces of the rim are smooth. The underside is rougher and basically fat; it preserves a smooth-picked border 0.05–0.055 m wide, the inside of which is more roughly picked. The mortar adhering to pieces CE 658ab suggests that they were built into a wall of the Atrium Publicum when that portion of the building was altered in Imperial times. The material, a marble-like travertine, suggests a later date in the history of the type, as it does in Pompeii. The profle looks more exaggerated than usual: the rim is higher and projects more.

T-Top 6: Round Leaf with Raised Rim First half of second century B.C.

Fig. 206

CD 743. Found in 1951 below the foor of the basilica, Level III of Sounding N1 in the nave. Rather fne, creamy travertine. Est. Diam. 0.63, external H. of rim 0.036, W. upper surface of rim 0.028 m. Chipped; lime flm. Unpublished. This is a large piece of the rim of a table top whose upper surface is fnished more smoothly than the underside; see profle 6 (p. 141 above). The slightly convex underside varies in thickness from 0.022 to 0.037 m toward the center.

T-Top 7: Round Leaf with Raised Rim Second century B.C.

161

On the date of the construction see Bruno and Scott 1993, 146–47.

Fig. 207

168

TABLES

C66.361. Found in 1966 in the cesspool of the house in Lot 1 in the block of houses west of Street M. Rather fne, creamy travertine. Est. Diam. 0.676, external H. of rim 0.041, W. upper surface of rim 0.03 m. Lime encrustations, root marks. Unpublished. This is a small piece of the rim of a table top similar to T-Top 6 above. Instead of a shallow curve from the inside up to the upper surface of the rim, however, the rim steps down gently in a cyma recta–like double curve;162 see profle 7 (p. 141 above). The slightly convex underside varies in thickness from 0.027 to 0.031 m toward the center.

T-Top 8: Round Leaf with Raised Rim Second century B.C.

Figs. 208–9

Several joining pieces: C68.365ab and C69.78ab. C68.365ab were found in 1968 and C69.78ab in 1969 in the construction fll below the Augustan foor of Room 4 of the House of the Birds. Rather fne, creamy travertine. Diam. ca. 0.84 (the perimeter is irregular), external H. of rim 0.036, W. upper surface of rim 0.03 m. Weathered and pitted; lime incrustations, root marks. Unpublished. These pieces form most of a table top with a slightly raised rim (fg. 208). The form of the rim conforms to that described above, T-Top 6; see profle 8 (p. 141 above). In the center is a shallow depression measuring 0.09 by 0.10 m across and ca. 0.028 m deep; it is a later reworking. The slightly convex underside varies in thickness from ca. 0.030 m to ca. 0.035 m toward the center. On the underside a square tenon measures 0.085 m on a side and 0.006 m high (fg. 209). The upper surface was originally fnished very smooth; the underside is rougher.

T-Top 9: Round Leaf with Raised Rim Second century B.C.

Figs. 210–11

C68.621. Found in 1968 near the south corner of the forum above the portico sidewalk in front of Atrium Building VI near the surface. Rather fne, creamy travertine. Diam. 0.60–0.65, external H. of rim 0.045, W. upper surface of rim 0.035 m. Worn and chipped; a few root marks; earth stained. Unpublished. 162 This rim treatment closely resembles that seen on the rectangular table tops, T-Top 1–5.

TABLE TOPS

169

This is a fragment of the rim of a table top similar to T-Top 6 above; see profle 9 (p. 141 above). The surface seems thicker than the others; the underside is slightly convex, and the leaf is irregular in its thickness. The upper surface was originally polished; the underside is rougher. This piece is dated by analogy with the dated example, T-Top 6.

T-Top 10: Round Leaf with Raised Rim Second century B.C.

Fig. 212

C73.59. Found in 1973 in the reservoir outside the west corner of the forum at the intersection of Streets O and 5. Coarse, gray travertine containing fossils. Est. Diam. 0.65, external H. of rim 0.05, W. upper surface of rim 0.04 m. Weathered, pitted. Unpublished. This is a fragment of the rim of a table top similar to T-Top 6 above; see profle 10 (p. 141 above). The slightly convex underside varies from 0.036 m to 0.04 m toward the center. This piece is dated by analogy with the dated example, T-Top 6.

IMPERIAL: AUGUSTAN–SECOND CENTURY A.D. T-Top 11: Rectangular Leaf Augustan/Julio-Claudian

Figs. 213–14

C70.530. Found in 1970 in the cistern under the main atrium (Room 3) of the House of the Birds.163 Bardiglio. Pres. L. 0.53, Pres. W. 0.525, Th. 0.041 m. Three joining fragments. Worn; chipped; encrusted with lime. Unpublished. These pieces form part of a plain leaf preserving one corner. The original dimensions cannot be ascertained. The top and sides are smooth; the underside is somewhat rougher. The table top was broken and repaired in antiquity, as the swallowtail clamp hole in the piece of the corner indicates. The surface around the clamp hole was worked over with a claw chisel. The Imperial date is based primarily on the material of which the piece is made since coarser stones such as travertine that were available locally were used in Republican times. The fndspot corroborates this but does not offer evidence for pinpointing the date.164 Plain rectangular table leaves of marble, including colored marbles, are known from atria of houses in Pompeii, and these are Imperial in date.

163 See Bruno and Scott 1993, 185–86 for the material found in the cistern.

164

Bruno and Scott 1993, 185–88, esp. n. 17 for this cistern as containing material from the forum dumped there in late antiquity.

170

TABLES

Table Bases and Plinths T-Base 1: Plinth? Late Republican

Figs. 215–16

C9616. Found in 1996 in garden of House of Diana among decorative elements piled inside shrine, SU 227. Very fne, marble-like limestone with gray veins. L. 0.17, W. 0.17, Th. 0.05 m. Two corners battered away, a third slightly chipped. Underside chipped; traces of lime encrustation, earth stained. Taylor 2003a, 197–98 no. 8, not illustrated. This square plinth is smooth on top with a shallow rectangular mortise in the center, measuring 0.045 × 0.055 m and 0.01 m in depth, surrounded by a groove. A small hole is drilled through the center of this. The underside is beveled (fg. 216), for the most part roughly except at the best-preserved corner, where sharp edges are visible. The effect gives the impression that the piece was reworked at some time. Since it is so thin, it is likely to have been set into a base for a monopod table, although the mortise for attaching the shaft is unusual.

T-Base 2: Decorative Base for Monopod Table Julio-Claudian

Fig. 217

C9675. Found in 1996 in garden of House of Diana, next to fountain against back wall, apparently in situ, SU 281. Black slate with inlays of giallo antico. H. 0.12, W. 0.21, L. 0.26 m; shallow mortise: L. 0.12, W. 0.075, D. 0.007 m; deep mortise: L. 0.10, W. 0.065, D. 0.028 m. Taylor 2003a, 199–98 no. 9, pl. 87. See Taylor (above) for condition, detailed description, and comments. This base is a low block of fne, black slate, not marble, decorated on three sides with small rectangular and round insets of giallo antico, some of which are missing. The fourth side, broken and repaired in antiquity, may have been the rear side and intentionally left plain. On the upper surface are two rectangular mortises, a deep one at the front that retains the broken end of a shaft in giallo antico and a shallow one, roughly picked, to receive the back pillar that supported the table leaf and that must not have reached to the bottom of the shaft. Bases of this type are not common; those from Pompeii belong to table supports, primarily tables with four legs, Moss Type 10.165 The two sockets in the Cosa base, however, are clear indications that it was designed for a monopod support in the form of a herm, Moss Type 5. Several plain rectangular bases from Pompeii that have similar pairs of cuttings for the herm shaft and back pillar reinforce this interpretation.166 The shallow rear cutting may indicate that the shaft with its 165

Moss 1988, 45, but see pp. 506–7, A 143, a monopod table support on a base of bardiglio with oblong cuttings for insets.

166

For a base in Pompeii with similar double cuttings see Moss 1988, 611–12, A 260. See also Taylor 2003a, 198 n. 501.

TABLE BASES AND PLINTHS

171

back pillar was monolithic.167 The rear side of the base may have been left plain because the table would have been placed against a wall.168

T-Base 3: Fragment of Decorative Base for Monopod Table Augustan/Julio-Claudian

Figs. 218–19

C70.298. Found in 1970 in Street M in destruction level (Level I) near House of the Skeleton in early Imperial context. Giallo antico discolored pink by heat. L. 0.12, W. 0.065, H. 0.11 m. Chipped, worn. Unpublished. This is the front left corner of a base designed for a monopod table in the form of a herm, Moss Type 5, to judge from the curvilinear form projecting from the corner that is common among bases for this type of support (fg. 218). The projecting form is that of a miniature feline knee and paw resting on a low plinth. On either side of the strongly bent knee is a fat, elongated semicircular shape with an incised border in low relief; on the top of the knee is a tongue-like projection, also in low relief. On the uppermost surface a corner of a plinth with sloping sides is set slightly back from the edges of the base (fg. 219). The profle of the leg echoes the curvilinear form of the more abstract facings exemplifed by T-Base 5 below. Several bases for Type 5 tables are carved in one piece with the plinth on which the support rests; many of these also have lateral projections at the front and back, though none take the form of miniature animal legs.169

T-Base 4a, b: Base for Table Support Julio-Claudian

Figs. 220–21

(a): CD 396, (b): CD 431. Both found in 1951 in dump outside northeast side of basilica, CD 396 to the right (southeast) of the tribune (Basilica ENE6) and CD 431 to the left (northwest) of the tribune (Basilica ENE2), apparently in Julio-Claudian contexts (Level I). (a) CD 396: Pres. H. 0.085, Pres. W. 0.10, Pres. L. 0.105 m. (b) CD 431: Pres. H. 0.029, Pres. W. 0.04, Pres. L. 0.104 m. Giallo antico discolored pink from exposure to heat. (a) CD 396: Broken; worn, chipped; traces of mortar around dowel hole. (b) CD 431: Worn, chipped, encrusted with root marks. Unpublished.

167

Moss 1988, 616 A268 (a base from Pompeii). For herm supports in giallo antico see Moss 1988, 74 n. 46.

168

On this see Moss 1988, 307.

169

See Moss 1988, 29 n. 40 for a list of the monolithic ones; note two corrections: for A258 substitute A248, and add A198, a table from Herculaneum whose base has projecting feet of the abstract variety and a plinth, the whole in africano, illustrated in color in Mühlenbrock and Richter 2004, 315–16 no. 8.35.

172

TABLES

The fndspot for both fragments is essentially the same dump of material apparently from the clearing of the basilica after its collapse in preparation for the construction of the odeum that replaced it. This dump contained thin-walled pottery dating mainly from Claudian-Neronian and Tiberian times along with a few Augustan sherds.170 It also contained fragments of wall plaster mostly of the Second Style, although some First Style pieces were also found. These have been associated with the decoration of the basilica.171 The similar material discolored by exposure to heat as in a fre, the same cyma reversa moldings, and the contexts of their fndspots, near each other, all indicate that these pieces could belong together although the quarter-round in fragment (b) is lower, forming parts of a rectangular base. The molding is better preserved in fragment (a): a shallow cyma reversa with a fllet above and below; the very bottom is curved in a quarter-round. In its underside near the break there is a square dowel hole measuring 0.015 m to a side. Should this dowel hole be in the center, the restored length and width, respectively, of the base would be 0.155 × 0.139 m. Both pieces have a fat, smooth underside that preserves traces of rasp and claw chisel marks. Bases similar to these are occasionally found with both monopod supports and those for threelegged tables. See especially the three-legged table from the House of the Cervi in Herculaneum (IV.21),172 the bases for which are decorated with narrow moldings only on three sides, the back being plain; this may have been true for the Cosa example also.

T-Base 5: Decorative Facing for Base of Monopod Table Julio-Claudian

Fig. 222

C9664. Found in 1996 in collapse of shrine within garden of House of Diana, in late antique context (A.D. 330–410), SU 240. Pavonazetto. L. 0.24, H. 0.075, Th. 0.035 m. Taylor 2003a, 197 no. 7, pl. 86. See Taylor (above) for condition, description, and comments. This is a facing meant to be attached to the front and rear of a separate base for a monopod table in the form of a herm, Moss Type 5. The curvilinear ends, mirror images of each other, project beyond the sides of the base; they match those on bases for tables from Pompeii and Herculaneum.173 The separate facings for a table from Herculaneum assembled from several colored marbles, including pavonazzetto and africano, closely resemble the Cosa piece in both the form of the curvilinear ends and the engraved volutes.174

170

Moevs 1973, 232.

171 Laidlaw 1963, 55 table 2 Areas 1 and 1b, on the provenance of the fragments and 71–72, where the Second Style fragments are associated with the decoration of the basilica’s tribune. This would have been in connection with the Augustan resettlement of Cosa. Reinforcing the character of this dump is the discovery of 42 fragments of Second Style wall decoration, and none of the First Style, inside the foundation of the southeast tribune of the Neronian odeum (Laidlaw 1963, 55 table 2 Area 3).

172

Moss 1988, 724–25 C 27; illustrated in De Carolis 2007, 105 fg. 70. Those rectangular bases clearly have a cutting in their tops into which the undersides of the supports ft.

173 On these see Moss 1988, 29; n. 40 lists examples; to the monolithic ones add A 248, and to the constructed ones add A 198. 174 Moss 1988, 547–48 A 198; Mühlenbrock and Richter 2004, 315–16 no. 8.35 with color plate.

6 ♦ Altars

Introduction

E

xcavations at Cosa have brought to light only a few of the many altars that must have been present in both public and private contexts.1 They include small household altars, sacrifcial altars associated with temples, and dedicatory altars. Not all are preserved. Among the catalogued pieces, only the small round altars, A 1 and 2, are largely intact. Although A 3–7 are fragments, their types can sometimes be reconstructed from either archaeological evidence, as for A 3, decoration for a monumental altar on the arx, or the nature of the remnants, as for A 4, a rectangular altar with revetted sides, A 5, a monolithic altar, A 6, a rectangular altar with revetted sides, and A 7, parts of the superstructure of a rectangular altar. The two round altars, A 1 and 2, are small late Republican examples of a Hellenistic type, round versions of a monolithic rectangular altar with moldings above and below a plain cylindrical side.2 Both came from the House of Diana on the forum. A 1 was reused in the Augustan rebuilding of the house and might well have originally belonged to it. A 2 has badly damaged crown and base moldings and may have originated elsewhere, possibly in one of the other atrium houses facing the forum that was not rebuilt. Traces of sacrifcial altars on the arx remain in front of the auguraculum, the “Capitolium,” and Temple D (see fg. 8 for a plan of the arx). Cuttings in the bedrock upon the highest point of the arx indicate the location of the platform for the auguraculum, which overlooked the town with a clear view beyond in all directions.3 The cuttings indicate its shape and size, a square with an exterior dimension of 7.40 m on a side.4 In front of this was the mundus, or sacrifcial pit,5 over which was set an altar, as 1

On Roman altars see Hermann 1961; and Dräger 1994 for their superstructures. On the typology of Roman altars, Yavis 1949 is still useful for the Greek prototypes. See also Castagnoli 1959/60; Castagnoli et al. 1975 for the altars at Lavinium; Pernice 1932, 55–70 for the Hellenistic altars from Pompeii; Shoe 1965 for the moldings of late Republican Roman altars; and, for Etruscan types, Steingräber 1982; Steingräber and Menichelli 2010.

45 (2000) 19 n. 81 and Taylor 2002, where he interprets this as traces of a temple of Jupiter. However, not all known auguracula are so oriented; the one on the arx in Rome may not have been; see LTUR 1 (1993) 142–43, s.v. Auguraculum (F. Coarelli) with bibliography and Magdelain 1976, 83–84. See also J. Linderski, “The Augural Law,” ANRW 2.16.3:2258–60, who accepts the identifcation as an auguraculum.

2

4

On the type see Yavis 1949, 142–45: cylindrical monolithic altars with a plain shaft, and Pernice 1932, 62–70.

3

Brown et al. 1960, 9–16; Brown 1980, 16–17. Two recent publications call into question the interpretation of the platform as an auguraculum since it is not oriented to the cardinal points: R. Taylor, “Watching the Skies: Janus, Auspication, and the Shrine in the Roman Forum,” MAAR

Brown et al. 1960, 11; the platform as built did not measure 11 m square as implied by Magdelain 1969, 254 and repeated by Castagnoli 1984, 14. That measurement pertains to the leveled surface of the outcropping on which the actual platform was built.

5

Mentioned above, p. 2; also Brown et al. 1960, 10–13.

174

ALTARS

cuttings in the bedrock around the pit show.6 The placement of the central cella of the later “Capitolium”’ directly above the pit acknowledged the sacred deposit, and the altar of the “Capitolium” further recalled it by preserving the alignment of the altar that had served the auguraculum.7 The four temples at Cosa include two on the arx: the Temple of Jupiter, which was replaced by the “Capitolium” and Temple D. The third, Temple B, overlooked the forum on its northeastern side, and the fourth, Temple E, looked out to sea from the Eastern Height. The Temple of Jupiter is the earliest, constructed around the middle of the third century B.C.8 Not much is known about this temple and its altar. It and possibly its altar were dismantled when the “Capitolium” was constructed, and some of its terracotta decorations were reused in the “Capitolium.”9 The “Capitolium” replaced the Temple of Jupiter a decade or two after the second deduction of colonists in 197 B.C. (see fg. 8 for its location). Its cellas were placed above the traces of the augural templum. Its altar was set in the center of the forecourt upon a pavement of Vulci tuff; it was not aligned with the façade of the temple, however. Instead, its axis was angled by 45 degrees to the façade so it paralleled that of the auguraculum and its altar, as a way of keeping a memory of Cosa’s inaugural sacrifce.10 Cuttings on the pavement of the forecourt show that it was square, measuring 2.96 m on a side, and had a U-shaped form.11 Though fragmentary, its preserved blocks permit a reconstruction of its base, consisting of a tall quarter-round with a narrow projecting fllet below and another fllet above, the vertical die, or body, with a fllet above, and a crown with an elongated quarter-round molding.12 The altar itself rested upon the closed side of the U-shape; the lower slab is missing, but one pulvinar along a short end of the focus or sacrifcial hearth survives. This has a bolster-like form with round ends containing a rosette with sixteen petals; the ends are framed by a narrow ribbon on the inner side that appears to continue horizontally as if to line the bottom of the focus. The U-shaped form is found in earlier Etrusco-Italic altars, such as those from Lavinium,13 Punta della Vipera,14 Veii,15 the twin temples in the area sacra of S. Omobono in Rome,16 and the altar under the Lapis Niger in the Roman Forum,17 to list those from Rome and Latium. These have been classifed as rectangular altars ad antas, from the pair of antae that project from the altar itself, sometimes framing a step or two.18 The U-shaped form was not native to Italy, however, 6

Brown et al. 1960, 14 and visible in fg. 9; Brown 1980, fg. 25 clearly shows the plan of the altar. It is not unusual in the archaeological record to fnd an altar in close proximity to an auguraculum; see Magdelain 1969, 256; Magdelain 1976, 95.

7

Brown et al. 1960, 83; Brown 1980, 54 and fg. 68.

8

For the revised dating see most recently Scott 2008, 46–47; also Scott 1988, 76 and Scott 1992, 93–94. The dating is based on black gloss pottery found beneath the cellas of the later “Capitolium” and on T. Buttrey’s dating of the coins (Buttrey 1980, 32). 9

On the original decoration of the Temple of Jupiter see Brown et al. 1960, 151–69, fg. 1; Brown 1980, 26; and Taylor 2002.

10

Brown et al. 1960, 83; noted above, p. 2.

11

Brown et al. 1960, 81–84, fg. 62.

12

Shoe 1965, 93, 98 for a more detailed description, and pl. XXVI, 2 for the profle.

13

Castagnoli 1959/60, 145–72 and Castagnoli et al. 1975.

14

Colonna 1985, 149–50 with bibliography.

15 Colonna 1985, 99–102 (altar in the Portanaccio Sanctuary dated second half of the ffth century B.C.) with bibliography on p. 101. Also Steingräber 1982, 110 (dated end of the sixth century B.C.) and Castagnoli 1959/60, 150–51. 16 Steingräber 1982, 110–11; Shoe 1965, 103–4; Castagnoli 1959/60, 148–49. The two altars are fourth or third century B.C., but they repeat the form of their archaic predecessors. 17 Steingräber 1982, 111 (fourth century B.C.) with bibliography; Shoe 1965, 97. 18

Steingräber 1982, 110 on the type with bibliography; Steingräber and Menichelli 2010, 52, 61–62.

INTRODUCTION

175

despite its early appearance there. It originated in Ionia, perhaps as early as the seventh century B.C., and persisted in Greek lands through the Hellenistic period.19 The early Etrusco-Italic forms are distinguished by their base and crown moldings, which feature quarter-rounds strongly projecting on the bottom and top to give the profle an hourglass shape.20 This profle gave way under the infuence of the more vertical profle preferred in Greek lands, where there is a plain vertical die between the base and crown moldings.21 The “Capitolium” altar at Cosa belongs to this type, with a profle that retains the quarter-round.22 In order to emphasize verticality in its profle, the upper quarter-round recedes toward the altar’s superstructure rather than projects.23 Also on the arx is Temple D, dated now in the frst quarter of the second century B.C. (see fg. 8 for its location).24 It was enlarged by lengthening its pronaos after the “Capitolium” was constructed soon after ca. 150 B.C.25 At the same time the sacra via on the arx was paved along with a narrow spur leading to the newly enlarged temple. These projects were appropriate to the monumentality of the “Capitolium” with its imposing forecourt.26 Both the original temple and its larger version left visible traces of their altars. Cuttings in the bedrock on three sides for the bedding of the earlier one give an idea of its size, 3.18 × 1.85 m. The foundation, a single course of Vulci tuff upon which the altar rested, covered a deposit of black ash, remains of the inaugural sacrifce.27 The altar itself is lost, but its traces suggest that it had a shallow U-shape, a small rectangular altar in antis, and was most likely built of blocks of Vulci tuff to match its platform.28 Even less is preserved of the later altar, set upon the new paving that made a sort of forecourt before the enlarged temple. It was a simple cubic rectangle of stuccoed rubblework surrounded by a heavy quarter-round torus at it base, 1.11 × 0.59 m.29 Roughly contemporary with Temple D is Temple B in the forum, which was erected in the frst quarter of the second century B.C. (see fg. 2 for its location),30 shortly after its predecessor, Templum Beta, whose construction is now dated ca. 190 B.C.31 Though the altar for Temple B has vanished, 19

Castagnoli 1959/60, 153–54 with a list of examples; Steingräber and Menichelli 2010, 61. This is the same type as that classifed by C. Yavis as a “Ceremonial Altar in Antis”; Yavis 1949, 183.

Brown 1980, 47–49; Scott 1988, 76 (dated ca. 180 B.C.) and Scott 1992, 95, 97–98.

20

26

The quarter-round is called by Shoe the “Etruscan round” because it is so common in Etruscan architecture as well as on altars and bases (Shoe 1965, 14–15, 20–21 on podia, 29–31 on altars and bases). Castagnoli, however, understands the combination of a fascia with the quarter-round as derived from the archaic Doric column capital, such as those from Paestum, where the earliest have a strongly rounded echinus that resembles a quarter-round below the abacus, which, in turn, resembles a fascia in profle; Castagnoli 1959/60, 169–71.

21

Shoe 1965, 32–33, 35.

22

On its type: Steingräber 1982, 111; Castagnoli 1959/60, 151 n. 13. 23 This profle is the same as that used in the “Capitolium” podium; noted by Castagnoli 1959/60, 166. 24

Brown et al. 1960, 25–47, attributed to Mater Matuta (45–46); 111–19 (second phase, now known to have been dated too early); 182–204 (architectural terracottas). Also

25

Scott 1992, 97–98.

R. T. Scott, personal communication, 29 August 2013, confrms the concurrence of these projects and their relation to the new temples. 27

Brown et al. 1960, 32–33, fgs. 22 (plan and section) and 23 (foundation deposit with tufa blocks).

28

Brown et al. 1960, 33.

29

Brown et al. 1960, 123, fgs. 91, 92.

30

Brown et al. 1993, 142–53, 167–97; Brown 1980, 51; Scott 1992, 94–97 (frst quarter of second century B.C.); and Scott 2008, 135. See also Shoe 1965, 126, 134, pl. XLI, 6: an intact Tuscan capital belonging to Temple B dated ca. 175 B.C. On the capital see Brown et al. 1960, 147, pl. 108. 31 Scott 2008, 135. On Templum Beta see Brown et al. 1993, 51–56, 141 for its description and early dating, and 147. It, too, had had an altar that was demolished or reused when Temple B was built over it.

176

ALTARS

its proposed location was on an apron in front. Since no foundation to support it was found, the excavators considered it small enough not to require one.32 Only the foundation survives of the temple on the Eastern Height, Temple E, toward which the broad Street R led on its way from the Porta Marina and past the southeastern entrance to the forum. It was discovered in 1995.33 A few architectural terracottas that can be associated with those of Temples B and D suggest that Temple E was constructed about the same time,34 that is, between ca. 190 and 175 B.C. Of its altar only scanty traces of cuttings in the bedrock remain in front of the temple.35 The pirate raid inficted serious damage to the buildings on the arx around 70–60 B.C., damaging Temple D so seriously that it was not repaired. The “Capitolium” lost its roof along with its terracotta decorations to fre. This, Cosa’s most important temple, underwent extensive repairs by the new settlers early in the reign of Augustus. The roof was rebuilt and given new terracotta decorations. The forecourt was totally remodeled. It was enlarged, given a new paving of signinum, and surrounded by a high screen wall with an arched gateway at the top of a stairway, where the old steps were reused. The old altar was also reused and realigned so as to repeat the axis of the temple—a complete break with the past—as traces left on the new paving suggest.36 It is tempting to restore to the Augustan altar the three pieces of a processional frieze, A 3a–c, since two, A 3a, b, were found on the arx.37 At the time of the Augustan reuse of the Republican altar, the original superstructure was possibly too damaged, or not considered suitable by virtue of religious scruples, so the re-erected altar may have been given a new, marble-clad superstructure that featured a frieze on the three outer sides, as Taylor has already proposed.38 The narrow frieze, the moldings, and even the wide fascia along the bottom of A 3a and c are exactly like those on the narrow frieze of the superstructure of the altar of the Ara Pacis, which also represents a procession.39 If the suovetaurilia, moving toward the left on the Cosa frieze, represents the sacrifce upon the purifcation of the templum after the polluting damage inficted by the pirates, and the other procession, moving in the opposite direction, represents a sacrifce to Jupiter Optimus Maximus, together they would be a most appropriate embellishment for the altar of the newly dedicated “Capitolium”—the two processions meeting at their respective altars in the center of the long side. The only diffculty with this idea is aesthetic: would an altar with an old-fashioned form have looked pleasing with an up-to-date relief decoration in marble above the old tuff structure? The tuff blocks could have been stuccoed to simulate marble, though the outdated quarter-round moldings would still stand out. This could be construed, however, as a reference to the past, just as the earlier alignment of the Republican altar had been in its day.

32

Brown et al. 1993, 147 and fg. 56.

33

Fentress et al. 2003, 29–30, fg. 12, pls. 3–4.

34

R. Taylor in Fentress et al. 2003, 217–22: a date in the early second century B.C. is also provided by a fragment of a Greco-Italic amphora in the fll of the podium. On its terracotta decoration see Taylor 2002, 80–82.

35

Fentress et al. 2003, 30 and fg. 12, SU 190.

36

Brown et al. 1960, 126–27, fgs. 93, 100.

37

The third, A 3c, was found in the context of a medieval

burial in the House of Diana. An explanation for this reuse of A 3c depends on the fndspot of the surviving blocks of Vulci tuff belonging to the Republican altar. These were found built into a medieval wall next to Temple D, a discovery suggesting to the excavators that the altar had survived to that time. If so, A 3c was accessible to the later inhabitants and was deemed suitable for use as a grave marker; see Taylor 2003a, 209; also Fentress in Fentress et al. 2003, 62 and 109 on the grave. 38

Tayor 2003a, 209–10.

39

See Conlin 1997, fgs. 237–47 for excellent photographs.

INTRODUCTION

177

A 6 could also have been part of a frieze decorating an altar on the arx dedicated to the triad of Jupiter, Hercules, and Minerva despite its fndspot in the Shrine of Liber Pater in the forum, which had contained several reused marble pieces. This piece contains a framed still life of the attributes of Minerva, whose cult image would have occupied one of the three cellas of the “Capitolium.” Only a few decades later the “Capitolium” and perhaps its altar were damaged by the earthquake of A.D. 51.40 The roof was repaired by Titinius Glaucus Lucretianus, who supplied the tiles from his own factory.41 He may also have been responsible for repairing the altar, which would have remained in use as long as its temple was, since one of the frieze blocks, A 3c, exhibits a shallow rectangular cutting for a clamp just above the top of the lower molding, a cutting more indicative of a repair than of Augustan workmanship. We know that the “Capitolium” continued in use, however sporadically, at most until pagan temples were closed in the late fourth century A.D.42 Roof tiles from the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian and from late Antonine and Severan times attest to continuing repairs.43 Severan interest in Cosa is well known.44 In addition, excavations of 2013 in Cosa’s bath building have turned up tile stamps dating to the reigns of Trajan, Hadrian, and Antoninus Pius,45 evidence that the building was repaired and still in use. Inferring from this that there were still families residing at Cosa would reinforce the continued use of the “Capitolium,” including its sacrifcial altar as well as the “Capitolium” cistern since water was so important in Roman sacrifcial rites. Moreover, recent excavations on the arx have pointed toward a specifc time when the altar’s frieze blocks, A 3a and b, and the other ancient material related to the “Capitolium” found at or near the bottom of its cistern, were most likely thrown there. We now know that the arx was reoccupied by a late Roman mansio or its satellite in the ffth and sixth centuries A.D.46 and that a small church or chapel was installed in the central cella of the “Capitolium” at that time.47 Although we cannot now know what happened to all the rest of the frieze blocks from this altar, their rectilinear shape was ideal for reuse in new construction, especially walls, as occurred with several pieces of Vulci tuff made for the original Republican altar that were found built into the sixth-century A.D. wall around the arx.48 Only then was its sacrifcial altar fnally abandoned, allowing for reuse or discard of its elements. On the arx there was another altar, a much smaller dedicatory one, A 4a–f, which survives only in its decoration of a garland suspended on bucrania. All six fragments were found scattered in and around the “Capitolium,” suggesting that the altar may have stood in its forecourt. It must have had a cubic form whose marble revetment surrounded a masonry core, traces of which were not found. The style of the bucranium and the garland suggest a late Augustan date, and this, in turn, suggests that it may have been connected to the imperial cult.49

40

45

Scott et al. 2015, 17–19.

46

Fentress et al. 2003, 72–74, 84–86.

Fentress et al. 2003, 59–62; Bace 1983, 145–46, 160–61 A22; also Brown et al. 1960, 139.

47

Brown et al. 1960, 4–5.

42

48

On this see Fentress et al. 2003, 55–58 and Collins-Clinton 2000, 102–4.

41

Taylor’s remark that A 3c was “derived from [Lucretianus’s] activities on the Arx” for use in his house is untenable on this account (Taylor 2003b, 54). Bace 1983, 146, 147–51 A1–A8, 154–56 A13–A16, 158 A18–A19.

On that wall see Fentress et al. 2003, 73–74; see also Brown et al. 1960, 83, where it was noted that these pieces had belonged to the only altar on the arx available for reuse in the Middle Ages. Also built into that wall in different places were three over life-sized statues: PS 1 and 3, and PS-St 6.

44

49

43

Brown et al. 1960, 139; Bace 1983, 59–63; Scott 1988; Fentress 1994, 212–15; Fentress et al. 2003, 63–69, 71.

On the evidence for the imperial cult at Cosa, see below A 5.

178

ALTARS

Also related to the imperial cult is a fragment of a Lares altar, A 5. It was found in the forum reservoir at the corner of Streets O and 5, thus suggestive of an original location at a nearby intersection of two streets, where these altars were usually placed. The size of the fragment suggests that the altar was monolithic. Fragments of the twin pulvinars of another small altar, A 7a–c, were uncovered in the garden of the House of Diana. They are typical examples of the superstructure of Roman altars of cubic form. No trace of a marble altar of this type was found in the House of Diana; the mass of mortar at the foot of the stairway leading to the shrine of Diana, erected during the reign of Claudius or Nero, suggests, however, that it may have corresponded to the sacrifcial altar for the shrine. If so, that altar was likely to have been constructed of masonry.50 Whether or not the twin pulvinars can be associated with this altar depends on their fndspots and their condition upon excavation, and these point more toward their having been used as decoration and not as part of that altar.51

Catalogue A 1: Small Round Altar Late Republican

Fig. 223

C9689. Found in 1996 inside aedicula in garden of House of Diana, SU 227. Fine-textured limestone. H. 0.27, Diam. of top 0.22, Diam. of base 0.242, Diam. of shaft at top 0.157 tapering to 0.16 m at bottom. Intact but large parts of upper and base moldings broken away. Lime flm, earth stains. Taylor 2003a, 210 no. 26, pl. 103. This small, round altar has a plain, fat surface with a crown molding consisting of a fascia with a cyma reversa below; the base molding is a mirror image of that above, with a shallow groove separating the cyma from the fascia below. This set of moldings represents the use of the Greek-style cyma reversa crown and base moldings new to Roman altars in the second and frst centuries B.C.,52 apparently as applicable to round as to rectangular die-type altars to judge from this one and from contemporary round ones from Pompeii.53 Those from Pompeii come mostly from private houses; they range in height from 0.20 to 0.30 m, small enough for portability and well suited for household use.54

A 2: Small Round Altar Late Republican

50

Taylor 2003b, 53: the dimensions of the mass of rubble could correspond to those of an altar of this type. However, a reused column drum, presumably for a round altar set upon a rectangular slab, was found in front of the shrine and on its axis; nearby were discovered remains of sacrifcial victims within two small pits (Fentress et al. 2003, 41, 43, pl. 7). 51

See below A 6a–c for further discussion.

Fig. 224

52

Shoe 1965, 30.

53 Pernice 1932, 70 and pl. 42, 1: a travertine altar from the house at VI.16.15. This altar has the same moldings as the Cosa example. 54

Pernice 1932, 70.

CATALOGUE

179

C9631. Found in 1996 in the House of Diana along with DS-MHB 8 in the collapse of the Augustan wall that had closed off Room K when the wall fell into the garden near the aedicula after the house fell into disuse; SU 275. Porous limestone. H. 0.25, Diam. of top 0.19, Diam. of shaft 0.146 m. Badly broken, most of upper and base moldings broken away; surface pitted. Taylor 2003a, 210 no. 27. This is a round altar of the same type as A 1, though in worse condition so that it is not possible to obtain a diameter of its base.

A 3a–c: Three Fragments of Double Ritual Procession Augustan

Figs. 225–27

(a): CB 228 joining CB 344, fg. 225, (b): CB 180, fg. 226. Both (a) and (b) found on the arx in 1949, CB 180 and CB 344 in cistern below pronaos of “Capitolium” in or near the bottom along with ancient fll, CB 228 in forecourt of “Capitolium” on surface. (c): C9615, fg. 227, found in 1996 above foot of medieval grave cut into disintegrated pisé of walls of west corner of Room K of House of Diana, SU 251.55 Fine-grained white marble with occasional gray veins. (a) Max. Pres. H. 0.228, Max. Pres. L. 0.215, Th. of plate ca. 0.129, H. of broad fascia below lower molding 0.044 m. (b) Max. Pres. H. 0.207, Max. Pres. L. 0.15, Th. across top 0.144, Th. of plate ca. 0.122 m. (c) H. 0.38, L. 0.46, Th. across top 0.11, H. relief feld 0.23, Th. of plate 0.09 m. (a) Broken mainly on two sides; small breaks on third side and on back and underside. (b) Broken on three sides, molding chipped and battered. Surface of both pieces weathered; lime flm, root marks. On (a) traces of mortar; rust stains around dowel hole. Surface of (b) splitting at bottom and upper left; head and hand of victimarius and head of sheep especially worn. (c) Broken on three sides, a large break in upper right corner. Upper molding chipped, marble splitting on front of bottom center. A shallow rectangular cutting at lower right just above molding. Right side and underside of (a) smooth-picked to join other slabs. A large piece of iron dowel remains embedded at the point of the break on that side; surface around dowel hole damaged. Fragment (b) belongs to slab immediately to right of (a). (a–b) Ryberg 1955, 106, pl. 35 fg. 53; Collins 1970, 197–201, no. 39a, b, fgs. 86–87; Scholz, U. W., “Suovetaurilia und Solitaurilia,” Philologus 117 (1973) 7 no. 5. (c) Taylor 2003a, 208–10 no. 23, pl. 101; Fentress in Fentress et al. 2003, 62. Despite the difference in thickness between these segments, the correspondence of the height of the relief felds, the moldings, and the style of the carving strongly suggests that they belong to the 55

For details see website: http://www.press.umich.edu/ script/press/special/cosa/f5_p_vii.html, p. 3 (accessed 31 December 2015).

180

ALTARS

same frieze.56 Together they represent parts of two ritual processions. One (a and b, fgs. 225–26) is the suovetaurilia, in which a boar, a ram, and a bull are sacrifced during a lustratio, or purifcation rite. Fragment (a) preserves the lower half of the bull, which leads the procession of animals moving toward the left.57 It reverses the actual order of this ritual, as the term suovetaurilia specifes; this reversal was common on depictions of the Republican period.58 Fragment (b) shows the head of the ram, which would have followed just after the bull, also walking toward the left. Fragment (c) (fg. 227) depicts a bull or cow that the victimarius is leading in the opposite direction, an indication that this is a different procession. In fragment (a) the victim is a bull whose genitalia are clearly represented. It wears a dorsuale with a fringe on the bottom. A victimarius, wearing the limus, which just covers his knees, walks beside its left shoulder in the foreground. The leg of another attendant is visible in very low relief on the other side of the bull. Fragment (b) shows a third victimarius stooping to guide the sheep. He places his hands on either side of the sheep’s head, grasping its left ear with his left hand. In the feld above the sheep’s head is the stone mallet carried by one of the victimarii associated with the bull, the popa. It is the presence of the mallet that indicates the order of the animals in the procession.59 Block (c) preserves the entire relief feld between the upper and lower moldings, so that almost the entire animal, except for the hind leg in the background and its tail, is visible; the missing hind leg would have slanted backward, matching the backward slant of the foreleg also in the background. The preserved hind leg hides the genitalia, so its gender is not clear. The majestic beast, heavy set with sturdy legs and broad neck with a substantial dewlap, must be a male to judge from its size, either a bull or a steer. From a horn dangles a knotted fllet and around the middle is a fringed dorsuale. Behind walks a victimarius rendered in low relief; only his head and shoulders can be seen above the animal’s back—an indication of the animal’s size. Below are the victimarius’s legs, also shown in low relief, one foot before the other with his heel raised as he walks in tandem with the animal. It walks toward another victimarius, who reaches up to hold the strap around its muzzle. This attendant, wearing the limus, turns his torso frontally with his weight on his left leg as he looks back toward the animal. In his outstretched left hand he holds a tray with sacrifcial offerings. In both fragments, the animals and their attendants would be approaching altars where the sacrifce was conducted. The moldings above and below the frieze are very simple. At the top is a narrow fascia and a cyma reversa; at the bottom is the projecting fascia on which the fgures walk above a cyma reversa and a broad, smooth fascia, 0.043 m in height. The top and underside of the fragments are smoothpicked and then worked over with a rasp. The backs are smooth-picked. The relief is very low, and the very restricted depth of feld corresponds to the depth of the molding on which the fgures walk. Nevertheless, a subtle sense of spatial depth is conveyed by the higher relief of the rounded forms in the foreground, such as the shoulder of the victimarius stooping

56

The unfnished backs of all three pieces suggest that the frieze revetted a masonry backing.

57 58

This is the order reconstructed by Ryberg 1955, 106.

The best known is that on the so-called Ahenobarbus Base, where the suovetaurilia represents the censorial lustrum of Marcus Antonius, grandfather of the triumvir, who was censor in 97 B.C.; on this see now P. J. Holliday, The Origins of Roman Historical Commemoration in the

Visual Arts, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002, 161–66 with bibliography. Excellent photographs are in F. Stilp, Mariage et suovetaurilia: Etude sur le soi-disant “Autel de Domitius Ahenobarbus,” RdA suppl. 26, Rome: G. Bretschneider, 2001. 59 The stone mallet is an instrument generally used only on the larger victims; Ryberg 1955, 106. It must have been carried by the popa, whose lower leg is shown by the bull’s hind quarters in fragment (a) for use on the bull.

CATALOGUE

181

over the sheep in fragment (b) or the treatment of the bull and the fgure with the tray in (c), and by a corresponding fattening of forms in the background, as in the legs of the victimarius behind each bull. The sculptor has adjusted the height of the attendants so as to emphasize the large size of the bulls: the head of the animal in block (c) reaches the same height as the victimarius alongside it. All heads are of the same height, leaving very little space above them. Where not abraded by wear and tear, it is clear that all fgures were carefully worked with the fat chisel to render such details as the shaggy coat of the ram with its carefully outlined eye. The musculature of the victimarius with the tray in block (c) is impressively well modeled. On the whole, however, the style is simple, best seen in the general lack of intricacies in the drapery and in the rather short and chunky proportions of the attendants, whose heads appear too large. This refects the so-called popular style that coexisted alongside the more graceful and accomplished Neo-Attic or “court” style in Roman art. The two styles are best understood in the juxtaposition of the “Small Frieze” on the altar of the Ara Pacis and the classicizing style of the “Large Frieze” on its outer enclosure.60 The “Small Frieze” provides a good parallel for the one from Cosa, in another respect, since it has the same format with the same moldings and even the same broad fascia along the bottom. That frieze wraps around its U-shaped altar at the level of the altar table.61 As Rabun Taylor has pointed out, the Cosa frieze, though simpler in style and depicting a different ritual procession, may have followed this model.62 This is likely since both altars take the same U-shaped form.63 Identifying the nature of the ritual procession in pieces (a) and (b) is not diffcult since the two animals are so clearly shown. Identifying the second procession is a different matter. An accurate identifcation depends on the gender of the animal represented in block (c), whose huge size in relation to that of the attendants matches the size of the bull in (c): a bull or steer. If the animal were a bull, the procession might well be a second suovetaurilia; if a steer, the procession would be in honor of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, the occupant of the central cella in the “Capitolium” and the divinity to whom oxen were offered on the occasion of the Ludi Romani in September.64 The second interpretation may be the more likely. If the animal were a bull, the procession would represent a double suovetaurilia. If this were so at Cosa, this would most likely have pertained to the purifcation of both the town and the templum of the “Capitolium” after the depredations resulting from the pirate raid.65 Excavations have shown that the houses were looted and burned, as was the “Capitolium,” and a ritual lustration of both could well have taken place at the time of the Augustan resettlement, though I know of no other 60

Good illustrations of the “Small Frieze” are in Conlin 1997, 235–47.

61 See Conlin 1997, 5 for a reconstruction and plan showing the altar within the enclosure. 62

Taylor 2003a, 209.

63

Taylor 2003a, 209–10. See the introduction to the altars for further comments.

64 R. M. Ogilvie, The Romans and Their Gods in the Age of Augustus, New York: Norton, 1969, 95 and H. H. Scullard, Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman Republic, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1981, 184. 65

Taylor 2003a, 210 has already alluded to the lustration

of the templum. See also F. Ginister, “Sacred Rubbish,” in E. Bispham and C. Smith, eds., Religion in Archaic and Republican Rome and Italy: Evidence and Experience, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2000, 54–70. There the author discusses not the usual votive deposits but architectural terracottas, suggesting that “after the destruction or reorganization of a sanctuary, elements of the old temple decoration were evidently collected up and interred or reused within the sacred precinct” (54). This is especially relevant to Cosa, where debris from the desecrated “Capitolium” was deposited outside the southeast corner of the forecourt; this constitutes Level 3, which consists mostly of material damaged in the pirate raid; see Brown et al. 1960, pl. LXX 2 and Taylor 2002, 66, 73–74. Ginister posits that debris of this sort, even when used as fll, was still “inherently sacred” (69) and kept within the sanctuary area (68–70).

182

ALTARS

examples of such a rite around an entire town after a destructive event. The damage by the pirates to the “Capitolium” was surely considered polluting and thus required purifcation. The suovetaurilia was the ritual used after desecration of a temple, or even after accidental damage, as when Vespasian offered one upon his restoration of the Capitolium at Rome after a fre in A.D. 69 (Tac. Hist. 4.53).66 The second interpretation for block (c) benefts from comparison with the Ara Pacis, where two processions were depicted, the one on the outer side of the enclosure and the other on the altar itself, in a much smaller scale and carved in a simpler style. The frst represented the actual procession on the day of the inauguration of the altar in 9 B.C. and the second the annually recurring sacrifce in honor of Pax.67 This duality could also have applied in the Cosa frieze: the suovetaurilia sacrifced just once on the day of the purifcation of the templum and the steer sacrifced annually to Jupiter—both reliefs in the same setting in the case of the Cosa altar. The resettlement of Cosa early in the reign of Augustus, combined with the need to purify the templum on the arx, and possibly also the entire town, suggests an Augustan date for this frieze. Since so much of it is missing and since epigraphic evidence is lacking, a secure date is diffcult to pinpoint within the reign of Augustus. The conservative composition of the suovetaurilia in the Cosa frieze, which retains the order of the animals used on reliefs of the late Republic, as well as the artistic allusions to the Ara Pacis, do not encourage a later date. As such, the Cosa suovetaurilia is one of the earliest representations of this ritual in Roman Imperial art.

A 4a–f: Six Fragments of Bucranium/Garland Frieze Late Augustan

Figs. 228–33

All were found on the arx scattered around the “Capitolium.” (a) CA 577: Found in 1948 on surface of cistern beneath pronaos (fg. 228). (b) CB 211: Found in 1949 in cistern beneath pronaos in second meter of fll (fg. 229). (c) CB 918: Found in 1949 behind “Capitolium” on surface (fg. 230). (d) CB 941: Found in 1949 on south side on surface (fg. 231). (e) CB 1466: Found in 1949 on north side on surface (fg. 232). (f) CB 1752: Found in 1949 just east of forecourt on surface (fg. 233). Carrara marble, fne-grained light gray with some gray veins. (a) Max. Pres. L. 0.189, Max. Pres. W. 0.135, Th. of plate 0.04–0.05 m. (b) Max. Pres. L. 0.19, Max. Pres. W. 0.13, Th. of plate 0.035–0.05 m. (c) Max. Pres. L. 0.275, Max. Pres. W. 0.187, Th. of plate 0.049–0.054 m. (d) Max. Pres. L. 0.173, Max. Pres. W. 0.164, Max. Th. of plate 0.113 m. (e) Max. Pres. L. 0.172, Max. Pres. W. 0.137, Th. of plate 0.04–0.048 m. (f) Max. Pres. L. 0.164, Max. Pres. W. 0.123, Max. Th. of plate ca. 0.052 m. All are broken on all sides; front surfaces weathered, (b) and (f) badly worn, garland of (a) badly chipped. A bit of original edge preserved on (b). Collins 1970, 225–41 nos. 43–48, fgs. 91, 94–98. 66 On the suovetaurilia see M. J. Vermaseren, “The Suovetaurilia in Roman Art,” BABesch 32 (1957) 1–12; see also the comments of Taylor 2003a, 210. 67

On simultaneously representing two ritual processions on

the same monument see P. J. Holliday, “Time, History and Ritual on the Ara Pacis Augustae,” ArtB 72 (1990) 542–57, esp. 553–54 and, further, J. Elsner, “Cult and Sculpture: Sacrifce in the Ara Pacis Augustae,” JRS 81 (1991) 50–61.

CATALOGUE

183

The six fragments form parts of a bucranium and garland frieze from an altar most likely associated in some way with the “Capitolium” since all were found in close proximity to it. All are carved from the same marble, the treatment of the garlands is the same, their backs are very roughly picked as for revetting a core of masonry, and, with one exception, the thickness of the stone exclusive of the relief height is essentially the same. Fragment (d) is much thicker and must have occupied a different side of the altar. The many segments of the garland and the two rosettes also suggest that fragments (a)–(c) and (e)–(f) also adorned different sides of the same altar. Fragments (a) and (c) preserve bits of the upper molding. Fragments (a), (b), and (c) give the best idea of the composition of the garland. Fruits predominate, and pomegranates, apples, and a pine cone along with ears of wheat are recognizable. A bell fower appears in fragment (a). The leaves are short and pointed. Two fragments may be singled out for close examination. Fragment (c) (fg. 230) preserves the upper right portion of a bucranium with its horn and eye socket, the beginning of the garland of leaves and fruit, and a narrow fllet waving upward toward what appear to be two bifurcated petals of a rosette. The bull’s skull has an irregularly shaped eye socket, rather fattened, above which a small drill hole may represent a perforation in the bone. It has a short, curving horn. A beaded fllet goes around the forehead and the base of the horn. The end of the garland rests on top of the skull, wound around with a fllet, or taenia, that joins the end of the garland to another on the other side of the bucranium. The fruits and leaves are too indistinct for precise identifcation, though the end of an ear of wheat is barely visible at the right. Fragment (e) (fg. 232) features an eight-petaled rosette, of which six petals are preserved. This would have belonged to the center of the lunette above the dip of the garland, where two loops stand up like a pair of rabbit’s ears. These belong to a ribbon tied around the center of the garland.68 On either side of the rosette futter the tassels of two fllets. These take the form of twin balls, or bullae, each on the end of a thin strand. The end of one of the fllets appears on the left. The motive of bucranium and garland was a popular one in Roman art. Hellenistic in origin, it became established in the Roman decorative repertory by the end of the Republic.69 Typical of the Hellenistic examples are certain features. First, a long continuous garland rests on the top of either a complete bovine head or a skull of triangular shape with a pointed nose that retains bits of skin and hair, the “Hautschädel” type of skull. Second, the head or skull is decorated with the beaded fllet, which is wrapped around the forehead and horns of a sacrifcial animal. The ends of this hang straight down alongside the head or skull.70 With the exception of a few details the frieze from Cosa is more closely related in its general form to the bucrania and garlands carved on the inner precinct walls of the Ara Pacis dating between 13 and 9 B.C. The similarities between the two are great, particularly the realistically depicted skulls with their short, curved horns and jagged eye sockets and the essential contents of the garlands, although the Cosa garlands are more limited in the variety of fruits and leaves. The differences are revealing, however. The beaded fllet decorating the skull on the Cosa relief is absent from the bucrania on the Ara Pacis.71 More important is the 68 Ribbons tied around the middle of a garland occur occasionally on Roman altars, where they add further decorative effect. The loops of the ribbon help fll the feld above the dip of the garland, and the ends of the ribbon dangle down to fll the space below.

70 A good example of how this looks is the frieze on a base from Pergamon dated to the second half of the third century B.C.; see W. Radt, “Pergamon: Vorbericht über die Kampagne 1984,” AA 100 (1985) 484–85, fgs. 17–19, where the continuous garland and the beaded fllet are clearly visible.

69 The best treatments of this subject are Napp 1933, Hesberg 1981, and Honroth 1971. Napp (1–20) and Hesberg give an expansive discussion of the Hellenistic background.

71 The beaded fllet does, however, appear occasionally in late Augustan or Tiberian reliefs; see for example the bucrania of the Ara Pacis type with this fllet on tomb reliefs from

184

ALTARS

difference between the manner of festooning the garlands from the skulls. On the Ara Pacis each end is wrapped with a taenia and tied to the horns of the skull, whereas on the Cosa frieze the end of the garland passes over the head of the skull, where it is joined to the end of the next garland by another taenia, thus forming a continuous fow from garland to garland, in the Hellenistic manner. The continuous festooning is found mainly on Roman monuments of the late Republic and continues to some extent in Augustan art.72 Stylistically, the treatment of the forms in the Cosa fragments is quite different from that of the Ara Pacis. The skull and the futtering taeniae are fatter and simplifed. The garland is composed of a multitude of fruits and fowers of almost the same size, thus presenting a much less varied texture than that of the garlands on the Ara Pacis. In addition, the fruits and leaves of the Cosa garland are separated from each other by a heavy-handed use of the drill, the ends of whose holes are plainly visible between the component elements. This produces a bold series of forms and an expressive play of lights and shadows, which differs from the subtle textural contrasts and naturalistic forms of the Ara Pacis garland. The leaves and ends of ears of wheat that project outward from the garland on both reliefs, however, are very fnely chiseled in low relief. Stylistically the Cosa garland compares more closely with those on such late Augustan monuments as the Caffarelli sarcophagus in Berlin,73 an altar dedicated to the Genius decuriae in Naples,74 and the altars dedicated to Pax and Securitas Augusti in Palestrina.75 There the fruits and fowers are also strongly separated by drillwork, the taeniae have the same narrower forms, and especially prominent in the altars at Palestrina are the “rabbit ear” loops of the taenia tied around the center of the garland. These features encourage a late Augustan date for the Cosa fragments.

A 5: Fragment of Lares Altar Augustan

Fig. 234

C73.38. Found in 1973 in the reservoir at the corner of Streets O and 5. Fine-grained white, slightly grayish, Carrara marble. H. 0.258, W. 0.193, D. 0.22 m. Front and side surfaces weathered from when in use. Chipped; earth stained; lime encrusted; root marks. Collins-Clinton 1988, 92. This preserves the upper right corner of an altar, the actual corner of which has broken away revealing an iron dowel inserted to repair an ancient break. The side with the laurel shows the top of the tree below a molding, 0.045 m in height, that consists of a narrow fascia over a cyma reversa. Little Vicovaro and on the metopes of the Portico of the Basilica Aemilia in Rome: G. Daltrop, “Ein Rundgrab bei Vicovaro,” RendPontAcc 41 (1968/69) 121–36. 72

Hesberg 1981; see also F. S. Kleiner, “Early Roman Putto-and-Garland Reliefs,” BABesch 55 (1980) 42 on the difference between festooning in Eastern and Western garlands.

73

Berlin, State Museums, inv. Sk 843a. See Honroth 1971, 20, 73 no. 22 with bibliography and Zevi 1976, 39.

74

Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale, inv. 9614; from Rome, dated epigraphically to A.D. 18 (CIL VI, 244). See Honroth 1971, 21–22, 74 no. 27 with bibliography and Zevi 1976, 39. 75

Palestrina, Museo Nazionale Prenestino, inv. 104 (Pax) and 103 (Securitas). See Honroth 1971, 22, 74–75 nos. 28–29 with bibliography; Zevi 1976, 39–41 and Agnoli 2002, 235–43, cat. III.7, 8 with bibliography. For the inscriptions see CIL XIV 2898, 2899.

CATALOGUE

185

remains of the other side; it is plain, with the battered stump of the molding at the top. Neither face preserves traces of a molded frame for their compositions. The upper surface is rough-picked and has a smoothly worked border, resembling anathyrosis, visible at the front, to receive the crowning portion, made separately. The position of the canopy of the laurel tree at the upper right suggests that this fragment had been part of an altar, possibly of the Lares Augusti, where the laurels most often appeared on the lateral sides framing an image of a Lar, although they sometimes appear on the back framing an oak wreath.76 The laurels refer to those placed by the senate on either side of the door of Augustus’s house in 27 B.C. Later, around 7 B.C., Augustus restored the cult of the Lares compitales, or Lares of the Crossroads, and new altars were set up at an intersection in each vicus, or neighborhood, in Rome and elsewhere in Italy.77 Several have survived, most from Rome. Since the Cosa altar gives so few clues to its original appearance and function, it is not possible to provide a defnitive identifcation of its function beyond suggesting its relationship to the imperial cult, to which the laurel tree clearly refers. Whether it was a compital or a dedicatory altar is impossible to know. Its weathered condition does indicate that it had stood out of doors. The lively and sensitive treatment of the laurel leaves, which tremble in the breeze, suggests an Augustan date. Reinforcing the Augustan date is the molding, which is the same as the one on the new superstructure for the altar in front of the “Capitolium” at Cosa erected at the time of the Augustan resettlement; for this see A 3 above. The most critical evidence for this date is an inscription from another altar that records a dedication to the emperor Augustus by a magister Augustalis at Cosa.78 The offce of magister Augustalis refers to the Augustales, a civic organization consisting mainly of wealthy freedmen whose primary function was to serve their town in various ways.79 It was an early phase of the more common Augustalis and sevir Augustalis, and did not survive the reign of Augustus. These magistri appear right away in cities outside Rome, many in Etruria, including the ager Cosanus.80

A 6: Panel with Attributes of Minerva within Molded Frame, Possibly Part of an Altar Early Imperial Fig. 235 C68.118. Found in 1968 in Shrine of Liber Pater, reused in fourth-century A.D. context. Fine-grained white marble with gray veins, Carrara. 76 The basic studies on these altars are M. Hano, “À l’origine du culte impérial: les autels des Lares Augusti. Recherches sur les thèmes iconographiques et leur signifcation,” ANRW II, 16, 3, Berlin, 1986, 2333–81 and A. Alföldi, Die zwei Lorbeerbäume des Augustus, Bonn: Habelt, 1973. Two examples of laurels framing an oak wreath, the corona civica, are that of the Vicus Sandaliarius in Florence, Uffzi (Hano, 2338–39 no. 2, pl. VIII 16, dated 2 B.C.; Alföldi, 32–33 no. 3, pl. XII) and that of the altar in the formerly identifed Temple of Vespasian in Pompeii. On this altar see now J. J. Dobbins, “The Altar in the Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus in the Forum at Pompeii,” RömMitt 99 (1992) 251–63, pl. 72, 3 with earlier bibliography; the author suggests that the altar must be understood as relating to the “spread of the imperial cult” (261) and commemorating the institution of the cult of the Genius Augusti at Pompeii. 77

See now Gradel 2002, 116–28 and, on Augustus’s reforms,

J. B. Lott, The Neighborhoods of Augustan Rome, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004. 78

CIL XI, 2631. See Manacorda 1979, 95 no. 2; L. R. Taylor, The Divinity of the Roman Emperor, Middletown, CT: American Philological Association, 1931, 280; and Bace 1983, 44 n. 30, 193 no. 1. The inscription was located in the nearby town of Orbetello in 1821 and is now lost. 79

On the offce of magister Augustalis see most recently Laird 2015, esp. 6–15; see also R. Duthoy, “Les *Augustales,” ANRW II, 16, Berlin, 1978, 1287–89 and S. E. Ostrow, “Augustales along the Bay of Naples: A Case for Their Early Growth,” Historia 34 (1985) 64–72. 80

L. R. Taylor, “Augustales, Seviri Augustales, and Seviri: A Chronological Study,” TAPA 45 (1914) 231–38 and Bace 1983, 44 n. 31, 193 no. 1.

186

ALTARS

H. 0.378, Max. Pres. L. 0.445, Max. Pres. Th. 0.115, interior H. of panel 0.308, interior W. of panel 0.25 m. Intact except for missing upper right corner, presumably cut off for later reuse. Large chip in upper molding; snake’s head broken away from lower right corner of aegis; chips in brim of helmet. Surface lime encrusted, earth stained, root marks; weathered. Traces of mortar; a large piece adheres to right side, much on back. Collins 1970, 32, 33, 35, 202–17 no. 40, fg. 88; Collins-Clinton 1977, 27, 55–56 no. 7, fg. 28; Collins-Clinton, Attanasio, Platania 2008, 25 table 1, CO21; 29 table 3, CO21. The slab is smooth-cut on the top, bottom, and left sides. The right side has been crudely cut away, including a large part of the upper corner, leaving a projecting rear edge, roughly worked, and a front edge more carefully worked with fat and claw chisels. The back is very roughly worked with a large point; the edges along the top, bottom, and left side are smoothed with fat and claw chisels to achieve a beveled effect. At the bottom of the smooth-cut left side, in the center, is a vertical clamp hole to which pieces of iron still adhere, H. 0.035 × W. 0.018 m. A break extends backward from the rear of this cutting, perhaps indicating that the clamp hole was originally L-shaped for attaching the slab to an adjacent one as well as to masonry behind. Occupying most of the slab’s length is a framed panel containing a relief decoration. The rest of the slab is plain and has an irregular width, varying from 0.143 m at the top, as preserved, to 0.135 m at the bottom. This irregularity suggests that the entire right side was cut down for a later reuse, as the hacked-out upper corner surely indicates. Originally the entire right side must have been smooth-cut to match the other three sides. The relief on the left is framed by a plain cyma reversa molding within a narrow fascia, 0.02 m wide on the upper, left, and lower sides, which becomes the broad plain surface on the right. Inside the frame the attributes of Minerva are composed to fll the upright rectangular space. In the middle is the scaly aegis, essentially rectangular with two scalloped edges on each side. Snakes dart out from the points of the scallops. The gorgoneion appears on the aegis in higher relief. It has a somewhat humanized aspect—an oval face with pudgy cheeks, a tight smile, and pop-eyes. Two wings sprout from the temples, and two snakes leap from the hair on top of her head; their tails are knotted below her chin. Below the gorgoneion is a small round shield with a raised edge and a fattened convex center, the parma, generally carried by Roman cavalry or light-armed troops.81 A demonic face occupies most of the center of the shield.82 It has puffy cheeks, a fat nose with broad nostrils, bulging eyes, large pointed ears, and short, unruly hair. The mouth smiles in an open V-shape. In the lower right corner the owl perches on the tip of a spear pointing toward that corner. Its body is slightly foreshortened; its face turns to stare straight outward. The tips of three more spears shoot from behind the assemblage into the other three corners. A crested helmet surmounts the composition. It has a domical bowl, a sharply offset brim with a concave profle longer in front 81 On the parma see RE s.v. parma, 1539–43 (Lambertz); also New Pauly, Antiquity 13 (2008) 386, s.v. shield II, Rome (Y. Le Bohec). Note, however, that the small round shield is not called a parma in Bishop and Coulston 2006. Athena’s shield has been called a parma, Pliny HN 36.18. 82

The parma may be decorated; RE s.v. parma, 1542. The form of the Cosa parma with a mask in the center closely

resembles that on the end of a Roman cinerary urn in Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano; F. Sinn, Stadtrömische Marmorurnen, Beiträge zur Erschliessung hellenistischer und kaiserzeitlicher Skulptur und Architektur 8, Mainz: Zabern, 1987, 191–92 no. 421, pl. 66b; the shield in this image appears in front of crossed spears, rather as seen in the Cosa relief, a motive that became frequent in the Claudian period (Sinn, 71).

CATALOGUE

187

than in back, and an eye-hole above the brim. The means of attaching the crest to the top of the helmet is not clear; it appears to spring directly from the surface. On the bowl of the helmet is a small ram’s head. The form of the helmet is unusual if not imaginary.83 The eye-hole indicates that it is a derivative of the Corinthian type, the helmet worn by Minerva, although it appears too high up in an impossible position. The ram’s head on the side of the helmet is the zodiacal sign for Aries the Ram, whose corresponding deity is Minerva,84 which fts the iconography of the composition. The rectangular aegis with scalloped edges is also unusual. An octagonal or rounded aegis with a gorgoneion in the center appears on the reverses of some denarii of Manius Cordius Rufus of ca. 46 B.C.85 There the sides are concave, with snakes also darting from the corners. The rounded shape of the aegis fts as well into the shape of the coins as does the rectilinear aegis in this relief. General parallels for the humanized gorgoneion with little wings on a scaly aegis can be found on Campana plaques.86 Parallels for the satyr’s face are rarer, but, again, there are some similar examples on Campana plaques.87 Assemblages of divine attributes arranged in a compact format such as that of this relief are not common as the sole subject of compositions in Greek and Roman art insofar as I know.88 For example, the attributes of the Capitoline Triad appear on a cubic altar formerly used as a holy water basin in the Church of S. Maria delle Letizie, possibly from La Civita near Artena south of Rome.89 On three sides are two attributes of Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva respectively with two sacrifcial implements on the fourth; Jupiter’s eagle stands on a thunderbolt, Juno’s peacock stands next to a small pedestal on which leans her scepter; and an owl stands on Minerva’s helmet.90 It was carved in Greek marble and has the letters ΑΘΗ on the brim of the helmet, suggestive of Greek workmanship. It is probably Republican in date, perhaps late third or second century B.C. during the foruit of La Civita, although it is not certain that this altar came from there. Though the attributes do fll their respective sides of the altar, the compositions lack the complexity of that from Cosa.91 83

On helmets, especially Hellenistic helmets, see now P. Dintsis, Hellenistische Helme, Rome: G. Bretschneider, 1986.

84

DarSag 1056 s.v. zodiacus (Fr. Cumont); also New Pauly, Antiquity 15 (2010) 937–46, s.v. zodiac (W. Hübner). A ram’s head appears on the helmet of Athena Parthenos.

85 Belloni 1960, 229 nos. 2054–55, pl. 52; E. A. Sydenham, The Coinage of the Roman Republic, London: Spink, 1952, 162 no. 978. The obverse of this type contains a Corinthian helmet on which sits an owl. 86

H. von Rohden and H. Winnefeld, Architektonische römische Tonreliefs der Kaiserzeit, Die antiken Terrakotten 4, Berlin and Stuttgart: W. Spemann, 1911, 177, 294–95 pl. XCIII fgs. 1–5; considered frst century A.D.

87 88

Rohden and Winnefeld (as above) 185, fg. 364, Augustan.

See the coins mentioned in n. 85 above. Assemblages of military gear are also similar in the compact form of their compositions, often placed within a rectilinear frame, but their meaning is related to victory and refects the piling of gear at the base of a trophy in Greek and Roman art. An example would be the panels containing trophy reliefs

between the personifcations of provinces from the Temple of Hadrian in Rome; I thank Ann Kuttner for reminding me of these. A Hellenistic prototype would be the reliefs of arms and armor massed together on the panels between the Ionic columns in the second story of the portico in the sanctuary of Athena at Pergamon, erected by Eumenes II in the frst half of the second century B.C. 89

See most recently L. Quilici, La Civita di Artena, Latium Vetus IV, Rome: CNR, 1982, 107–8, pl. 91, 1–2; also T. Ashby and G. J. Pfeiffer, “La Civita near Artena in the Province of Rome,” Supplementary Papers of the American School of Classical Studies in Rome 1, New York: Macmillan, 1905, 102–4, fgs. 14 and 15.

90 91

As on the coins noted above, n. 85.

Similar in format, though not depicting divine attributes, are the framed panels on the broad pilasters in the Marble Hall of the Heroon at Pergamon of late Augustan or Tiberian date. See W. Radt, “Der Marmorsaal und seine Künstlerische Ausgestaltung: Beschreibung—Deutung— Datierung—Zuordnung,” in M. N. Filgis and W. Radt, Die Stadtgrabung 1, Das Heroon, 71–126, AvP 15, 1, Berlin: De Gruyter, 1986; also W. Radt, “Pergamon,” in W. Radt, ed.,

188

ALTARS

Parallels for small vignettes featuring divine attributes do exist, however, among wall paintings in houses from Pompeii. These appear in small frieze-like arrangements, often along with those of other divinities in the same room; they tend to be dated in the time of Nero or Vespasian. The best known are those in the House of the Ephebe (I.7.10–12).92 Another example is from an offcina coriariorum, a tanner’s shop at I.5.2, where a reference to Minerva as the goddess of handicrafts is not inappropriate.93 For almost all the individual elements of the Cosa relief parallels or near-parallels can be found. Only the helmet remains an enigma, and it could be the product of the artist’s imagination at a time when the variations of the Corinthian type, which this one recalls, have gone out of use except as occasionally worn by Roma or Minerva during the Imperial period. The combined evidence for arrangements of divine attributes on Pompeian walls and groupings of military gear indicates that such subjects are not uncommon in Roman art.94 For the format of the entire slab, with the relief on one side of an otherwise plain area, however, I can fnd no parallels. Despite the rather static composition, the relief exhibits a very pictorial style with its dependence upon contrasts of textures as well as of dark and light. Certain details are outlined by gouging around the edges of the eyes of the snakes, the gorgoneion, the owl, and the satyr’s face. Furthermore, the little ram’s head is minutely worked, and the side of the helmet is fattened, giving a faceted effect, to provide a surface for the decoration. The tips of the spears are carved in varying degrees of relief height, so that the one in the upper left appears to sink into the background. For the most part the fat chisel is used with occasional traces of the stationary drill in the eye-hole and along the front edge of the helmet and in the hair of the gorgoneion. The drill holes are small, averaging 0.003 to 0.005 m. The technique, lacking extensive drillwork, suggests a frst-century A.D. date, likely late Julio-Claudian. The small size of the slab suggests that it was part of a series in which the attributes of the twelve gods were depicted or, more likely, the triad of Jupiter, Hercules, and Minerva that could pertain to the “Capitolium” on the arx,95 but no matching pieces have as yet come to light at Cosa. The roughly worked back indicates that it was meant to face the masonry core of an altar or base. In the possibility that such an altar still stood on the arx, where the worshippers of Dionysus/Liber Pater in late antiquity could have seen it, they could have taken this relief for their shrine in the forum.

Stadtgrabungen und Stadtforschung im westlichen Kleinasien, Geplantes und Erreichtes, Internationales Symposion 6./7. August 2004 in Bergama (Türkei), Byzas 3, Istanbul: Ege Yayınları, 2006, 279–88, esp. 284–85, fg. 5. Within each panel is a fghting cock, a pilos with a star above, a cuirass, and crossed sword and lance, each motive flling the available space. 92

(1) House of the Ephebe, I.7.10–12, Maiuri 1927, 40, 45; K. Schefold, Die Wände pompejis, Berlin: De Gruyter, 1957, 32–33; and PPM 1 (1990) fgs. 39, 42, 45, 48, 53, 85, 87, 100 (A. de Vos), Neronian/Vespasianic; (2) House of the Vettii, VI.15.1, Schefold (as above) 144, 148; (3) House of Siricus, VII.1.25,47, Schefold (as above) 165, Vespasianic; PPM 6 (1996) 298 fg. 123; (4) House of the Figured Capitals, VII.4.57, Schefold (as above) 186; PPM 7 (1997) plaster no longer preserved; (5) house at IX.5.6, Schefold (as above) 254, Vespasianic; PPM 9 (1999) 427 fg. 42; and (6) House of the Centenary IX.8.3, 6, Schefold (as above) 276, and PPM

9 (1999) 974 fg. 132, drawing by K. Sikkard (V. Sampaolo), Vespasianic. The divine attributes from these houses appear with similar groupings of attributes for other deities such as Jupiter, Juno, Mercury, Bacchus, and Apollo, to list the most common. Except for the compositions in the House of the Ephebe, none are visible today. 93

A. Sogliano, Le Pitture murali campane scoverte negli anni 1967–1879, Naples: Detken & Rocholi, 1879, 31, no. 122 and Schefold (as above) 17.

94

Ann Kuttner has studied Roman compositions of this sort, and I am indebted to her for sending me her unpublished paper, “Roman Images of Roman ‘Ornament’,” delivered at the annual conference of the College Art Association in 2000.

95 As the altar from La Civita mentioned above, p. 187, might suggest.

189

CATALOGUE

A 7a–c: Matching Altar Pulvini Augustan

Figs. 236–37

(a) C9623. Found in 1996 inside the aedicula in the garden of the House of Diana, SU 227. (b) C9685. Found in 1996 inside the aedicula in the garden of the House of Diana, SU 227. (c) C9709. Found in 1997 among pieces of decoration of the fountain against the back wall of the garden, SU 340. Fine-grained white marble. L. (a) 0.205, (b) 0.108, (c) 0.152 m. Diam. of ends of (a) and (b) 0.063, of (c): 0.07 m. Chipped all over. Traces of mortar; lime flm, root marks, earth stained. Taylor 2003a, 210 nos. 24, 25, pl. 102. These pieces comprise most of one pulvinus, fragments (b) and (c) (fg. 236 right), and part of the other, fragment (a) (fg. 236 left), from a cubic altar. These are remnants of the baluster-shaped bolsters that decorated each side of the crowning element, or superstructure, of the altar, the front of which took the form of a shallow gable with a pair of volutes at each end. Fragments (b) and (c) belong to the same pulvinus on the right side of the altar as viewed from the front, fragment (a) to the rear of the left side.96 The round outer ends of each pulvinus correspond to the ends of the volutes. At the front the volutes form a pair of scrolls that rise toward the center to form the gable, and at the back the volutes scroll horizontally toward each other along the rear edge of the altar.97 Along one side of fragment (a), the longest, part of the fat surface of the superstructure is preserved (fg. 236 left).98 The bit of fat surface extends leftward when viewed from the rosette end, so this must have belonged to the left side of the altar when seen from the front. The other two fragments originally belonged to the right side of the altar. Each end of the pulvini is decorated with a four-petaled rosette, and the pulvini themselves are carved with a pair of addorsed calyxes with long, pointed overlapping leaves, each with a slightly raised midrib, all carefully though simply carved. The base of each calyx where the pair meets terminates in a groove to form a simple balteus, an unusually simple treatment since most pulvini exhibit a wide, ribbon-like balteus, elaborately decorated.99 The better preserved fragment, (b), includes, next to the end, part of the volute forming the gable and, below, the upper molding of the front of the altar, a fascia above a cyma reversa (fg. 237). According to the excavators, these pulvini may have belonged to the altar in front of the Shrine of Diana.100 Since the double-volute gable along with its decoration has been recognized as typical of Neo-Attic motives found in late Republican and Augustan art,101 the altar to which the pulvini belonged may well have been Augustan, a date that corresponds to both the Augustan restoration of the house and the Augustan resettlement of the town. The excavators, however, have suggested, in 96

As illustrated in Taylor 2003a, 210, pl. 102. Note that the measurement given for fragments (a) and (b) by Taylor in 2003a is not correct since they do not belong to the same pulvinus.

97

For the type of altar-crown on the superstructure, see Dräger 1994, 21–23, Beilage 1a, 7. A good example with a well-preserved upper part is the altar found in the theater at Arles, inv. P 371 in the Musée lapidaire d’art païen, Arles; see Dräger 1994, 185 no. 4 and pl. 81, 1–2.

98

Not visible in Taylor 2003a, 210, pl. 102.

99

Good examples are those on the Altar of Manlius from Cerveteri, now in the Vatican, Museo Gregoriano profano, inv. 9964; see most recently Gradel 2002, 251–60, fg. 11.1.

100

Taylor 2003b, 53; see also above, p. 178.

101

Dräger 1994, 21.

190

ALTARS

effect, that there were two altars associated with the shrine when it was constructed and the garden redesigned during the reign of Claudius.102 One was tentatively assigned a place on the stairway, where a mass of yellow mortar and rubble may have marked the spot.103 The other was associated with a reused column drum also placed in front of the shrine and identifed as an altar.104 There is a problem, however, with the frst proposal. The pulvini were found in different places, (a) and (b) among the pieces gathered in the cella of the shrine and (c) among the materials associated with the wall fountain. All exhibit traces of hard gray mortar, suggesting that they were reused as decoration, probably in the reign of Nero, when the wall fountain was transformed into a grotto and decorated.105 If there had been a cubic altar in the stairway of the shrine, these pulvini would not necessarily have belonged to it. In addition, the traces of mortar on all three pieces and the lack of signs of mortar on any of the other marbles found inside the cella of the shrine should indicate that all three pieces of pulvini were used as decoration for the grotto or something else nearby; the two found inside the shrine could have been placed there when the garden was cleared later.106 Thus there would have been no need for a second altar on the stairway.107

102

On the Claudian modifcations to the house and especially the construction of the shrine, see Fentress et al. 2003, 38–44 and fgs. 21–22, pl. 7.

103

Taylor 2003b, 53.

104

Fentress et al. 2003, 41 and pl. 7.

105

On the grotto: Fentress et al. 2003, 38–44, 62; see also http://www.press.umich.edu/script/press/special/cosa/ f5_p_iv.html (accessed 15 July 2014) for more details regarding the grotto, where its transformation under Nero is not

stressed. If the pulvini had been on the arx and damaged by the earthquake of A.D. 51 without having been repaired, it is quite possible that Titinius Glaucus Lucretianus removed them to decorate the garden of the House of Diana along with other broken pieces from the “Capitolium” when he was repairing that temple. 106

See http://www.press.umich.edu/script/press/special/ cosa/f5_p_v_garden.html (accessed 30 November 2018).

107 The website gives no reference to the mass of rubble in the stairway; it could have been a remnant of a fallen wall.

7 ♦ Basins and Their Supports

Introduction

S

tone basins and their supports, like tables, were a part of the furnishings of the Greco-Roman environment, both public and domestic. The durability of the material was an advantage and points to their use, in the domestic sphere, primarily by the more prosperous families. A number of these have been found at Cosa in both public and private contexts. The circular basin (labrum or labellum) on its single columnar support (columella) appears in domestic contexts in the well-appointed household from late Classical Greek times on to judge from the numbers excavated in Olynthos, Priene, Delos, Gioia del Colle near Bari, and Pompeii, to name just a few.1 In these sites they have been found most often in the courtyard or atrium, the peristyle or garden, or the kitchen of almost every house of any pretensions. By late Hellenistic and late Republican times basins appear to be nearly indispensable household items, which the evidence from Cosa supports. In the home they were used for bathing or washing, as depicted in scenes of bathing or hand-washing in Greek art.2 In Roman times they eventually become popular as decorative water basins in the garden or as part of the fountain ensemble in either the atrium or the garden in Pompeii after the pressurized water system was introduced there in the late frst century B.C.3 Water/fountain basins usually take a rectangular form, resting on a pair of transverse slab-like supports; this type also has roots in the Hellenistic world, where some have been discovered on Delos.4 Basins have also been found in religious settings and in bathing establishments. In sacred contexts either the basin or, infrequently, its support may bear a dedicatory inscription, so that these can be more securely dated and traced back to late archaic times, that is, to a period much earlier than the earliest dated domestic basins.5 These were holy-water vessels, or περιρραντήρια, used for ritual purifcation upon entering a temple or sanctuary, at least in Greek religious practice.6 The Romans likewise believed in the purifcatory properties of water when performing sacrifces,7 and 1

Since basins tend to break easily, the quantity found in most sites is based on the numbers of their surviving supports. See Ambrogi 1995 and 2005 for detailed discussions of the different types of basins and their supports along with their Greek background. Pernice 1932, 38–54 remains the best source for the basins and pedestals from Pompeii and their South Italian predecessors.

5 Raubitschek 1949, 370–407 with references to other dedicatory basins from Greece and South Italy. See also Ambrogi 2005, 30–33, 37–39.

2

7

Ambrogi 2005, 24–27.

3 Dwyer 1982, 113–14, 116–17; L. Richardson, jr., Pompeii: An Architectural History, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988, 56; most recently Keenan-Jones 2015, 191–215 (early Augustan). 4

Deonna 1938, 78–80; Ambrogi 1995, 18.

6

On these and the distinction between the περιρραντήριον and the λουτήριον according to some scholars, see Ambrogi 2005, 21–22.

K. Latte, Römische Religionsgeschichte, Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 5, 4, Munich: Beck, 1960, 387. See also C. Bailey, Phases in the Religion of Ancient Rome, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1932, 88, 90; R. M. Olgilvie, The Romans and Their Gods, London: Chatto & Windus, 1969, 47; and Ambrogi 2005, 37.

192

BASINS AND THEIR SUPPORTS

basins have been found in sanctuaries, as, for example, in that of Apollo, in the Triangular Forum in Pompeii, and in front of the “Ara della Regina” at Tarquinia.8 The long association of basins with bathing provides the background against which we fnd them in bath complexes both domestic and public.9 The earliest Roman public bath building so far known in any detail, the baths at Fregellae of the third and early second century B.C., has provisions for a large round basin in the men’s caldarium, where what remains of a broad, low base of masonry for the basin is preserved.10 Later are those in Pompeii; the one in the men’s caldarium of the Forum Baths, Augustan in date; and that in the women’s caldarium of the Stabian Baths.11 These give a good idea of the form and size of this type of Roman basin. This brief overview is just a glimpse of the detailed discussion of the forms, functions, and materials, as well as the Greek background, of Roman basins in two recent studies of the basins and their supports by Annarena Ambrogi.12 The material presented there makes it clear that the pieces from Cosa, fragmentary though most of them are, form a cross section of the types of basins and supports used in Roman contexts in late Republican and early Imperial times. The closest parallels are found in Pompeii, where they range in form and function from large public bath basins to medium-sized and small ones used for various purposes, such as religious and household, even as decorative water or fountain basins.13 At Cosa these include a large public bath basin found near the late Republican bath building (B 1), an inscribed basin used in cult rituals (B 2) along with a fragment of its futed columnar support (B 8), both found on the arx in a sacred area, and two, or possibly three, fountain basins (B 6a, b and 7)—all for private display. The bath basin (B 1) and the inscribed cult basin (B 2) are the earliest of their types so far known in the archaeological record. Most of the Republican pieces are made of stone: limestone (B 1, 2, 8) or tuff (B 3), as is to be expected before marble came into extensive use in Italy from Augustan times; in Pompeii basin supports of the second century B.C. down to the founding of the Sullan colony in 80 B.C. (“Tufa Period”) were executed in travertine.14 Also Republican are one support of Pentelic marble (B 9)15 and a pair of supports for a fountain basin in a Hellenistic style, most likely Pentelic (B 11a, b). These would have been imported to Cosa ca. 100 B.C.16 Early Imperial are two hemispherical basins (B 4 and 5), three fragments of rectangular fountain basins (B 6a, b and 7), and one support (B 10), all most likely of Carrara marble, of which B 7 is bardiglio.

8

On the Temple of Apollo in Pompeii (VII.7.32) see Ambrogi 2005, 39, 339–40 L. 184, 577. On the Triangular Forum in Pompeii (VIII.7.30) see Ambrogi 2005, 318–19 L. 158, 567. On the one in Tarquinia, see Ambrogi 2005, 37, 299–300 L. 129*, 555. Ambrogi 2005 mentions several others, pp. 37–40.

9

Ambrogi 2005, 41–43.

12

Ambrogi 1995 and 2005; she also discusses the Greek and Latin terms used for the different sorts of basins.

13

Pernice 1932, 45–54 and pls. 28–35. The garden of the House of the Vettii (VI.15.1) has a representative collection of the types used in the domestic setting; Fant et al. 2002 shows all.

14

Pernice 1932, 46.

15

Collins-Clinton, Attanasio, Platania 2008, 38, fg. 12.

10

On the baths at Fregellae see now Tsiolis 2013, 89–11. The frst phase of this bath building dates to the third century, the second to the early second century B.C. See also Coarelli and Monti 1998, 60–61 and Yegül 2010, 54–55. 11 Forum Baths: Ambrogi 2005, 319–21 L. 160. Stabian Baths: Ambrogi 2005, 296–97 L. 126.

16 Collins-Clinton, Attanasio, Platania 2008, 44, 53 on works of Greek marble imported to Cosa at this time, with specifc reference to B 9.

INTRODUCTION

193

THE CIRCULAR BASINS Five circular basins have so far been excavated at Cosa: the public bath basin, three hemispherical ones, and a small decorative basin. None were found with or near their supports. The large bath basin of limestone (B 1), though fragmentary, is typical of its type: thick, fat-bottomed, and shallow with a plain upturned rim. It resembles closely the later ones of marble from Pompeii mentioned above. Like them it would have had to rest upon a sturdy, low base of masonry to support its weight. The small decorative basin of tuff was found in the Atrium Publicum on the forum, where it may have served as a fancy wash basin in that special house (B 3). Relatively shallow, it features a profled rim on both interior and exterior sides, more elaborate on the outside. Pieces of three deeper, hemispherical basins with plain, fat rims have either curved or rather straight sides (B 2, 4, 5). Since their bottoms are not preserved, it is impossible to know whether they were curved or fat or to reconstruct their depths. Nevertheless, their form resembles some from Pompeii and Herculaneum serving both public and private functions.17 Two of the Cosa basins were very large, judging from their estimated diameters: B 2 and 4 at 1.20 m and 1.15 m respectively. The frst of these was found in the area sacra of the arx and preserves portions of a dedicatory inscription on its rim. This includes the gentilicium of the Tongilia family, probably a reference to the dedicator. It is limestone, the only non-marble example of the hemispherical group, and is undoubtedly of Republican date.18 Its fndspot together with its size strongly suggests an association with one (or both?) of the temples on the arx as a lustral basin. The second (B 4) could also have served a special public function in the forum near where it was found. B 5 was found in the House of the Birds, a domestic context, though not in situ. Both B 4 and 5 are marble and most likely early Imperial; their fndspots do not allow a dating more precise than Augustan–Julio-Claudian. The hemispherical types were ftted to their stands by means of a tenon, usually rectangular, in the center of their undersides.19 The tenon slipped into a corresponding mortise in the top of the stand, such as that in support B 9. To secure the basin further, the top of the pedestal may be slightly concave so as to match the curvature of the bottom of the basin. The basins were never permanently attached, however, since the only means of disposing of unwanted or dirty water was to tip the basin. This would have led to easy breakage, accounting for the broken or often very fragmentary condition of most extant basins, and explains why the pedestals have a better survival rate. THE RECTANGULAR BASINS From Cosa come two or possibly three rectangular basins. This form seems to have served as a water or fountain basin in Hellenistic and Roman times. The most common types found in Roman contexts have been gathered and studied by Ambrogi, who focuses more on those of a monumental size appropriate for public settings.20 The Cosa pieces represent the smaller version more suitable for the domestic context (B 6a, b and 7).21 Similar such basins have late Hellenistic precedents, 17 Pompeii: Temple of Apollo (Ambrogi 2005, 339–40 L. 184, 577), Triangular Forum (Ambrogi 2005, 318–19 L. 158, 567), House of the Vettii, peristyle (6.15.1) (Ambrogi 2005, 317, 566; Fant et al. 2002 discusses all four of these). Herculaneum: Suburban Baths, tetrastyle atrium (Ambrogi 2005, 307–8 L. 145, 561). 18

Brown 1980, 45 n. 4: second century B.C.

19 Ambrogi 2005, 100; Pernice 1932, 45. None of the Cosa basins preserves traces of the tenon. 20

Ambrogi 1995.

21 Ambrogi 1995, 13–19 (Type A); the Cosa piece belongs to Ambrogi’s Type A.II.

194

BASINS AND THEIR SUPPORTS

for some have been found on Delos.22 The Cosa examples are preserved in only three fragments from the rim, one of which (B 7) shows the battered remains of a capital-like element in relief at one end; this would have rested directly above a slab-like transverse support that would resemble a pillar when seen endwise from the front or back. These basins have curved sides, a profled rim, less elaborate on the rear, and a rounded bottom. The Cosa fragments are Carrara marble. Two of them were found in the garden of the House of Diana in a Julio-Claudian context, the third at the other end of the forum displaced in later times. Another basin is a reused table top (see T-Top 1).23 It is travertine, very shallow and fat with a raised rim and a hole in the center. This hole is the main clue that encourages its function as a fountain, probably simply for the refreshing sound of splashing water.24 It was found in Street O in front of the shops opening onto it, less than a block from the main entrance to the forum and not far from the public baths erected in the mid-second century B.C. Although the baths have not been completely excavated, the stubs of their walls, their fallen vaults, and part of an elevated water tank with the remains of a chute for a bucket hoist for drawing water from a cistern below are readily discernable.25 Water from the Bath Complex could possibly have fed a street fountain at the corner of Streets O and 6 in the bath insula and across from the archway at the entrance to the forum. Street O was one of Cosa’s main streets, leading into town through the Porta Romana from a road connecting with the Via Aurelia. As a fountain basin, this piece may have been associated with the Augustan reoccupation of the town. THE SUPPORTS The small and medium circular basin rested on a single, rather tall support in the form of a small column (columella). As mentioned above, these supports are more likely to survive intact than the basins themselves, and so it was, for the most part, at Cosa. A very large number have come down to us from sites all over Greece, Asia Minor, the Aegean, Sicily, and Italy.26 Erich Pernice’s classifcation remains the only comprehensive treatment to date for the Pompeian supports.27 Very generally, the form consists of a circular foot, a shaft that may be plain or futed, a neck-like border above the futes that may contain a fllet, and a capital-like upper part whose slightly concave surface contains a rectangular mortise for securing the basin, as described above. The earliest, which are inscribed, date to the beginning of the ffth century B.C. and indicate that both forms with plain and futed shafts were in existence by then.28 They became increasingly numerous in Hellenistic and Roman times. One intact pedestal (B 9) and fragments from the feet of two others (B 8 and 11) of this type have been found at Cosa. One of the fragments in white limestone, B 8, matches the material of the dedicatory basin (B 2), and, since it was also found on the arx, it is likely part of the support for that 22

Ambrogi 1995, 18; Deonna 1938, 78–79, pl. 33 nos. 238–40.

23 The hole is not consonant with its original form and appears roughly made. 24

It has been suggested that this may be a drain cover, but the diameter of the hole seems too narrow (0.085 m), and a rectangular drain cover seems unlikely.

25

On the baths see Brown 1980, 58; Brown 1951, 82–84. See also Scott et al. 2015.

26 Ambrogi 2005, 95–98, 102–12: support Types I and II. For those from Delos and other sites see also Deonna 1938, 48–53: Type 20, single supports in the form of a plain or futed column. For Sicilian, South Italian, Greek, and Pompeian examples, see Pernice 1932, 38–54. For early Greek ones, Raubitschek 1949, 372–73, 407–13. 27

Pernice 1932, 45–53.

28 Raubitschek 1949, 373, 407–13; nos. 380–82 date to the beginning of the ffth century B.C.

CATALOGUE

195

basin. Its large size confrms this, so it, too, would be of later second-century B.C. date. One of the intact pedestals with a futed shaft (B 9) is Pentelic marble and belongs to Ambrogi’s Type IIa and to Pernice’s Type 2b of Sullan or pre-Imperial date.29 Its sturdy proportions suggest a Sullan date, and it was certainly imported to Cosa before the raid of ca. 70–60 B.C.30 A fragment of the foot of another futed pedestal is executed in Carrara marble and Imperial in date (B 11). The supports for the rectangular fountain basin are very different: rectilinear slab-like forms with plain sides, undecorated except for a rosette in relief near the top of one or, rarely, both short ends, and profled bases resting on a plinth. These are placed transversely beneath the capital-like forms in relief at either end of the bottom of the basin. The dimensions of the top of the supports ft those of the bottom of the capital so that the support resembles a pillar when seen endwise from the front or back.31 This type of support has late Hellenistic precedents in Delos, just as the corresponding basins do.32 A well-preserved pair was found in the garden of the House of Diana in a Julio-Claudian context (B 10a, b) and surely belonged with one of the fragments of the fountain basins found nearby (B 6a, b and 7). The Cosa supports are unusual in that each has a Hellenistic style bucranium in relief at one end as well as the rosette at the other. The Hellenistic bucranium points toward a late Hellenistic date for these supports, as does the marble, which may be Pentelic, and it is possible that they were either imported from Greece, most likely Attica, or made in Rome by Greek artisans using an inferior grade of Pentelic marble that has veins or streaks of bluish gray resembling those visible in the sides of the Cosa supports.33

Catalogue B 1: Public Bath Basin Late Republican, second half second century B.C.

Figs. 238–39

CA 10. Found in 1948 in Street 5 near the Bath Complex on the surface. Limestone. Est. Diam. 1.54, Th. of bottom 0.113–0.184, L. 0.70 m. Rim chipped; earth stained. Brown 1951, 83. This is a segment of the bottom and rim of a very large, heavy, and rather shallow circular basin, or labrum. The foor is fat and the underside slightly convex. The rim curves up and out on the interior to meet the more strongly curved exterior along a sharp-edged lip. Its very large size supports the evidence of the fndspot in indicating an association with the Bath Complex built in the second half of the second century B.C.34 Its form corresponds to Ambrogi’s Type VI, a large basin with a broad, 29

Ambrogi 2005, 99–100; Pernice 1932, 48–50. The Cosa basin support is not considered to have supported a table leaf. Its slightly concave upper surface suggests that it held a basin. Moreover, since its material is an imported Greek marble, it is unlikely to have held a less elegant, travertine, table leaf.

30

Collins-Clinton, Attanasio, Platania 2008, 38, 53–54.

31

On these see Ambrogi 1995, 18–19. They support basins

of Ambrogi’s Type A.II. 32

Ambrogi 1995, 19.

33

On the qualities of Pentelic marble that may contain veins or streaks of grayish blue, greenish, or even brown shades, see below n. 80.

34

Brown 1980, 58 on the baths.

196

BASINS AND THEIR SUPPORTS

fat bottom sometimes provided with a central umbilicus,35 no trace of which may be seen on the Cosa fragment. This type is frequently used in the caldarium of public baths, where two good examples may be found in Pompeii. The one in the men’s caldarium of the Forum Baths, constructed ca. 80 B.C. soon after the establishment of the Roman colony, is the best known.36 The other is in the women’s caldarium of the Stabian Baths.37 These closely resemble the Cosa piece in size and form. According to the excavators this labrum was found in Street 5 along the southwest side of the Bath Complex, where the caldarium was thought to have been.38 The ongoing excavation, however, has revealed that the caldarium was located elsewhere in the building.39 The Pompeian examples mentioned above rest on broad, cylindrical supports of masonry designed to carry the heavy basins. The baths at Cosa must also have had such a support for its labrum.40 The material, a fne white limestone, suggests that it was made for the Bath Complex when it was built. The very similar labra from the Stabian and the Forum Baths in Pompeii are Carrara marble and Augustan in date; that in the Forum Baths is securely dated to A.D. 3/4 by an inscription in bronze letters embedded in the surface of the rim. Since marble from the Carrara quarries was not extensively used until early in the reign of Augustus, the limestone labrum from Cosa may very well be the earliest extant example made for one of the earliest Roman bathing complexes.

B 2a–c: Inscribed Labrum Late Republican, second century B.C.

Figs. 240–41

CB 795a (a), CB 795f (b), and CC 85 (c). These and several other non-joining pieces found in 1949 and 1950 on the arx, scattered in a zone stretching from in front of Temple D to the forecourt of the “Capitolium,” on the surface. Fine white limestone. Est. Diam. 1.20, W. of rim 0.055, Th. of wall 0.055–0.032 m. Worn; encrusted with lime and root marks. Brown 1980, 45 n. 4 (mentioned); Bace, E., “The Inscriptions of Cosa,” AJA 84 (1980) 193; Bace 1983, 94–96 no. IIIA3 (inscription with details on measurements and fndspots for each piece). The fragments that belong to this labrum suggest a large, shallow, open form with rather straight sides and a simple rim thicker at the top (fg. 240). Its form corresponds to Ambrogi’s Type V, “a coppa,” a shallow basin whose rim is fat on top and lacks an outcurved lip.41 The fat surface of the rim bears an incomplete inscription, facing outward, which offers some evidence for dating the

35

Ambrogi 2005, 75, 81.

36 Ambrogi 2005, 319–21 L. 160 and PPM 7 (1997) 154–55 and fgs. 24–25. 37 Ambrogi 2005, 296–97 L. 126 and PPM 6 (1996) fgs. 120 and 121. 38

Brown 1951, 83; see foldout III (square VI-D on the town plan) for the exposed remains of the baths.

39 A. De Giorgi, personal communication via email 13 January 2018. 40

Another support of the same nature has been found in the baths at Fregellae; see Coarelli and Monti 1998, 61; its diameter is 1.10 m; on the baths as a whole see pp. 60–61. The baths date to the frst half of the second century B.C. (Yegül 2010, 54–55). Fregellae was, like Cosa, a Latin colony but founded 55 years earlier, in 328 B.C., in southern Latium. On these baths see now Tsiolis 2013.

41

Ambrogi 2005, 77–78.

CATALOGUE

197

basin.42 On fragment (a) the name M Tongili stands out clearly. This has been interpreted as referring to a prominent Cosan family, the Tongilia, one of whom, possibly a local magistrate, dedicated this basin in the second century B.C.43 Since all the pieces of this basin were found in the area sacra of the arx, it is tempting to consider it a lustral basin associated with one of the temples located there. It is not uncommon for lustral basins to have inscriptions on their rims; the practice began in Greece in the late archaic period44 and apparently continued into Roman times.45 For a piece that may belong to its matching pedestal, see B 8 below. Most votive labra serving religious needs do not share this open, shallow form; rather they are deeper and hemispherical in section: Ambrogi’s Type III “a catino.”46 The Cosa labrum is so far unique among votive lustral basins in its form.47 Both types, however, do share a similar plain rim, fat on top and without the outcurved edge. The fat upper surface is ideal for a dedicatory inscription, usually facing outward for ease of reading. The Cosa labrum is also unusual within its type in its material; the examples known to Ambrogi are all marble and later in date.48 The Cosa labrum by virtue of its material, limestone, and inscription is the earliest known Roman votive lustral basin.

B 3: Fragment of Basin or Bowl Late Republican, second half second century B.C.

Fig. 242

CE 1182. Found in cesspool below Taberna 5 in Atrium Publicum. Vulci tuff. Diam. 0.38, H. 0.15, W. of rim 0.02, W. of ring foot 0.04 m. Lime flm, root marks, edges chipped. Most of rim broken away. Brown et al. 1993, 67, fg. 23. This piece of a small basin or large bowl has a decorative molded exterior whose profle consists of a fascia at the top, then a cyma reversa, a plain zone slanting inward, another cyma reversa, and a fllet above a plain vertical ring foot. Each element is separated from its neighbor by a shallow 42

On the inscription see Bace 1983, 94–96 no. IIIA3.

43

Brown 1980, 45 n. 4; also Bace 1983, 96.

44

For Athens see especially Raubitschek 1949. For the elaborate early archaic ones, not necessarily inscribed, see Jean Ducat, “Périrrhantèria,” BCH 88 (1964) 577–606. A series of terracotta votive basins of Classical date have come to light at S. Biagio near Metaponto; see the mention by Gesche Olbrich, “Ein Heiligtum der Artemis Metapontina?,” PP 31 (1976) 377. See also a large terracotta specimen dating to the seventh century B.C. from Incoronata, also near Metaponto, D. Ridgway, “Archaeology in South Italy, 1977–81,” JHS 102 (1982) Archaeological Reports for 1981–1982, 78–79. I owe the South Italian references to Professor Elizabeth Gebhard. 45

On these see Ambrogi 2005, 37–47. Two early ones may be singled out here, the second of which is very large and remains in situ: (1) A travertine fountain basin from Lanu-

vium associated with a temple of Hercules, inscribed on the rim, Diam. 1.24 m, second/early frst century B.C.: H.-G. Kolbe, Helbig4, 3 (1969) no. 2391 with further bibliography. Ambrogi 2005, 39–40 with later bibliography, gives a third-century B.C. date and the material as Luna marble. (2) The marble fountain basin in front of the “Ara della Regina” at Tarquinia, inscribed on the raised zone near the center, Diam. 3 m, Augustan; see now Ambrogi 2005, 37, 299–300 L. 129* with bibliography, 555. 46 Ambrogi 2005, 76. Most Type V labra are either bath basins or domestic in function. 47

The dedicatory basin in front of the “Ara della Regina” in Tarquinia is yet another form, that of a public bath basin, as its huge size and central umbilicus suggest; on this basin see above, n. 8.

48

Ambrogi 2005, 77–78.

198

BASINS AND THEIR SUPPORTS

groove, a feature typical of late Republican workmanship.49 Its interior is also decoratively treated, with a cyma reversa below the narrow rim framing the concave interior. Both interior and exterior surfaces are very fnely fnished; the shallow grooves suggest turning. The slightly concave underside has a shallow ring foot rather more suitable for an ornamental basin than for a labrum.50 The interior diameter is 0.18 m. This fne vessel has been associated with Room 18 in the Atrium Publicum, a cubiculum on the right (southeast) side of the atrium in the frst phase of this building. The room was provided with a drain below the foor that led to the cesspool under the adjacent Taberna 5 at the front of the house. The function of Room 18 is not known, except that the drain and provisions for two basins, of which this was one,51 suggest that ablutions of some sort requiring drainage took place there. Although the Atrium Publicum was constructed in the frst quarter of the second century B.C.,52 this basin would have been made later in the same century.

B 4: Hemispherical Basin Early Imperial

Fig. 243

C73.56. Found in 1973 in the reservoir outside the west corner of the forum at the intersection of Streets O and 5. Fine-grained white marble containing veins of pitted impurities (probably Carrara marble). Diam. ca. 1.15, W. of rim 0.052, Th. of wall 0.052–0.04, Proper H. with surface of rim level 0.104 m. Chipped; traces of mortar. Unpublished. This is a piece of the rim of a large hemispherical basin with curved sides and a plain rim. The rim has a fat top and rather angular corners. Its form corresponds to Ambrogi’s Type III “a catino,” a deep hemispherical type whose rim is slightly incurved, fat on top, and having no outcurved lip.53 The interior is fnished smooth; the exterior is less smooth. The type is a common one, often made of white marble, and used in a variety of contexts, both public and private.54 An Imperial date is indicated primarily by the material.55 Its very large size suggests a use in a public setting, and the fndspot near the forum may possibly confrm this.

B 5: Hemispherical Basin Early Imperial–Augustan?

Fig. 244

C70.489. Found in 1970 in the cistern under the main atrium (Room 3) of the House of the Birds. 49 Compare especially wellheads in tuff from Cosa (P 1 and 2) and Pompeii (Pernice 1932, 14–15 [Round Altar Type]).

52

Brown et al. 1993, 57–59 for the construction date.

53

Ambrogi 2005, 76–77, 79.

54

Ambrogi 2005, 76–77.

50

Most basins (labra) have a tenon on their fat or slightly convex undersides.

51

Brown et al. 1993, 66–67 and fg. 23.

55 On the inconclusive, though largely Imperial, nature of the fndspot see further above, p. 193.

CATALOGUE

199

Fine-grained white marble. Diam. 0.64, W. of rim 0.054, Th. of wall below rim 0.045–0.033 m. Worn; encrusted with lime and root marks; black discolorations. Unpublished. This is a piece of the rim of a small hemispherical basin with incurved sides and a rim that swells toward the top on the outside. The rim has a fat upper surface and rounded corners. The interior of the piece at the bottom preserves the beginning of the basin’s fat foor; this suggests a depth not much deeper than 0.112 m. The form is a shallower version of Ambrogi’s Type III “a catino”; its swelling upper edge does not present an outcurved lip, thus consonant with Type III.56 The fat top and upper external surface are fnished smooth. The rest of the exterior and the interior are rougher. The basin is Imperial in date, as indicated by its material and the context in which it was found. The cistern under the main atrium of the House of the Birds, which went out of use in the third century A.D., was flled with debris of Imperial date, gathered in large part from the forum.57 It is smaller than the hemispherical basin B 5 and thus more suitable for a domestic setting, possibly the House of the Birds in its Augustan phase or another house nearer the forum.

B 6a, b: Two Fragments of Rectangular Fountain Basin Early Imperial, frst century A.D.

Fig. 245

(a): C68.174, found in 1968 in the portico at the south corner of the forum near the surface. (b): C9676, found in the garden of the House of Diana to the right of the fountain niche along the southwest (back) wall near B 7 in a disturbed context, SU 282. Both fne-grained white marble. (a): Max. Pres. Proper H. 0.169, Max. Pres. Proper W. 0.21, Th. of wall thins from 0.036 just below molding to 0.029 at bottom, Th. of rim 0.049 m. (b): Max. Pres. Proper H. 0.15, Max. Pres. Proper W. 0.174, Th. of wall thins from 0.035 just below molding to 0.28 near bottom, Th. of rim 0.049 m. Both earth stained with lime flm and root marks, more so on one half of (b). Taylor 2003a, 201 no. 13 and pl. 91; Taylor 2003b, 51–52 for discussion as garden furniture. These are pieces of the rim of a small, deep, rectangular basin whose sides appear to have a very slight curvature in profle. The rim of both fragments is rounded and swollen at the top, forming an ovolo on the outside above a cyma reversa; a very shallow groove separates the molding from the wall, and the thickness of their walls is very close. The rectangular form of the basin with a molded upper edge and capital-like element at one end corresponds to a type of water basin classifed as Type A II by A. Ambrogi.58 These have profled moldings around the rim, which are less elaborate on the back side. Near the bottom at each end of the front and continuing around to the back are carved simply profled capitals fnished below, front

56

See Ambrogi 2005, 76–77, 79 for her Type III.

57

Bruno and Scott 1993, 187.

58

Ambrogi 1995, 13–19.

200

BASINS AND THEIR SUPPORTS

and back, to form a fat shaft that fts the tops of a pair of transverse slab-like supports designed to resemble a pillar when seen endwise. These fragments may belong to the same basin, although this is by no means certain considering the different fndspots. Both were found in disturbed contexts; (b) in the garden of the House of Diana, (a) in the portico at the southeast end of the forum. The explanation lies in the post-occupation phase in the life of the house. According to the excavators the living quarters collapsed ca. A.D. 80,59 yet the garden remained open through the early second century A.D., gradually falling into ruin and suffering from sporadic pillaging until midcentury.60 It is thus possible that the basin was broken, possibly in antiquity, and its pieces scattered once the house and garden were abandoned. The basin probably belongs to the remodeling of this house under Claudius, when the collection of marble herms and furniture was assembled in the garden.61 Delos and Pompeii provide the closest parallels for this type of basin, most of which are larger and have more elaborately profled exteriors.62 The ones from Pompeii are better preserved and were used as receptacles for water in fountains set up in the atria or gardens of private houses in the early Imperial period. The best known examples are four in the peristyle garden of the House of the Vettii in Pompeii (VI.15.1, 27), where they rested over the gutter, one on each side, and received water from jets spurting from paired statues on pedestals at the edge of the peristyle.63 The smaller size of the Cosa example fts the small size of its garden.

B 7: Fragment of Rectangular Fountain Basin Early Imperial, frst century A.D.

Fig. 246

C9708. Found in the garden of the House of Diana to the right of the fountain niche along the southwest (back) wall near B 6b in a disturbed context, SU 331. Bardiglio. Max. Pres. Proper H. 0.17, Max. Pres. Proper W. 0.17, Th. of wall 0.026, Th. at rim 0.036 m. Taylor 2003a, 200–201 no. 12, pl. 90; Taylor 2003b, 51–52 for discussion as garden furniture. This fragment cannot belong to B 6b (C9676) as Taylor had thought64 since the marbles and the sizes are different.

59 Fentress et al. 2003, 63 and Rabinowitz and Fentress 2002: http://www.press.umich.edu/webhome/cosa/ (Phase V: Late First Century to the Mid-Second Century) (accessed 1 November 2016). 60

For the garden see Rabinowitz and Fentress 2002: http:// www.press.umich.edu/webhome/cosa/ (Phase V: Late First Century to the Mid-Second Century) (accessed 1 November 2016). 61 Fentress et al. 2003, 43, 51, and esp. 52–53 on the water basin. 62

These have been collected by Deonna 1938, 78–80 and esp. n. 9. 63 On the marble furniture in the garden of the House of the Vettii see now Fant et al. 2002, 309–15; also PPM 5 (1994)

s.v. VI.15.1, 27. Another was found in the atrium of the House of Obellius Firmus (IX.14.4); see A. Sogliano, NSc (1905) 250, fg. 2 and PPM 10 (2003) 366, fg. 6 (photo of 1930s showing the basin), 367, fg. 7, and 371, fg. 15. This basin is no longer in situ though the supports are. On the basins from these houses see also Ambrogi 1995, 18. Not mentioned by Ambrogi are the basins in the atria of two other houses in Pompeii; like the others, these also served decorative functions: the Fullonica of Vesonius Primus (VI.14.21, 22), PPM 5 (1994) 310–11, fgs. 4–5; and the House of A. Octavius Primus (VII.15.12, 13), PPM 7 (1997) 825, fg. 1. These basins rest on transverse, slab-like supports, which have a rosette in relief at the top of one or both ends. For the supports of a basin from the House of Diana at Cosa, see below B 10a, b. 64

Taylor 2003a, 201 at no. 13.

CATALOGUE

201

The rim is rounded and swollen at the top, forming an ovolo on the outside, rather like that of B 6 but above a double cyma reversa; a very shallow groove separates the molding from the wall. The battered remains of a capital-like shape are visible about 0.04 m below the molding. Its form is level across the top and swells to the right before returning leftward, where it goes straight down. This form and its position at the broken left side of the fragment suggest that this piece belonged to the left side of the basin near the bottom. The rectangular form of the basin with a molded upper edge and capital-like element at one end corresponds to the same type of water basin as B 6, considered Type A II by A. Ambrogi.65 In addition to the profled moldings around the rim, which are less elaborate on the back side, there are, near the bottom at each end of the front and continuing around to the back, simply profled capitals fnished below, front and back, to form a fat shaft that fts the tops of a pair of transverse slab-like supports. The measurements of this basin suggest that it must have been rather small.

B 8: Fragment of Foot of Columnar Basin Support Late Republican, second century B.C.

Fig. 247

C65.131. Found in 1965 on the arx, west of the “Capitolium” on the surface. Fine white limestone. Est. Diam. 0.44, Max. Pres. H. 0.099, L. 0.20, D. from fnished edge 0.16 m. Badly weathered and worn all over, chipped; root and lichen marks. Unpublished. This fragment preserves the ends of three futes on the foot of a rather large columnar pedestal whose proportions were thick and heavy. One can estimate that it originally had 30 or 32 futes. The material suggests that it belongs to Pernice’s Type 2c, a late second- or early frst-century B.C. type in Pompeii made of travertine;66 it would correspond to Ambrogi’s Type IIa “a colonnina” with a futed shaft.67 It is tempting to consider this battered piece as the only surviving trace of the pedestal for the inscribed Tongilius basin, B 2, whose size requires a suitably sturdy support such as this. Their materials match, and the fndspot on the arx, albeit disturbed, is suggestive.

B 9: Columnar Basin Support Late Hellenistic, frst quarter frst century B.C.

Fig. 248

C75.1. Found in 1975 in the Atrium Publicum, Room 4, built into the foundation of a late antique oven constructed of various reused blocks in the doorway between Room 4 and the atrium of the house. Pentelic marble. H. 0.525, Diam. top 0.338, Diam. neck of shaft 0.218, Diam. foot 0.412 m. Intact. Chipped, especially around the top; encrusted with lime. 65

Ambrogi 1995, 13–19.

66 Pernice 1932, 50–52; compare especially pl. 34, fg. 1: no. 20 on p. 52 (Pompeii IX.14.4, House of Obellius Firmus) for

the probable proportions of the Cosa support. 67

Ambrogi 2005, 96–99.

202

BASINS AND THEIR SUPPORTS

Collins-Clinton, Attanasio, Platania 2008, 38 and fg. 12. This support has a fairly thick shaft containing twenty deeply carved futes with fat arrises and no tongues. The wide foot has a plain rim. The neck is plain. A narrow echinus slopes sharply from the neck. The upper part, which is now very battered and has lost its sharply defned edges, has a simply molded profle in two parts, both vertical, with the upper portion slightly projecting. The upper surface is slightly concave and contains a shallow square hole for securing a basin, 0.115 m on a side. The underside is fat and smooth. The support belongs to Pernice’s Type 2b of Sullan or pre-Imperial beginnings and to Ambrogi’s Type IIa “a colonnina” with a futed shaft.68 Since later examples of this group, which continued to be made in the early Imperial period, tend to become more slender and elegant, the thicker, shorter proportions of the Cosa piece reinforce the Sullan date. The Pentelic marble indicates that it was most likely imported from Greece, perhaps from Athens.69 The fndspot so near the atrium houses around the forum suggests that this support, along with its basin, was an original piece of furniture decorating the home of one of Cosa’s elite families, or possibly the Atrium Publicum itself, where it was found in a later context (see fg. 2).

B 10a, b: Pair of Fountain Basin Supports Late Hellenistic

Figs. 249–51

C9610, C9611. Found in the garden of the House of Diana, inside the shrine along with other pieces of furniture and sculpture (Fentress et al. 2003, 51, pl. 10), SU 227. Fine-grained white marble with grayish blue veins, probably Pentelic. H. 0.63, W. at base 0.18, D. at base 0.32 m. Both are intact. Edges and corners chipped. Taylor 2003a, 196–97, no. 6, pl. 85. These are a pair of matching slab-like supports for a rectangular basin of the sort most often used as fountain basins in the Hellenistic and Roman house; they support basins of Ambrogi’s Type A.II.70 Their plain tops continue the line of the capital-like moldings at either end of the basin that they support. They taper slightly outward to the molded bases at their feet. In relief near the tops of the Cosa examples are a six-petaled rosette on one narrow side and a bucranium on the other. The ends of the petals of the rosettes are slightly upturned with an indentation in their centers, so they look rather heart-shaped, and the center of the fower is rendered in relatively high relief. The bucrania are very stylized, with long, pointed noses. They are examples of the Hellenistic triangular type in which the nose is long and narrow and the eye sockets are in profle with jagged edges.71 The Attic Ionic bases have a torus with fllet, a scotia with fllet, and a torus with fllet above their plinths. Among Roman basin supports of this type, this form of base is 68

Pernice 1932, 48–50; Ambrogi 2005, 96–99.

69

Collins-Clinton, Attanasio, Platania 2008, 53–54.

70

Ambrogi 1995, 13–19, esp. 18–19 on the supports.

71

On bucrania of this “Hautschädel” type, see Napp 1933, 2,

13. Less stylized bucrania of this type appear on an archaizing relief from the Maison du Lac on Delos dating to ca. 100 B.C. (Bruneau and Ducat 2005, 103, 239, fg. 68; Kreeb 1988, 165, no. S 9. 5). They appear and become popular in late Hellenistic art from the late second century B.C., and they appear in late Republican art as well.

CATALOGUE

203

unusual if not unique, as is the bucranium on one end. On the upper surface of each is inscribed the letter C, most likely the Hellenistic lunate sigma, a joiner’s mark indicating the basin to which these belonged (fg. 250).72 Supports of this type, along with their basins, are well known in both Pompeii and Delos.73 A close look at the base moldings of the Pompeian supports reinforces the uniqueness of the Cosa pieces. Those from Pompeii are by and large less ornate. The moldings fall into three categories: (1) fllet, double torus, cavetto or scotia, fllet, torus, plinth—the most ornate and closest to Cosa’s in form;74 (2) fllet (or two fllets), cavetto or cyma reversa, fllet, plinth;75 (3) fllet, cyma reversa, plinth—the simplest.76 By contrast those from Delos are distinctive in their heavier, spreading proportions, comprising multiple iterations of fllet and cavetto; sometimes a cyma reversa will replace the cavetto.77 They may well be products of local workshops. The same may be true for the Pompeian supports, although it remains to determine whether a preference for certain base moldings correlates with the type of marble used.78 It does seem to apply to two sets of supports in the House of the Vettii and those in the House of Obellius Firmus, which belong to category (2) above; these three pairs are Pentelic marble.79 Given the Hellenistic form of the bucrania, the Attic base moldings, and the grayish veins in the marble (fg. 251),80 the Cosa supports may well be late Hellenistic imports from Attica or made in Rome by Attic artisans,81 although it is not certain when 72

Taylor 2003a, 197. A basin from Delos of this type bears the letter B engraved under the capital at one end; Deonna 1938, 80 and pl. 238: a fragment from the House of Kerdon, the letter serving for assembly. 73

See above, B 6 with n. 63 and Ambrogi 1995, 19 nn. 53–56. To Ambrogi’s list of supports add two in Pompeii: Domus of Poppaeus Sabinus (IX.5.11–13) (PPM 9 [1999] 259 fgs. 1–2) and House of the Labyrinth (VI.11.9–10) (PPM 5 [1994] 16 fg. 26).

74 House of the Vettii, north side of the garden, whose placement marks the more prominent end of the longitudinal north/south axis in terms of the layout of the rooms of the house; the marble is Parian 2 (Fant et al. 2002) and the House of A. Octavius Primus (VII.15.12–13) (PPM 7 [1997] 825 fg. 1). 75

House of the Vettii, west side of garden, Obellius Firmus (two fllets), Fullonica of Vesonius Primus; the variant is in the House of the Vettii, east side of garden. Note that the two supports in the House of the Vettii and that in the House of Obellius Firmus are Pentelic marble (Fant et al. 2002 for the House of the Vettii; autopsy, May 2010 for the House of Obellius Firmus, see below n. 82). Some supports from Rome, most likely later, also belong to this category: a pair of supports originally from a second-century A.D. house and reused in a house of the fourth century A.D. under the Farnesina ai Baulari (C. Pavia, Roma sotterranea e segreta, Milan: A. Mondadori, 1985, 40, 63); a pair in Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano, inv. 361943 (Ambrogi 1995, 100–101 A.II.19, 217); and a pair in Rome, Museo Barracco (Ambrogi 1995, 101–2 A.II.21, 218). 76 House of the Vettii, south side of garden, Paros 2 marble (Fant et al. 2002), Domus of Poppaeus Sabinus cited above

n. 73, House of the Labyrinth cited above, n. 73, and a pair whose provenance and present location in Pompeii are unknown (R. Engelmann, Pompeii, tr. T. Ely, London and New York: Scribner, 1904, 25, fg. 31). None of these pairs has a rosette. 77

Deonna 1938, 78–30, pl. 33, nos. 234–37.

78

Only the marbles for the basins and their supports in the House of the Vettii have been tested to determine the quarry of origin (Fant et al. 2002). 79

The marble of the supports in the House of Obellius Firmus appears to be Pentelic based on the obvious streaks of mica, a hallmark of Pentelic, visible on their broad sides.

80

On this irregularity in Pentelic marble see Attanasio et al. 2006, 91; P. Pensabene, “Le Principali cave di marmo bianco,” in De Nuccio and Ungaro 2002, 208 on variations in the color and veining of Pentelic marble depending on the sector of the quarry from which the marble was extracted. See also S. Pike, J. J. Herrmann, Jr., and N. Herz, “A Provenance Study of Calcitic Marble from Thessaloniki,” in J. J. Herrmann, Jr., N. Herz, and R. Newman, eds., ASMOSIA V: Interdisciplinary Studies on Ancient Stone, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the Association for the Study of Marble and Other Stones in Antiquity, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, London: Archetype Publications, 2002, 265 no. 98021, described as “fne white with parallel gray streaks” and tested as Pentelic.

81

On Cosa’s commercial ties to Athens at the end of the second century B.C., see Collins-Clinton, Attanasio, Platania 2008, 32–33, 53; these rest on the discovery of Sestius amphora stamps in the Athenian Agora in a context of ca. 125 B.C.

204

BASINS AND THEIR SUPPORTS

they arrived at Cosa since they were not found in a late Republican context. The color and texture of the marble of the Cosa supports, along with the grayish veins that ft the characteristics of a certain quality of Pentelic marble, reinforce this attribution (as visible in fg. 251).82 The Hellenistic style of the bucrania, furthermore, would not have been fashionable later once Carrara marble came into use during the reign of Augustus.83 The very likely late Hellenistic origin for the Cosa supports reinforces the identifcation of the letter C inscribed on the upper surface of each as the Hellenistic lunate sigma.84

B 11: Foot of Columnar Basin Augustan or Julio-Claudian

Fig. 252

C68.24a–c. Found in 1968 at southeast end of forum in the Shrine of Liber Pater, reused in late antique context. Fine-grained grayish marble. Est. Diam. 0.38, Max. Pres. H. 0.072 m. Consists of three fragments of which (a) and (c) join. Chipped and slightly weathered. Earth stains; root marks; lime flm. Collins 1970, 32, 35, 295 no. 38, fg. 85; Collins-Clinton 1977, 54, no. 6 and fg. 27. These three pieces belong to the rim of the foot of a futed columnar pedestal with sixteen futes. The upper edge of the rim has a narrow indentation. The underside is fat and smooth. Without the shaft and upper surface of the support and without a table leaf found nearby, it is diffcult to classify this conclusively as a support for a basin or a table,85 other than to state that the basic form was common.86 The material and early Imperial occupation of the site suggest a date in the frst century A.D.

82 In terms of the marble only, which is Pentelic, the supports in the House of Obellius Firmus also display the same bluish gray veins. See above n. 75, autopsy, May 2010. 83

The bucrania on the Ara Pacis are a good example of the Roman style of bucranium. A good illustration is in E. La Rocca, Ara Pacis Augustae: In occasione del restauro della fronte orientale, Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 1983, 15.

84 Cf. the letter K, kappa, inscribed on the stretcher for a tripod table from Cosa, T-Supp 4 (Moss 1988, 719 C22).

85 On the diffculties in accurately identifying the function of this type of support see Ambrogi 2005, 100 and 110. C. Moss has hesitated to consider them as table legs unless the table leaf was found with its support; Moss 1988, 34 n. 52. Even if the upper surface of the support is slightly concave, it might still carry a table top since some table tops are slightly convex on their undersides. This is true especially for round table tops with slightly raised and molded rims; see those from Cosa, T-Top 6–10. 86

Ambrogi 2005, 96–99, 104 for her Type II.

8 ♦ Puteals (Wellheads)

Introduction

T

he puteals from Cosa are so poorly preserved and diffcult to classify precisely that their archaeological context assumes an importance equal to or even exceeding that of their artistic merit. For this reason it is helpful to explore the physical context in which the puteals were found; in some instances this analysis can result in uniting the wellhead with its cistern. Cosa depended entirely on rainfall for its water supply. The limestone hilltop on which Cosa sits is waterless; the springs that emerge below the city walls were not close enough to serve in emergencies nor, ultimately, the everyday needs of the townsfolk. After the Etruscan territories of Volsinii and Vulci were taken by the Romans in 280 B.C., even before the founding of the city in 273 B.C., four large reservoirs for public use were cut from the bedrock.1 After the city walls were built and the streets and forum planned, the next priority was to cut large public cisterns into the bedrock to supplement the water supplied by the reservoirs; four of these were in the forum. Each private house likewise had its own rock-cut cistern to collect and store rainwater from its roof.2 Many such private cisterns, in various stages of decay, have been observed throughout the northwest sector of town, which was given over to the bulk of Cosa’s housing.3 At frst the public cisterns were left open to the sky, but attention to personal and public safety as well as to the purity of the water required that cisterns be covered and provided with draw shafts. Some of these had an opening at pavement level designed to receive a lid; others were built with a low curb of stone rabbeted either for a lid or for a puteal that may or may not have had a lid.4 The private cisterns were vaulted with the same provisions for a draw shaft and either a lid or a puteal. A puteal (Latin puteus) is essentially a structure placed around the opening of the draw shaft of a well or cistern. It could be a freestanding unit having the form of either a low, rectangular unadorned block with a broad hole in the center or a taller, often more decorative cylinder.5 Or it could be a raised cistern mouth mortared into the top of the draw shaft. The wellheads catalogued here range from simple types with unadorned sides to those with sides decorated with futes or even a scene in relief. Since by nature they serve a utilitarian purpose related to drawing water through a draw shaft leading to the cistern below, the cisterns with which they may be associated, especially the non-residential ones, will be discussed briefy here.6 For 1

Brown 1951, 84–87; Brown 1980, 1, 11; and Brown et al. 1993, 8, 115–19 and fgs. 40, 44–45. For insights on how ancient settlements including Cosa coped with a “water-poor landscape” see De Giorgi 2018.

2

On these see further below, pp. 208–9.

3

Brown 1951, 85, 89.

4

On ensuring an adequate water supply for the inhabitants

see Brown 1951, 84–88 and Brown 1980, 11. On the need for protecting the opening of a cistern see Pernice 1932, 12. 5

On the puteal in general see RE 23, 2 (1959) s.v. puteal, 2034–31(Schneider) and New Pauly, Antiquity 12 (2008) 234, s.v. puteal (C. Höcker). See also Golda 1997 and Pernice 1932. 6 The residential cisterns are too numerous to warrant special attention unless a wellhead belongs to a specifc one, as for example P 4, from the House of the Treasure.

206

PUTEALS (WELLHEADS)

example, an early cistern lies beneath the pronaos of the “Capitolium” on the arx, where it served the religious needs of that temple.7 In the forum originally four cisterns provided for the public buildings around it; later a ffth cistern was added when the basilica was built. One shop facing away from the forum on Street O had its own rather small cistern. In some cases it is even possible to identify the cistern to which a wellhead originally belonged, especially if the puteal was found nearby or inside the cistern and/or the internal diameter of its shaft (the bore) matches more or less closely that of the draw shaft. Frank Brown has described the unique construction of the cistern for the “Capitolium” on the arx in great detail.8 Its sides were partly cut from the bedrock beneath what would become the inner half of the pronaos and partly built up in mortared masonry when work on the great triple-celled temple began.9 It was covered with an ingeniously designed gable of slabs of Vulci tuff, designed with an open slot running down the center of an oblong impluvium set into the pavement of the pronaos. The slot allowed rain water from a compluviate roof above to enter the cistern.10 At either end was a cylindrical draw shaft carefully cut from local sandstone, rimmed at the top with a ring of Vulci tuff meant to receive a puteal. The diameter of the opening in each tuff cistern mouth was 0.42 m, a dimension that fts with the slightly narrower diameter of the bore of the shaft of the puteal that must have rested there (ca. 0.37 m; see P 5). In the area set aside for the forum itself, four large public cisterns were cut from the bedrock in the third century B.C. soon after the founding of the colony to provide a good supply of water at the heart of the town.11 At that time these cisterns were left open to the sky. Two of the cisterns ran parallel to the main axis of the forum, one to the northwest, where the basilica would be later, and one to the southeast, where Temple B would eventually stand. A second pair occupied the opposite southwest side, parallel to each other and perpendicular to the main axis of the forum.12 A ffth cistern was constructed later, just before the basilica was built around 150/140 B.C., and ran parallel to the earlier cistern; the earlier then lay beneath the southwest aisle of the basilica and the later beneath the nave.13 The frst four cisterns were eventually vaulted and provided with draw shafts. Cistern (1), the southeast cistern on the northeast side of the forum near Temple B, was covered in the third quarter of the third century B.C. and revaulted after a collapse toward the end of that century. Its surviving draw shaft in front of Temple B has an internal diameter of ca. 0.56 m.14 The location of the draw 7 Brown 1980, 53 notes the necessity for a readily accessible source of water where animal sacrifces were made. 8 Brown et al. 1960, 59–65. Today we must disregard his statement that the limestone puteal associated with this cistern had belonged to the Temple of Jupiter, and was damaged and then replaced with another in marble made for the “Capitolium” cistern, since excavations in the 1960s have shown that the Temple of Jupiter had no cistern, hence no need for a puteal. Consequently, the limestone puteal, P 5, was made for the “Capitolium” cistern. 9 Now redated by Scott 1992, 97 to the second quarter of the second century B.C. 10

On the compluviate roof see Brown et al. 1960, 93–94 with fg. 71 (plan of the temple showing the placement of the impluvium, its slot, and the two puteals, one at each end), and fg. 75 (longitudinal section of the cistern with

its draw shafts, wellheads, and impluvium). For a different interpretation of how the cistern was flled with rainwater see Fentress et al. 2003, 21–22, where she proposes the use of gutters and downspouts rather than a compluviate roof. 11

Brown et al. 1993, 11–13: see the plan in fg. 4 showing the forum ca. 241 B.C. with the four open cisterns and the reservoir.

12 See the plan of the forum as of ca. 200 B.C.: Brown et al. 1993, fg. 11. 13

Brown et al. 1993, 212–13.

14 Brown et al. 1993, 46, 49–50; I have calculated the internal diameter of the draw shaft based on the measurements provided by Brown: its total external diameter of 1.40 m less twice the thickness of its masonry walls (0.42 m × 2 = 0.84 m) yields 0.56 m.

INTRODUCTION

207

shaft for this cistern aligns with the southeast row of columns in the pronaos and strongly suggests that by the time Temple B was built between 200 and 175 B.C., this cistern would have served its needs as well.15 The small piece with relief decoration (P 6) resembling that of the frst “Capitolium” puteal (P 5) probably belonged here. Cistern (2), the northwest cistern on the northeast side, under the southwest aisle of the later basilica, was vaulted between 180 and 175 B.C. with a draw shaft at each end, and, when the basilica was constructed a few decades later, its mouth at the southeast end was plugged with a stopper of Vulci tuff (ca. 0.52 m in diameter), but the one at the northwest end was left open.16 Fragments of “a plain and massive puteal of travertine,”17 of which only two joining pieces of the plain rim are preserved, must have served this cistern. The bore measures 0.555 m in diameter at a point 0.17 m from the top. The thickness of the wall of the shaft also tapers upward from 0.11 to 0.09 m at the rim. It was well used to judge from the deep grooves on the inside at the top, and the width of its bore strongly suggests that it belonged to this cistern, whose draw shafts are wide enough for a puteal of this size. Cisterns (3) and (4), the two on the southwest side of the forum, occupy a wide, open space that formed an extension of the forum toward Street 5 leading toward the foot of Street P coming down from the arx. This extension has been called the Southwest Annex.18 The cisterns were eventually vaulted between 197 and 180 B.C., each provided with three draw shafts requiring altogether six puteals.19 In the southeastern of these two cisterns were found three fragments of a large puteal of Vulci tuff that must have belonged to this cistern.20 They include the bottom and parts of the shaft (but not the rim). No grooves along the shaft are preserved; otherwise the profle appears the same as that of P 1. Its bore has a diameter of 0.40 m, and its external diameter tapers upward from 0.82 to 0.725 m (yielding a thickness of 0.21 m at the base tapering up to 0.162 m), much broader than the tuff puteal belonging to Taberna 26 (P 1). The larger size befts the requirements of a public cistern. Cistern (5), the latest cistern in the forum, under the nave of the basilica, had just one draw shaft (0.444 m in diameter) at its northwest end.21 No trace of its puteal has been found. The one cistern that belonged to a shop lay under the front room of Taberna 26, located near the intersection of Streets 7 and O, with its entrance facing Street O. In the excavation report its draw shaft was not described in detail, but at pavement level it had a rabbeted opening designed to receive a wellhead. The fragment of a Vulci tuff puteal of an early type has an outer diameter that fts this opening (P 1).22 Fragments of four puteals were discovered in the forum reservoir at the west corner of the forum where Street O meets Street 5, directly across Street O from the Bath Complex currently undergoing excavation (P 2, 3, 7, and 8). This reservoir was also hewn from the bedrock before the foundation of the colony.23 It served the needs of the town—and eventually those of the Bath Com15 On the revised construction date for Temple B see Scott 1992. 16

Brown et al. 1993, 212.

20

Not inventoried and not included in the catalogue. See Brown et al. 1993, 98 (plan ix)–99; fg. 35 on p. 100 gives a drawing. The tuff is very coarse, with large black inclusions.

21

Brown et al. 1993, 212–13.

Not inventoried and not included in the catalogue. See Brown et al. 1993, 221 and fg. 68 on p. 222.

22

Brown et al. 1993, 105–6.

18

23

17

19

Brown et al. 1993, 11–13 and 97.

Brown et al. 1993, 99 and plan ix on p. 98. Only the northwest cistern was completely excavated. The draw shafts no longer exist.

Brown 1980, 11 and Brown et al. 1993, 8–9, 115–19, where Brown notes that it was covered to limit evaporation ca. 180–175 B.C., and fgs. 40, 44–45. De Giorgi 2018, 10 fg. 4 shows the polygonal masonry of its sides, which is identical to that of the city walls.

208

PUTEALS (WELLHEADS)

plex when it was constructed in the middle of the second century B.C. When the town underwent a brief renewal in the third century A.D., the reservoir appears to have been used as a conveniently located dump for debris swept up when the forum was repaired,24 since after it was emptied in 1973 it was found to contain mostly construction and other material dating to early Imperial times, including numerous broken pieces of stone and marble sculpture and furnishings.25 Three of the puteals preserve an internal diameter (P 2, 3, and 7) that is relatively small, suggestive of having belonged to a private house.26 Another fragment was found in the tree pit on the southwest side of the forum, approximately in front of the House of Diana (P 12). The design and smaller size of P 2, 3, and 7 suggest that they were most likely used in the atrium houses belonging to the elite citizens of the town on three sides of the forum: two on its northwest or entrance side, four on the southwest, and two on the southeast.27 All were built in the early second century B.C. soon after the second deductio of colonists in 197 B.C. and provided with cisterns beneath their atria. These have been named Atrium Buildings I–VIII, AB I being that nearest the basilica, AB II across the entrance street (Street 6) from AB I and so on, counterclockwise around the three sides of the forum. AB II on the northwest side of the forum and AB VII on the southeast side have been cleared but not extensively excavated and lack signifcant details of their cisterns.28 Only AB I and AB V (now called the House of Diana) have been thoroughly excavated. The cistern of Atrium Building I, located to the northwest of the impluvium, was equipped with an unusual, roughly hexagonal draw shaft near the north corner of the impluvium, measuring 0.60 m across; one piece of the rim and shaft of a hexagonal puteal of white marble (P 12) must certainly belong to this house. According to the excavator, the mouth of the cistern at pavement level was composed of “three courses of rough limestone slabs laid dry, which would have supported a puteal.”29 Although this house underwent alterations after the Augustan resettlement of the town, they apparently did not affect the opening of the cistern.30 The House of Diana, excavated in the 1990s, likewise has a rectangular, rock-cut cistern under the atrium just beyond the impluvium. It runs parallel with the house façade and has an extension toward the impluvium to accommodate the draw shaft so that the cistern has a truncated T-shape. The draw shaft and its mouth are fnished in opus signinum; the opening has a diameter of 0.45–0.43 m.31 The iron handle of a bucket, presumably of wood, used in the last

24

The third-century A.D. repairs in the forum are documented in an inscription found in 1970 and published by Scott 1981, 309–14.

28

25 Frank Brown, personal communication. The cistern of the House of Diana was also flled with construction debris in the third century A.D.; see Rabinowitz and Fentress 2002: http://www.press.umich.edu/webhome/cosa/f5_p_vi.html (The Severan Reoccupation) (accessed 4 January 2017).

29 Brown et al. 1993, 64, pl. 41 shows the mouth of the draw shaft with the limestone slabs surrounding it; see also fg. 20 for the restored plan of the frst construction phase.

26

31

The diameter of the bore of the puteal does not have to match exactly the diameter of the draw shaft; it may be slightly narrower but not wider. See, for example, the cross section of the puteal and its draw shaft in the House of the Golden Cupids in Pompeii (VI.16.7, 38): Seiler 1992, pl. 234c, where the diameter of the draw shaft is wider.

27 On the identifcation of these houses as belonging to the ruling class at Cosa see above, p. 3 n. 10.

Brown et al. 1993, AB II: pp. 77–81; it had an unusual T-shaped cistern with an extension toward the draw shaft near the impluvium; AB VII: pp. 81–87.

30

Brown et al. 1993, 238.

For its location see Fentress et al. 2003, 16, 18 fg. 8, and 42 fg. 21, which shows a cross section of the cistern. The cistern itself is described in Rabinowitz and Fentress 2002: http:// www.press.umich.edu/webhome/cosa/f5_p_i.html (Phase I: Republican Construction) (accessed 4 January 2017). In neither source is there a description of the draw shaft and the cistern mouth; those supplied above result from autopsy in May 2012. The extension toward the impluvium seems to echo that in AB II; see Brown et al. 1993, 78 and fgs. 28 and 40.

INTRODUCTION

209

phase of the house’s occupation, was found on the bottom of the cistern below the draw shaft.32 It looks like an ordinary bail handle, curved with upturned ends. The distance between the bottoms of the curved ends is 0.412 m, which gives an idea of the size of the pail used for drawing water, so it would easily ft down the draw shaft. Unfortunately, the diameter of the bore of P 7, found in the forum reservoir, is too narrow for this draw shaft and its pail. Only one house has still retained a piece of its puteal. This is one of several houses excavated between 1966 and 1972 as part of the plan to provide a well-rounded glimpse of the workings of a Roman colony.33 Two blocks were selected along Streets M and north, bordered to the northeast by Street 5. The excavations have revealed a modular layout of housing in each block, which was subdivided into a series of row houses, more in the longer blocks, fewer in the shorter ones, for non-elite housing.34 All the houses faced uphill toward the southeast, so that their cisterns would lie at a higher elevation than their cesspits (soak-away pits), given the downward slope of the terrain northwestward. Consequently the cisterns were all located in the front of each house. Each block was further subdivided longitudinally by a terrace wall that separated the house from its garden behind at a lower level. This planning seems to have been carried out soon after the arrival of a second wave of colonists in 197 B.C.35 An exception to this design and date is the House of the Skeleton, which faces Street 5; it was built into the gardens of the houses facing Street N above around 80 B.C.36 The only wellhead found in these houses is a puteal of Vulci tuff from the House of the Treasure on Street M (P 4). The material and the profle of its base molding suggest that it was an early one, perhaps belonging to the original house and retained throughout its history. Given its fndspot near the cistern mouth, it clearly belonged to the cistern of this house. When the cistern was repaired late in the second century B.C., the opening of the draw shaft at pavement level was fnished with signinum within a rectangular spill basin with raised edges, also in signinum. The external diameter of the ring around the cistern mouth, worn by the puteal, is 0.68 m, a measurement that matches the external diameter of the tuff wellhead.37 The completely signinum treatment of the pavement around the cistern mouth differs from what we fnd in Pompeii, for example, where the puteal normally rests on a rectangular well curb that elevates the base of the puteal above the pavement.38 Although the evidence from Cosa relies upon only two houses, it does seem that this treatment of the pavement around the cistern mouth was standard.39 32 C. J. Simpson in Fentress et al. 2003, 235 no. 54 and fg. 113. See also Rabinowitz and Fentress 2002: http://www. press.umich.edu/webhome/cosa/f5_p_v.html (Phase V: The House) (accessed 4 January 2017). 33

Scott 1992, 88; also Bruno and Scott 1993, 7.

34

On the row houses at Cosa as housing for the lower classes see Fentress et al. 2003, 23–26, Fentress 2000, 14–20, and Nappo 1997.

35

Brown 1980, 63–66; Bruno and Scott 1993, 1–6 on the general layout; 13–21 on the design, construction, water supply, and soak-away pits for the houses facing Street M; 31–56 on the two houses facing Street N.

36 37

Bruno and Scott 1993, 99–123.

Bruno and Scott 1993, 19, 85. Another house also preserves the same kind of signinum spill basin and cistern mouth (Bruno

and Scott 1993, 66–69 and pl. 36). This was built in the middle of the second century B.C. into the back garden of Lot 5, that is, behind the southwestern half of the House of the Treasure, and it faces Street L. The spill basin is trapezoidal with one rounded side; the top of the draw shaft is also fnished in signinum with an internal diameter of 0.46 m. Traces of the vanished puteal remain; they resemble the traces seen around the mouth of the draw shaft in the House of the Treasure. 38

An example of a tuff impluvium with an adjacent tuff well curb is in the atrium of the House of the Surgeon in Pompeii (VI.1.10), dating to the second century B.C. See Adam 1994, 292–93 and fg. 669; to understand how this arrangement worked, see p. 236 and fg. 548 (cross section of an opening for a cistern in the second peristyle of the House of the Faun in Pompeii [VI.12]). 39

It is signifcant in this context that the pavement at the opening to the cesspit in the house facing Street L is treated in the same way; see Bruno and Scott 1993, 69–71, pl. 37.

210

PUTEALS (WELLHEADS)

In the discussion above I have attempted to assign the wellheads to their respective cisterns. One advantage to this method is chronological, for it can give an approximate date to the puteal. The wellheads assigned to cisterns are: fve to public cisterns (P 5, 6, and 11 plus the two uninventoried ones discussed above), one to a shop (P 1), two to specifc houses (P 4 and 12). This leaves four unassigned, probably used in a domestic context (P 5–8). It is curious that so few domestic wellheads have been found, but since all the ones we have found are so badly broken, the others may have been also. They could have fallen into their cisterns, where they may be still, or been reused in later construction. We must also consider that not every Cosan householder could have afforded a nice wellhead, however plain its form, when a simple well curb or raised cistern mouth with provisions for a lid to protect the water supply would suffce.40 The puteals at Cosa are so fragmentary that a complete profle from crown to base molding is not possible, so it is diffcult to classify them precisely. On the other hand, their material and certain stylistic features do provide a sense of chronological placement within the standard typology. Pernice’s publication of the domestic puteals from Pompeii remains the standard introduction to late Republican and early Imperial puteals from the private sphere.41 Although Golda’s work concentrates on highly decorated wellheads with fgures in relief in a Neo-Attic style that do not apply to Cosa, it does discuss wellheads in general from both private and public, including religious, contexts, their typology, the origin of the form, and their function.42 In so doing Golda’s work is far broader in scope. A supplemental catalogue at the end of the text presents a selection of wellheads with plain shafts (Type 1: Puteals without frieze decoration—the “Basic Form”) and futed shafts (Type 3), to cite only those relevant to Cosa. This selection is based on the wellheads published and illustrated by Pernice with the addition of a few examples found after 1932 and many from sites other than Pompeii. Of special interest are Golda’s introductory remarks on the Latin “puteal, putealis” (pp. 1–2); he continues with a brief discussion of Cicero’s request in a letter to Atticus for two “putealia sigillata” (Ad Att. 1.10.3), written in 67 B.C. The expression refers to wellheads with relief decoration on their shafts, and it provides another glimpse into the extent of the Roman desire for items of luxury, which by then must have included the lowly wellheads presumably destined, if Cicero is any indication, for villas as well as for the lavish atrium houses of the wealthy. To my knowledge not even the Pompeian stone wellheads include relief decoration other than futes and an occasional metope/triglyph frieze (e.g., the one now in the atrium at I.4.5 [House of the Citharist]; see Golda’s Type 2, where most of the ones from Pompeii are terracotta). The utilitarian puteals from Cosa, used in a shop or for the public cisterns, are plain and lack crown and base moldings (P 1, and the two uninventoried ones discussed above); the only decoration takes the form of grooves encircling the shaft (as in P 1, the shop puteal). These tuff or travertine wellheads are the earliest found at Cosa. The tuff one from Shop 26 is dated to the early second century B.C. on numismatic evidence. The simple, undecorated form of these three pieces bears out Golda’s point that puteals from the public sphere tend to be undecorated and lack a profle with projecting moldings.43 This simple form admirably suits the utilitarian nature of these examples, for a decorative crown molding would be especially subjected to the most wear and tear. It should also be noted that the original pavements of the atria in the houses facing Street N had been removed by later remodeling after the Augustan resettlement and that no wellheads for those cisterns have been found (Bruno and Scott 1993, 36–38 and 43–45 for the second century B . C . phase, 172–73, fig. 43, and 182 for the Augustan remodeling).

40

On this see Pernice 1932, 12.

41

Pernice 1932, 12–37.

42

Golda 1997.

43

Golda 1997, 29.

INTRODUCTION

211

The domestic example of a tuff puteal is from the House of the Treasure and dates to the late Republican period (P 4). It consists of a fragment of the base that has above a plinth a quarter-round, or Etruscan round, below a very shallow cyma reversa that is separated from the shaft by a groove. This profle is unlike any of those of the early tuff wellheads from Pompeii, except for the groove at the base of the shaft. It seems to belong to Pernice’s class of early wellheads of the “Round Altar Type.”44 These are mostly tuff and have simple crown and base moldings composed of a shallow cavetto and cyma reversa; the decoration also includes fnely cut grooves, such as the one in the Cosa example. The quarter-round is not common in Pompeii, however, where only one cylindrical example shows it for both crown and base moldings.45 In Etruria, on the other hand, this molding was very popular and was used there for altars and bases as well as in architecture.46 Pernice did not distinguish the simple quarter-round as belonging to the typology of Etruscan moldings,47 but it makes sense at Cosa, given its location in former Etruscan territory, and it is likely that this puteal was made of locally available stone in a local workshop. According to Pernice the early tuff or lava puteals from Pompeii resembled altars, with similar crown and base moldings.48 It is likely that this was also the case for the fragmentary puteal from Cosa, except that the source of inspiration was Etruscan instead of South Italian or Sicilian. Among Hellenistic decorative features used extensively in the Pompeian wellheads is the futed shaft. It frst appears in the second half of the second century B.C. and becomes a symptomatic feature of Pernice’s Type 3a.49 The futed shaft continues throughout the history of Pompeian wellheads beginning in the mid-frst century B.C., even when marble was the material of choice for the wealthier households.50 Pieces of three wellheads from Cosa exhibit futed shafts (P 7–9), of either limestone or travertine (only P 9 is travertine). Their more complex crown moldings suggest a classifcation in Pernice’s somewhat later Type 3c of the late second/early frst century B.C., which includes mostly travertine puteals.51 The more decorative appearance of the Cosa examples combined with the fndspot of two in the forum reservoir (P 7 and 8) suggests that these served domestic purposes and may have belonged to the atrium houses around the forum.52 The last one to discuss is the limestone puteal used as a cistern head in the pronaos of the “Capitolium” (P 5). This was set within a sanctuary to serve mainly religious purposes.53 Its basic 44

Pernice 1932, 14–15.

45 Pernice 1932, 14 and pl. 8, 4: this example from the house at I.3.3 has a plain quarter-round for both crown and base molding; there is no plinth at the base. This is one of the earliest of the domestic puteals from Pompeii. Also among his earliest types is a “Rectangular Altar Type” in the House of the Faun (VI.12), which has a quarter-round at the crown and base; here the sides are separated from the shaft by a clear groove as in the Cosa example (Pernice 1932, 13 and pl. 7: second peristyle, made of tuff; the grooves do not show clearly in Pernice’s illustration). 46 On Etruscan and Roman Republican moldings see Shoe 1965, 29–31, especially her comments on altars and bases. 47 He did, however, note that certain decorative features derived from South Italian and Sicilian altars and architectural elements were not used extensively on Pompeian puteals until the second century B.C. (pp. 20–21). 48

Pernice 1932, 13–15.

49

Pernice 1932, 20–22 and Golda 1997, 16–17.

50

Pernice 1932, 20–21.

51

Pernice 1932, 24–27.

52 The third, P 9, was found on the arx behind the “Capitolium” and may have belonged to the atrium house discovered to the northeast of Temple D (Fentress et al. 2003, 31–32); no traces of its cistern are recorded, however. 53 Brown et al. 1960, 65 and Brown 1980, 53. Golda 1997, 26 has proposed that this puteal belonged to a bidental given its fndspot on the arx and its relief, which may have depicted Jupiter. Indeed, though the arx may well have been subject to lightning strikes, the identifcation of the male fgure in the relief decoration is in error, and the inscription does not offer any clues. Furthermore, the highest and most lightning prone part of the arx at Cosa has now been completely excavated, and no traces of a bidental have been found nor any traces of burning before the raid of ca. 70–60 B.C. Good examples of the bidental are the one at Minturnae (J. Johnson, Excavations

212

PUTEALS (WELLHEADS)

form is very simple: below the plain rim of the crown are a cavetto, a fllet, and a narrow fascia curving into the shaft; the bottom of the shaft also curves out in an apophyge above a simple halfround base. The scene carved in low relief depicts a priest offering a libation ritu graeco toward an altar at the left. Farther to the left, and beyond the altar, are a fragmentary inscription and the top of the head and raised left hand of a second fgure. The material of the puteal and the form of the toga worn by the sacrifcant in the relief suggest a date in the third quarter of the second century B.C. The unsophisticated style of carving to a great extent refects the coarse nature of the material and is most likely the product of a local workshop. The sacrifcial subject is apparently unique in the repertory of relief decoration on Roman puteals.54 The puteals from Cosa are arranged below in roughly chronological order. Their dating relies heavily upon when their respective cisterns were vaulted and given their draw shafts, as discussed above. These puteals tend to be the earliest in the sequence. Sometimes other dating criteria apply, such as numismatic for P 1, or stylistic for the frst “Capitolium” puteal with a relief decoration (P 5). The material used also has a chronological value since the excellent purple-gray tuff from near Vulci was used early on, as it was for architectural elements;55 marble was not employed for wellheads at Cosa until the Augustan resettlement. In the catalogue below I have used the following conventions in describing the puteals that have crown and base moldings. These are divided into three parts: the rim with its crown molding, the side or shaft, and the base, which may or may not have a plinth at the very bottom. The shaft decorated with futes will often have a fascia-like band at top and bottom separating the shaft from the crown and base moldings. It is sometimes missing or may be rather narrow. I consider this band a part of the shaft.

Catalogue P 1: Fragment of Rim and Upper Shaft Republican, early second century B.C.

Fig. 253

CF 1029. Found in sidewalk of Street O, Level II, in front of Taberna 25 of Atrium Building I. Vulci tuff. Projected original H. 0.60; Proper H. of fragment 0.211, Th. 0.06 near top–0.69 at bottom, external Diam. ca. 0.55 m at top. Badly worn. Brown et al. 1993, 105–6 with fgs. 38 (plan of Taberna 26 with its cistern and back room) and 39 (drawing of fragment); on the coin see p. 106 n. 24. This fragment belonged to a very plain puteal with no rim molding, decorated only with two parallel grooves, fnely made, 0.155 and 0.193 m from the rim. The fndspot suggests that it belonged to

at Minturnae, vol. 1, Monuments of the Republican Forum, Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, 1935, 29–36) and the Puteal Libonis/Puteal Scribonianus in the Forum Romanum of Rome (LTUR 4 [1999] 171–73, s.v. Puteal Libonis/Scribonianum, [L. Chioff]). 54

No such subject appears on the puteals studied by

Golda 1997. 55

On the use of Vulci tuff see Brown et al. 1993, 47. It was used mostly before the middle of the second century B.C., when the basilica was built, and continued after that “for elements of elaborate carving.”

CATALOGUE

213

Taberna 26, which had a cistern in its front room; the size of the cistern mouth fts the projected lower diameter of this slightly tapering wellhead. The discovery of a coin of Massilia of the second half of the third century B.C. in a layer of undisturbed fll under the foor of the rear room of Taberna 26 suggests that the shop was built soon after the arrival of new colonists in 197 B.C. with its accompanying building boom. The wellhead would not be much later in date. The lack of a crown molding makes it diffcult to classify according to the criteria established by Pernice.

P 2: Fragment of Shaft Republican, early second century B.C.

Not illustrated

C73.64. Found in Level I of the forum reservoir. Vulci tuff. H. as pres. 0.215, Th. 0.18, Diam. of bore ca. 0.40 m. Chipped, abraded, lime flm. Unpublished. This is a fragment of the upper shaft of a plain puteal; its original surface is preserved only on the interior. Given its small size, it may have originated in a late Republican atrium house on the forum.

P 3: Fragment of Base Republican, early second century B.C.

Fig. 254

C73.65. Found in Level I of the forum reservoir. Vulci tuff. H. 0.14, Th. 0.105, outer Diam. on fascia ca. 0.44, Diam. of bore 0.35 m. Abraded. Unpublished. This is a piece of the lower molding of the base of the puteal, showing, top to bottom: cyma reversa, fllet, fascia, fllet. The small size and the elegant base molding strongly suggest that this originated in one of the atrium houses around the forum, though the diameter of the bore is rather narrow.56 A piece of the original late Republican wellhead?

P 4: Fragment of Base Late second century B.C.

Fig. 255

C71.161. Found on the surface near the southwest wall built over the cistern in the House of the Treasure, to which the puteal must have belonged. 56

According to F. Brown, who inspected a number of cisterns accessible in the survey of the site in 1948, the opening of the draw shafts ranged between 0.45 and 0.60 m in diameter

(Brown 1951, 88). The context of this observation, however, suggests that this refers to the bottom of the draw shaft, not the top, where the puteal would have rested.

214

PUTEALS (WELLHEADS)

Vulci tuff. Est. exterior Diam. 0.68, interior Diam. 0.38–0.40 at the base; Max. Pres. H. 0.021, W. 0.024 m. Worn and chipped. Bruno and Scott 1993, 19, 85 with pl. 42; see also pl. 8 for the spill basin with the opening for the draw shaft and fg. 24 on p. 83 for a restored plan of the House of the Treasure as remodeled. This small piece has a well-preserved profle: above the projecting plinth is a quarter-round fnished as a cyma reversa; at the base of the shaft a well-cut groove separates the base molding from the shaft. The underside is fat. It originally stood over the draw shaft of the cistern within a rectangular spill basin with a raised border, all formed of signinum. According to the excavator this arrangement belongs to a repair of the cistern in the late second century B.C. The wellhead may have been made especially for the newly laid pavement above the cistern in the late second century B.C., or it could have been a reused older one.

P 5: “Capitolium” Puteal I Second half of second century B.C.

Figs. 256–57

CB 679ab, CB 1513, CB 1723ab, C65.71. Four non-joining pieces of rim, shaft, and base found in and near the “Capitolium,” on or just below the surface in disturbed contexts. Rim: CB 679ab, two joining fragments; C65.71, inscribed fragment with small bit of shaft with relief decoration. Shaft: CB 1723ab, two joining fragments with relief decoration. Base: CB 1513. The material, dimensions, and matching rim profles of these fragments along with the proximity of their fndspots to each other and to the “Capitolium” indicate that they belong together. White limestone. Restored H. 0.65; Diam. across top, including outer edge of molding 0.59 as restored in the museum; Th. of wall of shaft 0.058–0.05; internal Diam. ca. 0.37 m below crown molding. Rim badly damaged; surfaces chipped; lime deposits, traces of mortar. Light brownish stain in rim continues down to outstretched arm and right side of fgure in CB 1723ab. Brown et al. 1960, 65; Collins 1970, 218–24 no. 42; Brown 1980, 56; Bace 1983, 96–97, no. IIIA4 on the inscription; Golda 1997, 52 “Zeus 4” with Beilage 9, and pp. 77–78 cat. no. 8. The rim pieces are rabbeted for a lid; the rabbet is 0.05 m high and the rebate 0.055 m wide. The fat upper edge of the rim is 0.087 m wide. The profle consists of the rim fascia above a cavetto, a fllet, and a narrower fascia that curves into the shaft. The maximum thickness of the wall of the shaft is 0.058 m. The bottom of the shaft fares toward the base in an apophyge above a simple half-round base molding. The fragmentary inscription has been read by Bace as:57

57 Bace 1983, 96 no. IIIA4; n. 110 for an alternate reading as a dedication to Hercules Argivus: (Herc ] ul . Argius[ ), which Bace considers unlikely. On Hercules in Italy see Scott 1988, 75–76, citing his images appearing on terracotta

antefxes along with those of Minerva. Athena/Minerva in Greek mythology was Herakles’s protector and sponsor of his introduction to Olympus.

CATALOGUE

215

Ṃ(anius) Larcius [Ḷ](uci) [f(ilius) - - -] [- - - v(otum) s (olvit) lib]ẹṇṣ m(erito) - - -] The relief depicts a male fgure sacrifcing at an altar to the left, of which only an edge is preserved along the break (fg. 257). He stands frontally with his weight on his right leg, turning his head toward the altar. He raises his left arm to grasp a staff and extends his right toward the altar. In this hand he holds a patera in a gesture of libation. Beyond the altar toward the left and below the inscribed rim fragment is the top of a head and an upraised hand belonging to another fgure facing right toward the altar, balancing the composition (not illustrated).58 This would be the head of the fgure who points the forefnger of the hand toward his or her head. Although the nature of the material does not allow refnements of carving, the artist could render certain details. The male fgure is clearly outlined and separated from the background (see fg. 257); likewise, the edges of the altar are sharply offset. In the fgure indentations represent the eye and mouth; the broad and heavy chin is most likely an attempt to show a short beard. The irregular outline of the top of his head could be an indication of a wreath tied with a ribbon shown in a loop behind the nape of the neck. The bunched folds of the upper edge of the toga at the waist and the two main folds moving diagonally from the man’s lower right leg to his left shoulder are also shown. The hem of the toga curves sharply over the bump of the bent knee. It is diffcult to determine whether he was wearing a tunic. The lower edges of his pectorals give the impression of a bare chest, yet there is a disjunction in the upper outline of his extended right arm above the elbow that suggests the hem of a sleeve. The surface was most likely stuccoed and painted, so that details would have been executed in paint. The toga is that shorter and narrower type worn during the late Republic and best exemplifed by the “Arringatore” in the Archaeological Museum in Florence.59 In both fgures the draping of the garment is the same, although the hem of the Arringatore’s toga reaches to his shoelaces. The Cosa fgure’s toga seems shorter—its hem appears to end just below his right knee, though the break causes an interruption at that point. The differences in the draping of the garment can be explained by the different positions of their left arms. The upraised left arm in the Cosa fgure together with his bent left leg brings the hem above that knee, a detail that is clearly shown. The togas of both fgures are similarly narrow, although the rendering of the Cosa fgure gives the impression of an even narrower one, with only two diagonal folds across the body and none along his right side. In this a closer parallel for the toga is that worn by the togate fgure in the terracotta pediment found in the Via San Gregorio on the Caelian in Rome and now in the Palazzo dei Conservatori in Rome, dated to the second half of the second century B.C. or even to the third quarter of that century.60 The Cosa fgure is clearly the priest, possibly the Manius Larcius mentioned in the inscription, offciating at a sacrifce in the Greek manner, ritu graeco, in which he wears a wreath but does not cover his head with his toga. Romans making a sacrifce usually covered their heads with a 58 See Bace 1983, 97 for commentary on the inscription. It indicates that M. Larcius fulflled a vow, probably by donating the puteal, which the temple would have needed. 59 On the late Republican toga see Goette 1990, 20–28 and S. Stone, “The Toga: From National to Ceremonial Costume,” in Sebesta and Bonfante 1994, 13–16.

60

Inv. no. 1127. On this pediment see Kleiner 1992, 52–54, fg. 36; Felleti Maj 1977, 139–42, who notes that this fgure may be the presiding sacrifcant whose head is uncovered ritu graeco for which there is no explanation (I am not so certain that this fgure is the priest), also pp. 173, 179, fg. 41; and F. Coarelli, “Polycles,” StMisc 15 (1970) 85–86 (third quarter of second century B.C.). Reprinted in F. Coarelli, Revixit ars, Rome: Quasar, 1996, 258–79.

216

PUTEALS (WELLHEADS)

fold of their toga, but leaving the head uncovered was done in certain circumstances and was not considered un-Roman.61 With no clear idea of the recipient of the sacrifce here, the reason for sacrifcing ritu graeco cannot be certain. If, however, the relief, rather than the inscription, should refer to Hercules Argivus, or Hercules of the Latins, originally Herakles, whose cult was founded by Evander (Livy 1.7.3), the practice of ritu graeco was entirely appropriate and would account for it on the Cosa puteal.62 This would be Hercules “Bringer of civilization to wild places,”63 an aspect especially applicable to the Latin colony of Cosa. The recipient of the sacrifce is the taller fgure at the left of the altar, if the rim fragment with the top of the head is identifed in its proper place. Accordingly, the scene might be reconstructed along the lines of a typical Hellenistic votive relief, in which the priest and the worshippers, bringing a victim, approach an altar on the other side of which stands or sits the divinity, as seen here.64 The deity present at his own sacrifce, the praesens deus, is a Greek feature appearing frst in Roman art of the late Republic, when Rome was under strong Hellenistic infuence.65 If the grouping of divinity, altar, and priest is correct, the composition bears a strong resemblance to the central scene of sacrifce in the Census panel of the Ahenobarbus base. Since all the fragments of this puteal were found in such close proximity to the “Capitolium,” a connection thereto is altogether likely and has already been suggested by F. E. Brown.66 The diameter of the puteal corresponds to those of the draw shafts of the cistern beneath the pronaos, so that this puteal could have been one of the original wellheads.67 The “Capitolium” with its cistern is now thought to have been constructed in the second quarter of the second century B.C.68 and the wellhead most likely soon after. It remains to date the relief more precisely, and this depends mainly upon the style of the toga worn by the sacrifcant and is reinforced by the style of the moldings on the wellhead and the altar in the relief. The closest parallel is the terracotta togatus from the pedimental group found in the Via San Gregorio, dated to the third quarter of the second century B.C.69 The moldings of the wellhead and the altar depicted in its relief bolster this date. The cavetto in the crown molding of the puteal is a Greek element that does not appear in Roman usage until the second century B.C., when the Greek orders were copied.70 An exact parallel for the base molding appears in the Doric column bases of the Temple of Hercules at Cori of Sullan date.71 Even the simple cyma reversas in the crown and base moldings of the altar in the

61

The identifcation as a priest replaces my original one as Jupiter (Collins 1970, 224), which was apparently followed by Golda 1997, 52. On the graecus ritus see now J. Scheid, “Graeco Ritu: A Typically Roman Way of Honoring the Gods,” HSCP 97 (1995) 15–31. 62

Scheid (as above) 20–23.

S. Gregorio terracotta pedimental group), 23–25 and pl. VII, fg. 15ab (altar in the Villa Borghese), 27 and pl. VII, fg. 16 (round altar or base in the cathedral at Cività Castellana), and 29 and pl. VIII, fg. 171-c (Ahenobarbus base, Census scene). All of these are discussed and illustrated more recently in Kleiner 1992, 49–55. 66

Brown et al. 1960, 65.

67

See above, p. 206.

68

Scott 1992, 97.

69

See above n. 60.

70

Shoe 1965, 34.

71

Shoe 1965, 121, pl. XXXV, no. 9.

63

Scott 2008, 50 in the context of four black gloss vessels with the letter H scratched upon them, the H referring to Hercules. These were found in an early deposit, Deposit A, under the cellas of the “Capitolium.” See also Scott 1988, 75. 64

Hellenistic votive reliefs as forerunners to Roman scenes of sacrifce are discussed by Ryberg 1955, 3–5, and two examples are illustrated in pl. 1, fgs. 1–2. 65

See, for example, Ryberg 1955, 23 and pl. VI, fg. 14 (Via

217

CATALOGUE

relief are those popular in the second century B.C. for altars and bases.72 All things considered, a date for the wellhead in the second half of the second century B.C., possibly narrowed to the third quarter of the century, is most likely.

P 6: Fragment of Shaft Second half of second century B.C.

Fig. 258

CG 37. Found on the northeast side of the forum in front of the curia on the surface. White limestone. Max. Pres. H. 0.155, Max. Pres. W. 0.135; Proper H. 0.152; Th. of wall 0.056–0.045 m. Lozenge-shaped fragment broken on all sides; surfaces pitted, root marks, lime flm. Unpublished. This is a piece of the shaft of a puteal decorated in relief. Only the extended right hand and forearm of a fgure is preserved; the palm faces up as if holding a patera toward the left in a gesture of sacrifce. The material and roughly carved relief resemble those of the frst “Capitolium” puteal, also of white limestone (P 5). The cistern nearest the fndspot of this small piece is the one on the northeast side of the forum near Temple B. Although the preserved draw shaft, in the forecourt of Temple B, corresponds to the revaulting of the cistern at the end of the third century B.C., the wellhead fragment seems later and contemporary with the frst “Capitolium” puteal. A puteal with a sacrifcial scene in the forecourt of Temple B would be appropriate.73

P 7a, b: Piece of Rim and Upper Shaft of Fluted Puteal Ca. 100 B.C.

Fig. 259

C73.62ab. Found in Level I of the forum reservoir. Limestone. Two non-joining fragments: (a): Crown molding: H. 0.12, Th. 0.09–0.05 m. (b): Upper shaft: H. 0.214, Th. 0.05–0.04 m. Diam. of bore at 0.10 below top of futes: 0.365 m. Worn, incrusted with lime, root marks. Grooves made by ropes on inner edge of rim of (b). Unpublished. Fragment (a) preserves the rim, inner bore, and molding at the top of a puteal; the molding consists of a torus above a fascia, then a cyma reversa, and a fat band that belongs to the top of the shaft. Fragment (b) preserves a piece of the band at the top of the shaft, very similar to that of (a), and fve futes about 0.029 m in width. The circumference at the bottom of the futes is ca. 0.40 m, indicative of a shaft with 40 futes. The futes have no tongues. The bands marking the top of the shaft, the 72

Shoe 1965, 32–33; the cyma recta became preferable in the frst-century B.C. altars (33).

73

On the cistern near Temple B see Brown et al. 1993, 49–50 with a reconstruction of the front of Temple B and its forecourt in fg. 56.

218

PUTEALS (WELLHEADS)

dimensions, and their shared fndspot indicate that these fragments belong together. The profle of the crown molding suggests a classifcation in Pernice’s Type 3c.74

P 8: Fragment of Rim of Fluted Puteal Ca. 100 B.C.

Figs. 260–61

C73.61. Found in Level I of the forum reservoir. Hard, chalky white limestone. H. 0.125, Th. at bottom (beginning of shaft) 0.045 m. Worn, incrusted with lime. Unpublished. This small piece of a rather battered crown molding preserves at the top either the bottom of a cavetto or a cyma reversa above an ovolo, then the band at the top of the shaft, and the head of a fute. Possibly belongs to Pernice Type 3c.75

P 9a–e: Fragments of a Fluted Puteal Later second/early frst century B.C.

Fig. 262

C67.4a–e. Found on the arx behind the “Capitolium” in a disturbed context. Travertine. (a): Crown molding with small remnant of rim extending to upper part of futes; rim badly battered: H. 0.227, H. molding 0.105, W. 0.143 m. (b): Fluted shaft: L. 0.23, W. 0.131, internal Diam. ca. 0.32 m. (c): Fluted shaft, very small: L. 0.12, W. 0.057 m. (d): Upper molding with some rim and interior surface; badly battered: H. 0.097, W. 0.13 m. (e): Base molding?; only outer surface preserved: W. 0.08, L. 0.085 m. Overall only slightly weathered, root marks, chipped. Unpublished. These are fve non-joining pieces of a futed puteal whose futes contain tongues with fat tips. The profle of the crown molding is best seen in fragment (a): below the rim, there is a cavetto above an ovolo above a slightly concave band that frames the top of the futes. The band above the futes, usually balanced by one below them on the shaft, is usually fat, but departures from this norm do occur.76 Fragment (e) may belong to a base molding that presents the same profle as a crown 74

Pernice 1932, 24–27, Tufa Period and Later; compare especially the futed puteal from House IX.3.15, pl. 16, 4, whose crown molding is similar.

75

Pernice 1932, 24–27.

76

See Pernice 1932, 25–26, where he discusses the bands, usually fat, above and below the futes as common in his Type 3c. An unusual ridged band is found in a travertine wellhead from the atrium of the House of the Dioscuri (VI.9.6; pl. 16, 1), a detail that anticipates Augustan usage (Pernice 1932, 25).

CATALOGUE

219

molding but in reverse order; its ovolo is very slightly wider, reinforcing its position at the base of the wellhead.

P 10: Fragment of Rim Later second/early frst century B.C.

Fig. 263

C66.386. Found on the arx behind the “Capitolium” in a disturbed context. Travertine. H. 0.125 m. Battered and worn; surface pitted. Unpublished. This fragment from the rim of a puteal preserves the upper edge, damaged crown molding, and rabbet on the interior for a lid. The molding consists of a cavetto above a shallow cyma reversa, then possibly the band marking the top of the shaft or a fllet.

P 11: “Capitolium” Puteal II Augustan

Fig. 264

CB 482, CC 877ab. Both found on arx: CB 482 in front of the thirteenth-century chapel to the south side of the “Capitolium” and CC 877ab in the “Capitolium” forecourt, both in disturbed contexts. Medium-grained white marble. Max. Pres. H. 0.17, external Diam 0.45 across top, internal Diam. ca. 0.27 m at inscribed band. Weathered gray. Brown 1980, 56; Bace 1983, 96–97, no. IIIA5 and fg. 44 for the inscription; the interpretation of Bace makes more sense. These are two non-joining fragments from the top of the Augustan replacement for the frst “Capitolium” puteal (P 5), which must have been broken during the destruction of the town ca. 70–60 B.C. They preserve the rim, crown molding, and part of the inscription. The surface of the rim has a channel, 0.018 m wide, set back 0.025 m from the front edge. The crudely made crown molding consists of either a narrow cavetto or an assymetrical cyma reversa, a bead, an ovolo, and another bead above the band with the inscription. This band projects slightly from the top of the shaft. The inscription repeats that of “Capitolium” Puteal I.

P 12: Fragment of Upper Part of Six-sided Puteal Augustan?

Fig. 265

C69.134. Found in planting pit 7, in front of the House of Diana, on the southwest side of the forum.

220

PUTEALS (WELLHEADS)

Medium-grained white marble with a vein of impurities and a tendency to split. Proper H. 0.191, Th. of wall of shaft at one side 0.05, Th. of wall of shaft at angle 0.057, Max. Pres. H. of molding 0.062, Max. Pres. H. of wall of shaft 0.127 m. Weathered and worn, surface fnish gone and grains of marble exposed; reddish patina all over, even on broken edges; some lime encrustation. Unpublished. This fragment is the crown molding and part of the shaft of a six-sided puteal. Two sides only of the shaft are preserved; these meet at an 118-degree angle, very suggestive of a hexagonal shape for the shaft (the internal angles of a regular hexagon being 120 degrees). The molding is badly battered and lacks its top; only a small portion of the inner surface is preserved at the angle of the shaft, but its shape, cylindrical or also hexagonal, is not immediately assessable. The preserved molding presents only the lower bit of rim above a cyma reversa and a strongly projecting fascia. The molding projects much more over the angle of the shaft. The strongly projecting fascia recalls those on Pernice’s Type 3d, which are post-Sullan.77 This puteal with its hexagonal shaft is unique and must have been designed to ft the unusual hexagonal draw shaft for the cistern beneath Atrium Building I on the northeast side of the forum adjacent to Street 6 and the entrance arch. This house underwent extensive remodeling in the Augustan resettlement of the town, and the wellhead must refect this activity. The mouth of the cistern opens within the atrium in a conspicuous setting where a new decorative puteal of marble would have been appropriate.78

77

Pernice 1932, 27–30 for his Type 3d, which he considers late Republican of ca. 60–20 B.C.

78

On the draw shaft and the remodeling of this house see Brown et al. 1993, 64 with pl. 41 (the draw shaft is 0.60 m across); 238 (Augustan remodeling).

9 ♦ Sundials

Introduction

O

nly two sundials, one fragment of the dial of each, have been found at Cosa, one of travertine and the other of a fne, white limestone. The frst was discovered on the arx, where no doubt it had originally stood; the other was found in the House of the Skeleton. Both contexts, the one public, the other private, are typical for the placement of these “time pieces.” The stones used in general indicate a late Republican date, which suits their respective fndspots; the frst may belong to the mid-second-century B.C. construction of the temples on the arx along with the placement of their related outdoor furnishings, and the second would ft the construction date of ca. 80 B.C. for the House of the Skeleton. The best treatment of these remains S. Gibbs’s Greek and Roman Sundials.1 She has gathered many examples of the two main types of portable sundials, the spherical and the conical, in various stones from around the Mediterranean. The earliest date from the third century B.C. from Greece and the latest from the fourth century A.D.2 Her greatest contribution lies in her analyses of the mathematics behind the design of these dials, and she explains how they work, with the gnomon, or pointer, at the top of the dial casting a shadow upon the features incised upon it: the twelve seasonal hour lines between sunrise and sunset and the three curves that cross the hour lines, the winter solstice at the top, the equinox in the middle, and the summer solstice at the bottom of the dial. To work properly the sundial should face south. In the Greek world the most sundials have been found on Delos.3 In the Roman sphere, most have been found in Pompeii; they number about 30 and were discovered in public buildings such as baths or religious sanctuaries and in private homes.4 The basic form of the portable type has two parts, the dial, either spherical or conical, at the top and a base. The left and right sides of the dial curve upward to a fat top along the sides and back. In the center of the upper back is placed a bronze gnomon that projects horizontally so it will cast a shadow upon the dial. The sides of the dial portion extend forward so they slant down and back toward a base that slants downward toward the front. The sides of the base are usually carved in the form of either feline legs or a simple cyma reversa that imitates the curvature of a feline leg, although many are plain.5 1

Gibbs 1976. See also RE 8 (1913) s.v. horologium, 2416–33 (A. Rehm) and New Pauly, Antiquity 3 (2003) s.v. clocks, sundials, 458–61, 464 (G. Dohrn-van Rossum).

2

Gibbs 1976, 5.

3

Deonna 1938, 187–95, pls. 66–68.

4

Ciarallo and De Carolis 1999, 242 cat. no. 298 (marble sundial from the House of the Golden Cupids).

5

A well-preserved plain one, so far unpublished, was found in the garden of La Colonna in the ager Cosanus in 1976, inv. CA 181, now in a storeroom of the Cosa Museum. I thank S. Dyson for this information. On this villa see Dyson 2002, 209–28.

222

SUNDIALS

Catalogue S 1: Fragment of Sundial Late Republican

Fig. 266

CC 580. Found in 1950 on the arx, outside the west wall of the cella of Temple D in a medieval context. Travertine. Proper H. 0.232, Proper W. 0.193 as preserved, D. 0.18 m. Extremely battered and worn. Unpublished. This is a large piece of the lower right side of a conical sundial that preserves a small segment of the lower portion of the dial to the right of the meridian line, the back, the underside, part of the front below the dial, and some of the leg of the dial. The back and underside are fat and preserve diagonal striations apparently made by a pick. The lower edge of the dial is battered away, so the ends of the hour lines and the solstice lines are not preserved. The break on the left has taken with it the central, meridian line. Only two hour lines and part of a third are preserved; the summer solstice curve has been abraded away. Most of the top has broken off. The remnant of the leg of the dial is too battered to determine whether it was originally straight or carved as a stylized feline leg or a simple cyma reversa. Sundials are known to have been set up in the temenos of a temple, as, for example, a marble one in front of the Temple of Apollo in Pompeii, although that one is later in date.6 The Cosa sundial may be interpreted as part of the furnishings of the temple complex on the arx in the mid-second century B.C., along with the inscribed votive basin with its columnar support (B 2 and 9) and the inscribed puteal installed over the cistern of the “Capitolium” (P 5).

S 2: Fragment of Sundial Late Republican

Fig. 267

C68.597. Found in 1968 in the House of the Skeleton, Sounding 5 near the back wall of the present museum, on the surface. Fine white limestone. Proper H. as preserved 0.174 m. Encrusted with lime and root marks; chipped; worn. Unpublished.

6 PPM 7 (1997) 287 (V. Sampaolo). See also Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006, 39 (Augustan; see CIL X, 802 for the inscription). There is also one behind the Doric Temple in the Triangular Forum in Pompeii (Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006, 39, 59, also Augustan) and another next to the Tem-

ple of Dionysus just outside Pompeii (W. Van Andringa et al., Archéologie et religion: le sanctuaire dionysiaque de S. Abbondio à Pompéi, MEFRA 125, 1 (2013) available online: http://mefra.revues.org/1255; see Phase 6: placed above the scola; ca. A.D. 50).

CATALOGUE

223

This fragment preserves part of the back, one fat edge, three incised hour lines, and part of the summer solstice curve from the bottom, center-left of the dial of a spherical sundial.7 The fat edge shows traces of a heavy rasp and a groove 0.02 m from the semicircular dial. One bit of the back edge is preserved at the point of greatest height when the piece rests on its bottom, to which the back is perpendicular. It is worked fat with a claw chisel and retains a few pits from the preliminary pointwork. The surface of the dial is smoothed with a rasp. The hour lines defne fairly wide segments at the summer solstice curve to the left of the (missing?) noonday line. Two of the hour lines extend beyond the solstice curve; the solstice curve is chipped away from where the third hour line, at the far left, would have met it. The dial seems to have broken through the narrow “waist” of the sundial, that is, below the dial at the point where the base slopes forward. The edge beyond the summer solstice curve is a break. In the space between the leftmost hour lines is incised what appears to be the letter C, lying on its side. Would this have indicated that this might be the third space from the left, that is, the space between the third and fourth hour lines, if each space were inscribed with letters of the Latin alphabet?8 Another interpretation might be that this is only a decoration, such as some that appear on either side of the meridian line.9 If this is true—and it may be the more logical interpretation because the “letter” is neither oriented properly nor centered within its space but placed next to the remnant of an hour line—then the hour line to the left of the decoration would be the sixth hour line. The fndspot on the surface in a disturbed context is not necessarily an indication that this sundial was originally placed in the garden of the House of the Skeleton.

7

The original photograph shows this incorrectly oriented; it is rotated in fg. 267 to show the proper orientation.

Greek letter is also inscribed in the spaces near the summer solstice curve).

8 See two examples: (1) a spherical sundial from Aphrodisias, now in the Archaeological Museum at Selçuk, inv. no. 375, where each space between the hour lines contains a Greek letter; see Gibbs 1976, 169 no. 1055G and pl. 10 and (2) a conical sundial found near Alexandria at the base of Cleopatra’s Needle, now in London, British Museum inv. no. 1936 3-9 1 (Gibbs 1976, 304 no. 3086G and pl. 48, where a

9

See Gibbs 1976, 289 no. 3067G and pl. 45, a conical sundial from Pompeii with references to other sundials in which the third, sixth (meridian), and ninth hour lines are also specially marked. In this one two arcs face each other on either side of the sixth hour line. See also a conical sundial from Olympia in which an “O” interrupts the sixth hour line near the summer solstice curve (Gibbs 1976, 240 no. 3022).

10 ♦ Body Parts

Introduction

W

herever possible those body parts that can reasonably be associated with their original bodies according to scale and type of marble are included with their bodies. For example, only one statue was made of Thasian dolomite, a white marble that is very coarse-grained: the statue of Divus Claudius that had stood in the scaenae frons of the odeum in the forum (PS-St 1). Its lower torso was found in situ, whereas part of its head was found on the arx, and a right hand that most likely belonged to it was found in the basilica. The body parts that cannot be associated with the statuary to which they had belonged are briefy described here should future excavations unearth new evidence useful for assignment to their original statues. The parts of the body include fragments of heads, necks and tenons for insertion into a separate body, shoulders, arms and hands, legs and feet. Table 6 gives an overview. Drapery fragments are not included, unless they can be associated with their statue, and if so, they are included with their statue. The catalogue includes all vital statistics: size (over life-sized, lifesized, under life-sized) and measurements, fndspot, description of the marble, and a brief description of the piece as well as a photograph. Almost all are considered Julio-Claudian. The list as seen in table 6 makes clear that there are far too many right feet, both male and female, for the number of statues already known. This is an indication that some of their bodies were taken from their original places of display, mostly from the forum, and burned for lime or brought to the arx in post-antique times for use as building blocks.1 It is also clear that some of the over life-sized body parts must have belonged to the statue of Drusus Minor, a diagnostic fragment of whose over life-sized head, carved of a medium-grained white marble, was found in the forum reservoir; their size and type of marble match that of the head.2 The statue must have stood originally in the forum, though some of its pieces were found on the arx.

Heads BP 1: Over Life-sized Male Head: Hair Augustan?

Fig. 268

CA 216. Found in 1948 on arx. Fine-grained white to grayish marble.

1

On limekilns at Cosa see above, p. 9.

2 On this see further PS-Head 1, where possible body parts are given in n. 49; these are below: BP 4 (neck with tenon

found in the forum), BP 8 (right shoulder draped in the manner of a togate fgure found on the arx), and BP 20 (left hand found in the forum).

Table 6. Body Parts

Hair at nape Hair

BP 3 CD 23

Neck & tenon Tenon Tenon

BP 5 C68.606 BP 6 CD 228 BP 7 CD 404

Upper arm, togate Elbow Rt. shoulder

BP 9 CD 304, CA 37 BP 10 CC 897

Rt. upper arm Rt. forearm & elbow Upper arm Rt. forearm & hand Rt. arm L. elbow & lower arm

BP 12 CC 575 BP 13 CD 122 BP 14 C72.117 BP 15 CD 741 BP 16 CC 880 BP 17 C73.53 Left hand Left hand Left hand Left hand

BP 18 No inv. no. BP 19 CF 1720 BP 20 C67.385 BP 21 C68.625

Hands

Left elbow

BP 11 CC 320

Arms

Rt. shoulder, togate

BP 8 No inv. no.

Shoulders

Neck with drapery

BP 4 CC 432

Necks and Tenons

Hair

Type

BP 2 CC 17

Inv. No. BP 1 CA 216

Heads

Forum

Forum

Forum

Arx

Forum reservoir

Basilica, nave

Basilica, nave

Street N, surface

Basilica, SW

Arx

Arx

Forum arch

Basilica, nave Arx

Arx

Basilica, SW aisle

Basilica, nave

Forum NE

Arx

Basilica, front

Arx

Arx

Findspot

Over life

Over life

Over life

Over life

Under life

Life-sized

Life-sized

Life-sized

Over life

Life-sized

Over life

Life-sized

Life-sized

Over life

Under life

Over life

Over life

Over life

Sl. over life

Life-sized

Over life

Size

Fine- to medium-grained white, Pentelic?

Fine-grained white

Fine-grained white

Medium-grained white, Pentelic?

Fine-grained white

Fine-grained white

Fine-grained white

Fine-grained white

Fine-grained white, streaks of irregular crystalline structure

Fine- to medium-grained white

Fine-grained white

Medium-grained white

Fine-grained white

Fine- to medium-grained white

Extremely fne-grained grayish white

Fine-grained white

Medium-grained white

Fine- to medium-grained white

Fine-grained white to grayish

Fine-grained white

Fine-grained white to grayish

Marble Type

Table 6. Body Parts (continued) Rt. hand Rt. hand

BP 24 CA 270

Rt. leg & foot Male lower leg Male lower leg Rt. lower leg Rt. lower leg & foot

BP 26 CG 238, C67.250 BP 27 C69.51 BP 28 C73.51 BP 29 CC 775 BP 30 CA 370 Left heel Left foot Rt. foot Rt. foot, sandaled Rt. foot on plinth L. foot, soft shoe Rt. foot, soft shoe Rt. foot, soft shoe Rt. foot, soft shoe Rt. foot, soft shoe Rt. foot Rt. foot, togatus Rt. foot, sandaled Rt. foot L. foot Foot, nude Rt. foot, nude

BP 31 CC 72 BP 32 CC 550 BP 33 CC 323 BP 34 CD 110 BP 35 CB 120 BP 36 C69.56 BP 37 CC 887 BP 38 CD 187 BP 39 CD 301 BP 40 CD 1 BP 41 No inv. no. BP 42 CE 200 BP 43 CC 465 BP 44 C68.465 BP 45 C67.159 BP 46 C73.52 BP 47 C73.54

Feet

Male thigh

BP 25 CC 574

Legs

Finger & sword hilt

BP 23 CC 889

Type

BP 22 CC 890

Inv. No.

Forum reservoir

Forum reservoir

Temple B ext. SW

Arx

Arx

Forum

Arx

Basilica, NE aisle

Basilica, nave

Basilica, NE aisle

Basilica, NE aisle

Forum SE cistern

Arx

Basilica, SW aisle

Arx

Arx

Arx

Arx

Arx

Forum reservoir

Forum SE cistern

Forum

Arx

Arx

Basilica, nave

Basilica, nave

Findspot

Under life

Under life

Under life

Under life

Under life

Under life?

Life-sized

Life-sized

Life-sized

Life-sized

Over life

Life-sized

Life-sized

Over life

Over life

Over life

Over life

Under life

Life-sized

Life-sized

Over life

Over life

Over life

Under life

Life-sized

Life-sized

Size

Medium-grained white

Medium-grained white

Coarse-grained marble

Coarse-grained marble

Fine-grained white

Fine- to medium-grained white

Fine-grained white

Fine-grained white

Fine-grained white

Fine-grained grayish white

Fine-grained white, gray veins

Fine-grained white, gray veins

Fine-grained white, gray veins

Fine-grained white

Fine-grained white

Fine- to medium-grained white, Greek?

Fine-grained white

Medium-grained white

Fine-grained white

Fine-grained white

Medium- to coarse-grained white

Fine-grained white

Fine- to medium-grained white, Greek?

Coarse-grained white

Fine-grained white

Fine- to medium-grained white

Marble Type

228

BODY PARTS

Max. Pres. L. 0.196, Max. Pres. W. 0.13 m. Broken on all sides, splitting; weathered and earth stained; pitted and stained by lichens; traces of mortar. The crescent-shaped locks are delicately and shallowly carved.

BP 2: Life-sized Male Head: Hair at Nape of Neck Neronian

Fig. 269

CC 17. Found in 1950 on arx at east end of Via Sacra on surface. Fine-grained white marble. Proper H. ca. 0.115, Proper W. ca. 0.13 m. Broken on all sides, splitting, worn and granular; surface earth stained grayish, a few root marks, red stain on broken surface. This fragment preserves two rows of half-crescent-shaped pointed locks at the back of the neck. The locks of the lower row point outward from the presumed center. This piece almost joins portrait PS-Head 2 (Nero?); the marbles are the same as is the quality of workmanship in carving the locks of hair; both were found on the arx. However, the way in which the hair at the nape of the neck curls is not necessarily a feature of Nero’s hair. A close parallel is a head in Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek.3 If the neck for this fragment were long enough, the hair on the nape could have been well above the edge of a toga behind the neck, so the fragment could have belonged to the statue of Nero in the odeum. If so, Nero’s head broke from its surviving tenon and was taken to the arx in post-antique times and destroyed.

BP 3: Slightly Over Life-sized Male Head: Hair Julio-Claudian

Fig. 270

CD 23. Found in 1952 outside steps of basilica at northwest end in Level I. Fine-grained white to grayish marble. Proper L. 0.16 (side to side), Proper W. 0.15 (crown to front) m. Broken on two sides; chipped, battered; lime encrusted; surface weathered granular and earth stained, root marks. This is the top and part of the back of the proper left side of a portrait head made to be attached separately. The underside is fat, picked with a large point and smoothed for attachment. Delicately and shallowly crescent locks in a Julio-Claudian style.

3

Inv. no. 752; F. Johansen, Catalogue: Roman Portraits, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen: Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, 1994, 222–23 no. 99, considered Neronian.

NECKS AND TENONS

229

Necks and Tenons BP 4: Over Life-sized Neck from Draped Figure

Figs. 271–72

CC 432. Found in 1950 near arx gate on surface. Fine- to medium-grained white marble. H. 0.137, Gr. W. 0.178, Diam. neck 0.122 m. Broken at top through middle of neck and drapery at back; left side and bottom broken away. Surface earth stained and granular. Extensive traces of mortar. This fragment preserves the lower part of the neck with some of the chest in front and drapery behind and on either side of the neck. The drapery projects so as to rest on the corresponding drapery of the body at the back. The roughly picked surface below this would not have been visible. The drapery’s width varies from 0.027 at the left to 0.014 m at the center back; its back has roughly indicated vertical folds that would have corresponded to those of its body. On the neck is a shallow horizontal depression. It is possible that this had belonged to the over life-sized fgure of Drusus Minor, a fragment of whose head was found in the forum reservoir in 1973, PS-Head 1; his statue would have been togate. See also below, BP 8 (right shoulder), 20 (left hand), and 33 (right foot).

BP 5: Neck and Tenon of Over Life-sized Male Figure

Fig. 273

C68.606. Found in 1968 on the northeast side of the forum on the surface. Medium-grained white marble. Proper H. 0.179, Gr. W. of tenon 0.175, Diam. of neck along line of shoulders 0.143, D. of tenon below sternal notch 0.114 m. Head broken away through middle of neck. Tenon complete although battered at tip. Very worn, grains of marble exposed all over; chipped; earth stained, some root marks, minimum lime flm. This is the lower two-thirds of the neck and tenon of a well over life-sized male fgure. It does not ft the cuirassed fgure PS-St 6 nor the unnumbered togate shoulder (BP 8 below). Only the front and sides of the neck are fnished. The break occurs through the projecting larynx. Below this is a shallow depression for the sternal notch. No collarbones are indicated. The modeling is soft and gently modulated. The face must have turned slightly to the proper right, for there is a tenseness in the left tendon going up from the sternal notch and a twist in a muscle on the right side of the neck. The larynx itself seems disposed a little to the right of the sternal notch. Only a little of the chest is represented. It merges with a ball-like tenon, very shallow and rounded, meant to ft into a socket shallow toward the front. The back rises straight up, and the rough surface continues right up to the break. Thus, the socket must have been high in back, low in front, and rounded at the bottom. Alongside the right side of the neck near the back where it merges with the chest there is a rough piece of marble separated from the neck by a channel made by a running drill. This may represent a bit of drapery, indicating that the neck belonged to a draped fgure. The tenon’s surfaces are roughly picked with a large point.

230

BODY PARTS

BP 6: Over Life-sized Neck Tenon

Fig. 274

CD 228. Found in 1951 in nave of basilica, Level I. Fine-grained white marble. L. 0.16, W. 0.133, D. 0.102 m. Broken at top; earth stained, lime encrusted, root marks. This is the tip of a rather lopsided conical tenon. Surface very roughly picked.

BP 7: Under Life-sized Neck Tenon

Fig. 275

CD 404. Found in 1951 in southwest aisle of basilica. Extremely fne-grained grayish white marble. Max. Pres. L. 0.092, Max. Pres. W. 0.066, Max. Pres. Th. 0.052 m. Broken through top and at back; rust stain at bottom near dowel hole; slightly earth stained. This small, conical tenon preserves a bit of the lower neck with a depression in the center. Below this the surface was roughened with parallel strokes of a small point. A dowel hole extends the length of the tenon.

Shoulders and Arms BP 8: Right Shoulder of Over Life-sized Togatus

Figs. 276–78

No inv. no. Found on arx, presumably in 1948, east of podium of “Capitolium” on surface. Fine- to medium-grained white marble. Proper H. 0.21, L. side to side 0.34, W. front to back 0.212 m. Broken horizontally across bottom, sloping downward toward back; this break is relatively fat. Broken vertically through neck cavity and uppermost part of chest. Traces of mortar concentrated on underside. Surface: discolored gray, grainy, with small iron stain on back. This presents the right shoulder and most of the socket for a separately made head of a togate fgure. The narrow, folded edge of the toga rests behind the neck along the top of the shoulder and upper arm. In front the tunic falls in shallow folds from the shoulder. In back the folds of the toga slant toward the right. The left part of the back is fat, set in a bit from a wide fold of the toga falling from behind the neck, and roughly fnished with a point. The neck socket is very roughly fnished with a large point; it is rebated at the back to support the back part of the head. The neck tenon, above BP 6, which has a bit of drapery projecting from the back, seems to ft and probably belongs to this piece. Both are over life-sized, and their marbles match, though the neck tenon was found in the basilica. It is possible that this had belonged to the over life-sized fgure of Drusus Minor, a fragment of whose head was found in the forum reservoir in 1973 (PS-Head 1); his statue would have been togate. See also below, BP 20 (left hand) and BP 33 (right foot).

231

SHOULDERS AND ARMS

BP 9: Left Shoulder to Elbow of Life-sized Togatus

Figs. 279–80

CA 37 (elbow): Found in 1948 on arx on surface; CD 304 (shoulder): found in 1951 in nave of basilica, just below Level I. Fine-grained white marble. CA 37: Proper H. 0.35, Proper W. 0.24 m. Broken on three sides. Surface very worn and chipped, discolored gray and brown; stained and pitted by lichens; traces of mortar, lime encrustations, and iron stains around dowel. CD 304: Proper H. 0.243, L. from top of shoulder to break at lower arm 0.294 m. Broken on two sides. Earth stained, root marks, lime encrusted, traces of mortar. Near the end of the shoulder a mass of bunched folds falls toward the swelling chest (fg. 279); over the arm at least two folds in low relief curve slightly downward. At the top of the back (fg. 280), a roughly worked edge corresponds to the bunched folds on the shoulder. A shallow groove almost parallels the line of the upper arm. The surface is worked fat with a claw chisel. The other piece preserves folds of drapery over a bent left elbow and part of the upper and lower arm as well as a very battered inset, containing remains of an iron dowel, for a separately attached arm and hand. The actual attachment surface is broken away. A few very battered folds remain of those that fall forward from the shoulder; the edge of the break on the left follows the line of the original folds. In back (fg. 280), a shallowly chiseled groove separates a fat fold that must correspond to the folds of the toga that fall back over the shoulder from two folds separated by deep V-shaped valleys that must correspond to the space between the elbow and the body. The surface is roughly worked with a claw chisel. That these pieces belong together, despite their different fndspots, is clear from the matching diagonal breaks that almost join through the upper arm as well as the matching folds on either side of the break in front, along with the continuation of the groove in back. See above, pp. 8–9, for the different fndspots for pieces of the same statue.

BP 10: Fragment of Right Shoulder of Life-sized or Slightly Under Life-sized Togatus Figs. 281–82 CC 897. Found in 1950 on northwest side of forum arch on surface. Medium-grained white marble. Proper H. ca. 0.12, Proper D. ca. 0.161, Proper L. from outside of arm to neck ca. 0.159 m. Broken below through arm above armpit and breast, at proper left side roughly vertically through shoulder. Top and front battered; large chip in drapery over armpit. Surface weathered grainy, earth stained brownish gray; patches of black stains; pitted by lichens in places. This fragment preserves the end of the right shoulder and part of the chest of a togate fgure. Shallow folds fall diagonally above the breast toward the armpit; others fall along the arm and down the back. On the back a thick fold of the toga falls diagonally toward his arm.

232

BODY PARTS

BP 11: Partially Draped Right Upper Arm of Life-sized Male Figure

Fig. 283

CC 575. Found in 1950 on arx, built into medieval arx wall at northwest corner of Temple D. Fine- to medium-grained white marble. Gr. L. 0.212, Gr. W. 0.145, H. 0.168 m. Both ends and bottom of drapery broken away. Bits of iron adhere to dowel hole in broken end of tunic; surfaces there stained reddish. Weathered grayish brown and grainy; black patches at back. Arm and edges of drapery chipped. Many patches of tiny pits from action of lichens. This is a section of a right upper arm raised almost parallel to the ground so that the folds of a sleeve fall downward, sloping toward the fgure’s chest; no folds are indicated at the back. The hem of the sleeve is undercut and, at the top of the swelling biceps, it is pinched together to form a small peak resembling that visible at the hem of the tunic on the upraised arm of the Augustus from Prima Porta. It is possible that this arm could have belonged to a second, life-sized, cuirassed fgure since it is too small to have belonged to PS-St 6. The draped end of the fragment preserves a smooth face slanting obliquely away from the frontal plane. In this is preserved a piece of dowel hole rectangular in section, whose rear side is broken away, for attachment to the shoulder. The preserved side of the dowel hole measures 0.021 m near the top, 0.025 m at the bottom, and 0.09 m deep.

BP 12: Left Elbow of Over Life-sized Togate Figure

Fig. 284

CC 320. Found in 1951 on north slope of arx on surface. Fine-grained white marble. As preserved: Proper L. 0.96, Proper W. 0.132, Proper H. 0.17 m. Most of both arms broken away. Surface earth stained brownish gray; root marks; tiny pits from lichens. Edges of drapery chipped. Marble splitting in area of drapery near crook of elbow. Although so little of the drapery is preserved, it is just possible to visualize the elbow bent forward from an upper arm sloping gently outward and a forearm held forward. The drapery over the forearm corresponds to the hem of the toga that has been drawn steeply upward toward this arm, where it crosses over it to fall down on the outer side of the fgure. The curved edge, clearly visible, must correspond to the edge of the hem that overlaps the part of the toga that covers the upper arm and elbow. This shows two rather wide channels, one deeper than the other, both ending just before the hem. The carving is perfunctory.

BP 13: Right Forearm and Elbow of Over Life-sized Male Figure

Fig. 285

CD 122. Found in 1951 outside southwest side of basilica in Level I. Fine-grained white marble containing two small streaks of irregular crystalline structure. L. 0.322 (not including dowel), L. from inner elbow 0.215, Gr. W. 0.12 m. Broken through arm above elbow and at wrist. Heavily encrusted with lime and mortar; root marks; rust stains around dowel.

SHOULDERS AND ARMS

233

This muscular forearm is bent at the elbow in an obtuse angle and apparently held with the wrist facing forward or possibly facing the body, suggesting that the arm must have been raised. An iron dowel ftted into a squared hole above the elbow projects at right angles from the original upper arm at the break. D. of the dowel hole: 0.04 m. The surface of the arm around the dowel is completely fnished, an indication that the arm was originally carved in one piece. The dowel may have served to secure the arm to a surface behind the fgure. The arm is softly modeled, with swelling muscles, a prominent tendon at the inner elbow with an adjacent hollow, and a few very subtly rendered veins. All surfaces are equally fnished and polished such that the arm must have been designed to be seen from all angles.

BP 14: Fragment of Life-sized Upper Arm?

Figs. 286–87

C72.117. Found in Street N, east trench, on surface. Fine-grained white marble. L. 0.143, W. 0.104 m. Broken at either end and lengthwise through a long dowel channel, rectangular through entire length; L. as preserved 0.10. Dowel hole better preserved at one end: L. 0.022, W. 0.011 m. Rust stains within dowel channel. Very worn; lime flm, root marks. The break at one end (fg. 287) preserves a trace of a “bridge” across the dowel channel; this seems to indicate that the break occurred at the point where the channel had been completely closed—for instance, a dowel hole through that end of the arm. Curved sides fank the open channel, an unusual feature whose purpose is not known.

BP 15: Right Forearm and Hand of Life-sized Male Figure

Fig. 288

CD 741. Found in 1951 just outside northwest end of nave of basilica, Level I. Fine-grained white marble. L. 0.267, W. across knuckles 0.09 m. Broken at elbow end through joint surface and dowel hole; fngers and part of separately attached hand missing; top of hand broken away through dowel hole; earth stained; lime flm, traces of mortar. This right forearm and hand without its separately attached fngers fts the scale of the two togate fgures, PS-St 2 (Nero) and 5, which were also found in the basilica.

BP 16: Life-sized Right Arm of Male Figure CC 880. Found in 1950 in nave of basilica on surface. Fine-grained white marble. L. 0.164, W. at wrist end 0.066, at elbow end 0.087 m. Traces of lime, rust stains, a few surface chips.

Fig. 289

234

BODY PARTS

Broken at both ends. At the wider, elbow end is a narrow dowel hole for attachment to the elbow, Diam. 0.011 m.

BP 17: Elbow and Part of Left Lower Arm of Under Life-sized Figure

Fig. 290

C73.53. Found in forum reservoir, Level I. Fine-grained white marble. L. 0.14, W. 0.07 m. Broken just above elbow and through mid-forearm; worn; weathered gray, lime flm, root marks. This belonged to an approximately half life-sized nude arm, bent at the elbow in a right angle as though extended forward. In the break at the elbow are the remains of the end of a round dowel hole, 0.01 m in diameter.

Hands BP 18: Left Hand of Over Life-sized Male

Fig. 291

No inv. no. Found in 1948 in forecourt of “Capitolium” on surface. Medium-grained white marble. W. across knuckles 0.114, W. where wrist joins hand 0.091, L. 0.16 m. Broken through fngers just below knuckles, thumb broken off before frst joint; wrist break diagonal from end of ulna to just above end of radius. Minor chips on top of hand. Surface earth stained, weathered gray and grainy, lime deposits, traces of mortar, root marks. This is a feshy left hand, well over life-sized. Knuckles, veins on top of hand, raised part of ulna, folds of fesh on palm and at join of wrist to palm softly modeled. The end of a cutting rectangular in section with sharp edges may be seen of the upper surface of the little fnger: for a ring or an ancient repair? The fngers would have been slightly curved, the thumb held just under the forefnger. Most likely belongs to the Hellenistic torso of Asclepius, PS 1.

BP 19: Left Hand of Slightly Over Life-sized Male Figure Holding Rotulus

Figs. 292–93

CF 1720. Found in 1953 on the southwest side of the curia/comitium on the surface. Fine-grained white marble. Proper L. 0.153, W. across knuckles 0.103, W. wrist at base of hand 0.075 m. Broken diagonally through wrist; end of thumb and most of next two fngers broken away as well as both ends of rotulus; last digits of other two fngers battered. Very worn, weathered gray and grainy, especially on back of hand. This large left hand wears a signet ring and grasps a rotulus; both ring and rotulus are signs of senatorial status. The hand must have belonged to a togate fgure that had most likely stood in the forum.

HANDS

BP 20: Left Hand of Over Life-sized Male

235

Fig. 294–95

C67.385. Found in 1967 on the northwest end of the forum on the surface. Fine-grained white marble. L. 0.132, W. across knuckles 0.105, Gr. W. 0.125 m. Broken through wrist. Forefnger mostly gone; only knuckle of middle fnger, frst metacarpal of ring fnger, and entire little fnger preserved. Surface weathered and grainy. Root marks. The fngers curl around a cylindrical object, likely a rotulus held by a togate fgure. Considering the fndspot not far from the forum reservoir where the fragment of the head of Drusus Minor (PSHead 1) was found, this hand, also over life-sized, could have belonged to that statue, which was most likely togate. See also above BP 4 (neck), BP 8 (right shoulder), and below BP 33 (right foot). BP 21: Left Hand of Over Life-sized Male

Figs. 296–97

C68.625. Found in 1968 on northeast side of forum on surface. Coarse-grained white marble with irregular crystalline structure. L. forefnger to back 0.139, W. across knuckles as preserved 0.089 m. Broken at wrist; hand and base of fngers and thumb preserved; they grasp a rotulus. Very battered and chipped; slightly earth stained brownish, root marks. The hand grasps a rotulus, broken at both ends, indicating that it had belonged to a togate fgure. A trace of a signet ring with an oval bezel remains on the ring fnger. The hand is feshy and softly modeled with very little indication of tendons or bone structure. Delicately drilled and chiseled grooves separate the fngers. The overall workmanship is excellent. The nature of the marble seems close to that of the over life-sized male lower leg, BP 27, seen best in fgure 306. N.B.: There are three over life-sized or slightly over life-sized left hands wearing a signet ring and holding a rotulus found in different parts of the forum: BP 19 From southwest side of the curia/comitium, surface; this is only slightly over life-sized. BP 20 From northwest end of forum, surface; over life-sized. This is a very similar hand, also holding a rotulus and wearing a signet ring. However, this hand is much larger, heroic in size; its size and marble resemble those of the female foot BP 37 below. BP 21 From “northeast exterior” of forum, surface; over life-sized. BP 22: Forefnger or Thumb Grasping Sword Hilt

Fig. 298

CC 890. Found in 1950 in nave of basilica on surface. L. 0.102, Gr. W. 0.059, Gr. Diam. of hilt 0.037, Diam. of pommel 0.043 m. Fine- to medium-grained white marble. Only hilt and frst metacarpal of fnger preserved; fnger had broken off and has been reattached. Part of pommel battered away; extensive break on side opposite fnger where rest of hand would have been. Some earth stains, a few root marks, lime deposits, and traces of mortar.

236

BODY PARTS

This is most of a cylindrical sword hilt that could preserve part of either a right thumb or left forefnger of a life-sized male fgure; L. of fnger as preserved from knuckle to frst joint: 0.045 m. The hilt has a simple pommel whose beveled profle slopes toward a fat end with a very small and shallowly drilled hole in the center. This piece most likely belongs to the cuirassed fgure PS-St 6.

BP 23: Right Hand, Slightly Under Life-sized

Figs. 299–300

CC 889. Found in 1950 in northeast aisle of basilica. Fine-grained white marble. L. 0.082, W. across knuckles as preserved 0.06 m. Broken through wrist, across knuckles, and through metacarpal of thumb; little fnger entirely broken away. Surface weathered and chipped, a few root marks; rust stains about dowel hole in middle fnger. The hand is bent outward from the wrist, with knuckles sloping somewhat downward. The thumb is held toward the palm, probably directed toward the tip of the forefnger. Three of the fngers preserve dowel holes in their knuckles, Diam. of each 0.0045 m. There is little indication of bone structure at the top of the hand. The feshy palm shows chiseled grooves at bases of thumb and fngers, one at outer edge of palm, and two across the inner side of the wrist. Many rasp marks remain on palm and at base of thumb.

BP 24: Right Hand, Under Life-sized

Fig. 301

CA 270. Found in 1948 on arx near “Capitolium” on surface. Coarse-grained white marble. L. 0.112, Gr. W. 0.082, W. across knuckles 0.067 m. Broken just below wrist; preserved are metacarpal zone of thumb, most of forefnger and middle fnger, only stubs of ring and little fngers. Chipped, earth stained. This is a pudgy right hand suitable for a statuette. The pose is relaxed, with a slightly curved forefnger. The back of the hand is rather boneless. The marble is not carved away between the thumb and forefnger. The other fngers are crudely separated by shallow chiseled grooves. The palm and underside of the fngers are modeled but not smoothed as was the back of the hand.

Legs BP 25: Over Life-sized Male Thigh

Fig. 302

CC 574. Found in 1950 in arx wall at northwest corner of Temple D along with PS 1 and PS-St 6. Fine- to medium-grained white marble, possibly Greek. H. 0.239, W. at top and bottom 0.185 and 0.134 m. Broken top and bottom; surface pitted and chipped, lime flm, root marks.

LEGS

237

This is a fragment of a nude mid-left thigh, softly modeled, with back not so highly fnished. Swelling musculature on more roughly fnished side must be the hamstring at the back near the buttocks. BP 26: Right Lower Leg and Foot of Over Life-sized Nude Male Figure

Figs. 303–5

CG 238 (lower leg) and C67.250 (foot). CG 238 found in 1954 in southeast room of curia in Level I; C67.250 found in 1967 in two sections of southwest side of basilica in fall of rubble just below surface. Fine-grained white marble. Total H. 0.402 m. Foot: L. 0.293, W. across instep 0.079, W. across foot as preserved from joint of little toe 0.116, Th. of plinth 0.035–0.04 m. Leg: H. 0.262 m. Leg CG 238 joins foot at ankle, though they have not been restored as such (fgs. 303–4); foot C67.250 consists of three joining pieces (fg. 305). Leg broken through middle of calf; toes broken away through knuckles. Plinth broken from around foot and below support. Wedgeshaped piece missing from instep as well as small pieces from ankles near join of leg and foot. Large chip from top of leg at break near front. Surfaces very worn, exposing grains of marble; battered and chipped all over. Earth stained, root marks, lime encrustations, traces of mortar. Embedded in upper broken surface of leg is a piece of iron with rust stains nearby. This is a well over life-sized, weight-bearing lower right leg and foot of a standing male fgure. The back of the heel and calf are attached to a support behind the fgure. The leg leans slightly outward as it joins the foot, so that the knee is not directly over the ankle. The heel is not raised, and the foot points straight ahead. The inner side of the calf is strongly modeled and rather harshly articulated from the shin. The remnants of both sides of the ankle are strongly indicated. The foot, however, is highly summary in its rendering; no tendons or veins can be seen. It rests fat-footedly on its plinth. Both foot and leg are separated from plinth and support respectively by crudely rendered grooves made by the running drill on the foot, by the chisel on the leg. The modeling is summary and lacks refnement. The inner side of the leg and foot seems less fnished since traces of a claw chisel or fne point work remain. The support seems worked on the sides and back. The back is fat but slants from frontal plane, worked with large and medium points and left rough.

BP 27: Fragment of Male Lower Leg

Fig. 306

C69.51. Found in southwest extension of forum in SE cistern, Level I. White marble. L. 0.128, W. 0.105, H. 0.163 m. Worn. Fragment of a lower leg preserving the lower part of the calf and shin. The surface is considerably worn on the rear and right side, but the left and front sides are in very good condition. A hole has

238

BODY PARTS

been drilled at the top for attachment to the rest of the leg. The lower surface represents a break, which is considerably worn. A second drill hole is in the rear side for attachment to a support.

BP 28: Lower Leg Just above Ankle of Life-sized Male Wearing Calceus

Fig. 307

C73.51. Found in 1973 in forum reservoir, Level I. Fine-grained white marble. H. 0.12, W. at top 0.10, at bottom 0.084 m. Broken just above ankle; top appears worked in such a way as to receive a separate piece by forming a ring, battered away along its top, that surrounds a depression. Back of leg unfnished and worked smooth with fne point, apparently not meant to be seen. These features could indicate that the foot had been made separately and set below and just inside the hem of a toga. Badly worn and discolored. This preserves the shoe up to the cuff, which folds over at the top; below this is a knotted lace. Parallel wrinkles in the shoe above and below the lace are worked as shallow grooves.

BP 29: Life-sized Draped Lower Leg of Female Figure

Fig. 308

CC 778. Found in 1950 on arx on west side of “Capitolium” in Level I. Fine-grained white marble. Max. Pres. L. 0.188, Gr. W. 0.137 m. Broken top, bottom, and back. Edges of drapery chipped and battered, marble splitting at either end. Lime deposits and root marks. This may be the bottom of a right lower leg showing two folds of a palla above several vertical folds of the stola. Despite its fndspot, it could belong to the lower legs of the draped female portrait statue PS-St 4 since the statuary type, type of marble, and workmanship agree (see above, pp. 8–9, for the different fndspots for pieces of the same statue). It could complete part of the lower right leg, but it does not join. The two folds of the palla continue the lines of those in the portrait statue.

BP 30: Under Life-sized Right Lower Leg and Foot on Plinth

Fig. 309

CA 370. Found in 1948 in dump above foor of “Capitolium.” Medium-grained white marble. H. 0.177, W. 0.103, Gr. D. 0.126 m. Broken across instep and diagonally through middle of calf and support behind. Plinth broken away on either side of foot. Heavily encrusted with lime and mortar; surface weathered and grainy, with many patches of tiny pits made by lichens. This is a nude, weight-bearing leg and foot of a statuette of undetermined sex. The back of the leg and heel are attached to the support behind, which projects laterally on both sides. The support, rounded along the sides and fattish at the back, is separated from the leg and foot by a shallow

239

FEET

groove that accentuates the outline of the fgure. The leg and foot are summarily modeled; the inner side of the calf and both ankle bones are not strongly indicated. The foot extends from the support at right angles with no rounding of the heel against it.

Feet BP 31: Nude, Over Life-sized Male Left Heel

Fig. 310

CC 72. Found in 1950 on arx, forecourt of Temple D on surface. Fine-grained white marble. Proper H. 0.16, L. from back to front 0.166 m. Broken above ankle and diagonally through instep. Surface weathered and chipped. This is a strongly modeled, well over life-sized male left foot preserving the ankle, heel, part of the instep, as well as some of the support under the heel; this support suggests that the heel was raised and that it did not belong to the weight leg of a standing fgure.

BP 32: Nude, Over Life-sized Male Left Foot

Figs. 311–12

CC 550. Found in 1950 built into arx wall behind Temple D. Medium-grained white marble, possibly Greek. H. 0.265, Gr. W. across instep 0.103, L. with heel fat 0.302 m. Broken above ankle; toes battered away; back of heel badly chipped with splitting marble at its base. Root marks, traces of lime. This well over life-sized left foot was raised, as the fattened underside of the ball of the big toe indicates. The fnished underside of the heel and instep as well as the angle at which the preserved base of the little toe joins the instep substantiate this. As such, it may well have belonged to PS 1, the Hellenistic torso of Asclepius, which had a right weight leg. The foot is well modeled; a vein visible above the left ankle curves downward, then up over the top of the foot toward the toes. The end of a drill hole is preserved between the root of the fourth and little toes, and a short drilled channel remains between the big and second toes.

BP 33: Right Foot of Over Life-sized Male Wearing Calceus

Fig. 313

CC 323. Found in 1950 on north slope of arx on surface. Fine-grained white marble. H. 0.179, Gr. W. 0.112 m. Broken just above ankle, through instep, and diagonally along support underneath. Badly weathered and discolored; traces of mortar, a few root marks. This is a well over life-sized foot preserved only in the heel, part of the ankle, and part of the instep. It wears a calceus, as the lace visible on the outer side indicates, though it is not clear

240

BODY PARTS

which type of calceus it is.4 The remnant of marble under it suggests that it was raised. It could have belonged to the over life-sized fgure of Drusus Minor (PS-Head 1), which must have been togate and which probably had stood in the forum, perhaps the basilica. See also above, BP 4 (neck) and BP 8 (right shoulder).

BP 34: Left Foot of Life-sized Male Wearing Calceus Resting on Plinth

Figs. 314–15

C69.56. Found in 1969 in Southwest Extension of forum, southeast cistern, Level I. Fine-grained white marble with gray veins. L. 0.348, H. 0.174, W. front edge of plinth 0.199, Th. of plinth at right front 0.067, Gr. W. of foot 0.105 m. Plinth broken on three sides, with only the front edge preserved. Broken through drapery above foot; curved attachment surface at back broken away at proper left. All surfaces worn, earth stained, and covered with root marks; traces of mortar. Chip in upper front edge of plinth. Tip of big toe abraded away; top of foot very weathered, worn, and pitted, especially along toes. A small drilled hole, Diam. 0.007 m, in front of toes. The foot belongs to a weight leg. Diagonal straps cross the front with narrow overlapping folds. The end of a lace is just visible next to the outer side under the hem of the toga; it is not clear which type of calceus the foot wears.5 The toes splay outward from a narrow instep. Pieces of the hem of the toga are preserved on either side of the instep; those on the inner side preserve a few vertical folds. Although the back is broken at the proper left corner, it is clear that it was worked immediately behind the foot to slide into a matching cutting below the hem of the toga. On the inner side of the back is a fat, roughly worked surface, thicker than the surface of the plinth in front. Perpendicular to that is a raised worked surface corresponding to the drapery on the proper right. This slopes up toward the foot and then curves back and around toward the proper left where it has broken away. The curved section at the back is very similar to that of the female foot BP 39 below and suggests that they are contemporary.

BP 35: Right Foot of Life-sized Male Wearing Calceus Resting on Plinth

Figs. 316–17

CB 120. Found in 1949 outside east side of podium of “Capitolium” on surface. Fine-grained white marble with gray veins. L. along axis of foot 0.184, W. perpendicular to axis of foot 0.163, H. 0.135, L. of preserved outer side of plinth 0.175, Th. of plinth 0.048 (outer side), 0.092 m (inner side). Broken at back through instep and plinth; piece of plinth under big toe broken away and reattached; rest of front of plinth not preserved. Very worn and grainy, chipped and splitting. This is a non-weight-bearing foot with raised heel and leftward tilted instep. The marble beneath the foot has not been removed. A trace of overlapping straps over the instep has very low, parallel

4

On the calcei senatorii and patricii see Goette 1988, 449–64.

5

See n. 4 above.

FEET

241

ridges similar to those of BP 33 above. It is not clear which type of calceus the foot wears.6 The sole is rendered by coarsely chiseled grooves visible along the outer side and by a raised border under the toes. It rests on a thick plinth.

BP 36: Toes of Sandaled Right Foot of Slightly Over Life-sized Male

Fig. 318

CD 110. Found in 1951 in southwest aisle of basilica, corresponding to central vault supporting cavea of odeum, in Level I. Fine-grained white marble. L. 0.10, W. 0.66, H. 0.046 m. Only one toe, tip of one shorter, adjacent toe, and edge of other adjacent toe preserved resting on thick sole. Surface worn, grainy, encrusted with lime and root marks. This fragment shows only the last joint and nail of one toe resting on a thick, double-layered sole of a sandal. The toe is broad and feshy, with a short nail clearly delineated. The toe is well separated from the sandal and adjoining toes by chiseled grooves. The two layers of the sole are similarly separated by a wider groove. The back has a rough surface perpendicular to the underside, in which are traces of a dowel hole, 0.052 m. long, extending toward the preserved toe for attachment to the rest of the foot. The fat underside is worked with the claw chisel. It is not impossible that it could have belonged to the statue of Claudius erected in the central niche of the scaenae frons of the odeum. This would have been a weight-bearing foot, probably leaning against a support in such a way that only the toes extend forward from it, based on comparison with the Augustus from Thessalonica. If so, this fragment could have been separately made in a different marble for attachment or was an ancient repair.

BP 37: Right Foot of Over Life-sized Female Wearing Soft Shoe Resting on Low Plinth Figs. 319–20 CC 887. Found in 1950 in northeast aisle of basilica on surface. Fine-grained white marble, Pentelic. H. 0.095, L. front of plinth to back break 0.20, W. foot across instep 0.093, H. plinth beneath big toe and at instep 0.035 m. Broken unevenly across instep and along inner side of plinth; tip of big toe chipped away; badly worn and weathered, dotted with small holes. Collins-Clinton, Attanasio, Platania 2008, 25 table 1 no. CO2, 29 table 3 no. CO2. Only the front half of the foot, along with the hem of the stola on the inner side, is preserved.7 The front edge of the plinth is also preserved, fat and worked with a claw chisel. The outer edge of the plinth roughly follows the curve of the toes, its edge roughly picked and badly worn. The fat underside was worked with a medium pick and claw chisel before being smoothed. 6

See p. 240 n. 4 above.

7 On the hem of the stola falling to the middle of the foot see above PS-St 3, n. 106.

242

BODY PARTS

This slightly over life-sized weight-bearing foot rests fat upon the plinth; the contours of the toes appear under the soft leather. Very shallow grooves under the shoe may represent a sort of sole. The stola had fallen across the top of the foot about where the break on that side occurs. Toward the instep only the hem is preserved; it falls onto the plinth toward the break and shows two deeply drilled channels depicting the ends of nearly vertical folds. The workmanship seems cursory.

BP 38: Intact Right Foot of Life-sized Female

Figs. 321–23

CD 187. Found in 1951 in northeast aisle of basilica in Level I. Fine-grained grayish white marble. H. 0.163, L. 0.26, W. across toes 0.10 m. Earth stained, root marks, traces of mortar, chipped especially at tip of big toe. This is a non-weight-bearing foot with raised heel and leftward tilted instep, wearing a soft shoe, the calceus muliebris. The forms of the toes are clearly visible. Most of the foot is covered by the stola, which falls to the plinth on the outer side, curving around to the back.8 It is a fnely carved piece, made separately to be inserted. The fat upper surface slopes leftward toward another fat surface on the inner side, sloping slightly downward; both surfaces are fnished with a medium point and a claw chisel. The lack of traces of dowel holes suggests that the piece was secured with adhesives and by the weight of the fgure itself. The fat underside is similarly worked but more roughly. The toes extend beyond the underside on their right. Traces of rasp marks remain on the fnished surfaces. The plinth on which the fgure stood is very low; the toes overhanging the plinth would have rested on the surface of the statue’s base.

BP 39: Right Foot of Life-sized Female in Soft Shoe

Fig. 324

CD 301. Found in 1951 at southeast end of nave of basilica, in late antique oven. Fine-grained white marble. L. 0.102, H. 0.081, W. across base of toes 0.092 m. Broken all around, but preserves most of toes, some of top of foot, and part of surface of plinth on big-toe side. Tips of toes chipped, surfaces grainy and earth stained. This piece preserves the toes and part of the instep of a weight-bearing right foot. The outline of the big toe, including the base of its nail, is visible through the soft material, the calceus muliebris. The break across the instep would correspond roughly to the edge of the woman’s stola resting there.9 Perfunctory workmanship.

BP 40: Front of Right Foot of Under Life-sized Female in Soft Shoe on Plinth

Fig. 325

CD 1. Found in 1951 in northeast aisle near the scaenae frons of the odeum on the surface. Fine-grained white marble. L. 0.114, Gr. W. 0.09, H. 0.112, Th. of plinth at tip of toe 0.061 m. 8

See p. 241 n. 7 above.

9

See p. 241 n. 7 above.

243

FEET

Broken on all sides; only front of foot preserved along with some of front of plinth. Tip of toe chipped away, large chip in right side. Upper surface weathered and granular; earth stained. This is a piece of the proper right side of the plinth of a female fgure wearing the soft calceus muliebris, of which only the toes are preserved. The foot is summarily carved with no modeling. A very roughly chiseled sole separates the foot from the plinth. In the break on the proper left side is preserved what appears to be a corner of a deep, squared cutting piercing the plinth. Its surfaces are fat and smoothed with the rasp.

BP 41: Right Foot of Under Life-sized Togate Figure

Fig. 326

No inv. no. Found in 1948 outside east side of forecourt of “Capitolium” on surface. Fine-grained white marble. Broken from leg above ankle and across instep; back of heel broken away, as is plinth. Surface weathered and grainy; a few root marks. This foot wears the senatorial shoe, a lace of which falls in front of the ankle on its right (outer) side. Above the lace a fold of the toga clings to the outside of the leg just above the ankle and curves to the front. The left (inner) side is roughly worked with a medium point and preserves fve horizontal grooves where the heel and ankle would be, below the drapery.

BP 42: Under Life-sized Right Foot Wearing Calceus on Plinth

Figs. 327–28

CE 200. Found in 1952 in north corner of forum in Level I. Fine- to medium-grained white marble. L. 0.197, W. 0.209, H. 0.167, W. of foot from little toe to joint of big toe 0.072, W. of foot across instep 0.062 m. Break at top extends downward through ankle and support on inner side; plinth broken all four sides; chipped all over; surface earth stained, worn, and grainy with patches of tiny pits, lime flm, and traces of mortar. This is a non-weight-bearing foot with raised heel that tilts inward toward the support that hides the left ankle, part of the instep, and the back. The broad straps of the shoe cover the joint of the big toe and the little toe. A lace lies against the outer side of the foot. The break looks to have occurred just below the hem of the toga. Below and behind the ball of the foot the marble has not been removed. The upper surface of the plinth rises a short distance from the inner side of the foot. The support was left very roughly fnished with a large point, as was the inner side of the foot near it. The top and underside of the plinth are roughly picked.

BP 43: Under Life-sized Sandaled Right Foot on Plinth CC 465. Found in 1950 on north slope of arx on surface. Fine-grained white marble. Foot: L. 0.148 to back of preserved outline m.

Fig. 329

244

BODY PARTS

Plinth: H. varies front to back 0.060–0.074 at back left corner and 0.062 m at back right corner. Top of foot broken off at instep and heel, leaving only toes and part of sandal. Plinth broken on three sides, leaving right side intact. Toes chipped. Surfaces earth stained, worn, and grainy. The non-weight-bearing foot points diagonally toward the right front corner of the plinth and tilts inward to reveal the sole of the sandal. The heel was raised, and the marble underneath was not carved away. The toes are long and thin, carefully rendered, and separated by drilled channels. The gap between the big toe and adjacent one suggests that the sandal had a thong. The front of the sandal is plain, with three tips of a fringe on top. The foot rests on a plinth of uneven thickness; the upper surface slopes upward toward the back and center. The upper surface, preserved right side, and underside were worked roughly with a medium point; some smoothing with the chisel is visible along the upper right edge.

BP 44: Nude Right Foot of Slightly Under Life-sized Figure

Figs. 330–31

C68.465. Found in 1968 on west slope of arx on surface. White marble. H. 0.067, L. 0.084, W. across knuckles 0.077 m. Broken through instep so only toes preserved. Extremely worn, marble crystals badly exposed; toenails and other surface details completely gone. Tips of big and little toes broken away. Earth stained gray; lime incrustations; root marks. Only the front half of the foot is preserved, revealing long, thin toes, seemingly modeled in a very rudimentary manner, although this may be due to the extremely worn condition. The instep rises sharply, indicating that the heel was raised—corresponding to the left weight leg of the statue to which it belonged. The instep appears to have been softly modeled. The foot rests on a plinth, 0.015 m thick on the inside—either roughly worked or broken on the underside—and separated from the foot by a chiseled groove, preserved only on the inner side of the foot.

BP 45: Nude Right Foot of Under Life-sized Male

Figs. 332–33

C67.159. Found in 1967 outside southwest side of Temple B on surface. Coarse-grained white marble. H. 0.113 with heel raised, L. 0.10 with heel raised, W. across foot from joint of big toe 0.054, W. across instep 0.042 m. Broken at top through ankle and at front across toes. Surface stained light brown; patches of lime incrustations; root marks. Raised left foot preserves the ankle, heel, instep, and base of toes; it tilts slightly inward. Transition to sole of foot is angular, and sole is unnaturally fat. Light traces of fne rasp remain on upper surface. Toes separated by shallow, chiseled grooves.

FEET

245

BP 46: Nude Right Foot of Half Life-sized Figure

Fig. 334–35

C73.52. Found in 1973 in forum reservoir, Level I. Medium-grained white marble. L. 0.085, W. 0.08, H. 0.082 m. Chipped; lime flm. Instep and toes of non-weight-bearing foot rest on thin, fat plinth. Rear side fnished with smooth, vertical joint face, designed to be attached separately. Toes separated by drill channels. Underside of plinth scored with toothed chisel.

BP 47: Nude Right Foot of Half Life-sized Figure on Thin Plinth

Fig. 336

C73.54. Found in 1973 in forum reservoir, Level I. Medium-grained white marble with some larger crystals. H. 0.14, L. 0.181, W. 0.085 m; Plinth: Minimum Th. under heel 0.016, Max. Th. under big toe 0.024 m. Weathered only around toes, where grains of marble exposed and splitting; chipped and worn. Traces of mortar between toes. Earth stained, root marks. This weight-bearing foot is broken from its leg about 0.06–0.07 m above inner ankle. Competent workmanship. Flesh areas smoothed; drilled channels separate the toes. Underside of plinth leveled and worked over with medium point.

APPENDIX

Colored Marbles at Cosa

T

he following colored marbles have been found at Cosa. Most are sculptural, though some are architectural: bardiglio (several pieces), black slate, giallo antico (several pieces, some of which had been discolored by heat), lumachella orientale (one piece), pavonazzetto (two pieces), and portasanta? (one piece). With one exception, all are early Imperial. Excluded from this list are tiny fragments of revetments found in 1969 and 1970 at or near the intersection of Streets M and 5 near the House of the Skeleton or in the forum, all in destruction levels. Many illustrations of these types of colored marble may be found in the forthcoming volume on the collection in the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology in Ann Arbor, Michigan. See J. Clayton Fant, Leah E. Long, and Lynley J. McAlpine, Roman Decorative Stone Collections in the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, Kelsey Museum Studies (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press). This lavishly illustrated catalogue of Roman decorative stone types focuses on the archaeological context and biographies of each object from their creation to eventual display in the museum.

Bardiglio Basins B 7: C9708; fg. 246 (Fountain Basin) Domestic Sculpture DS-Herm 5–7: Identical Shafts, only one of which, DS-Herm 5, is published: Taylor 2003a, 203–4, no. 17, C9680 not illustrated; fg. 131 Tables T-Supp 11: In Form of Herm, CD 303, C9612; fg. 188 T-Supp 13: Columnar, C9601; fg. 194 T-Top 11: Rectangular, C70.530; fgs. 213–14 Also: Revetment Frieze C9625 from the House of Diana inside the shrine Fig. 337 This piece is partially visible in Fentress et al. 2003, 50 pl. 10; see also p. 41: “A molding running down one side of the revetment [of the altar in the Shrine of Diana] suggests that the piece used was spolia from another structure.” Not in Taylor 2003a. Pres. L. 0.55, W. 0.09, W. each fascia 0.015/0.016, Th. at one edge 0.027–0.03, at other 0.02–0.022 m. Four joining pieces of a narrow revetment with a molding on both sides. Edges are beveled, smooth along upper edge, rough below; back side is smooth cut. A handsome piece.

248

COLORED MARBLES AT COSA

Black Slate DS-St 2: Base for Pan, CE 1953ab; fg. 83 T-Base 2: C9675; fg. 217

Giallo antico Domestic Sculpture DS-Herm 4: Hip Herm, C73.47; fg. 129 DS-MHB 1: Head of Bearded Dionysus, CF 2167; fg. 136 DS-MHB 2: Bust of Bearded Dionysus, CE 1598a; fg. 137 DS-MHB 5: Head of Bearded Hercules, C68.32; fg. 141 DS-MHB 6: Fragment of Bearded Silenus, CE 1545; fg. 143 Plinths DS-Other 6: Round, CE 1624; fg. 160 DS-Other 7: Octagon within Square, CE 1625; fg. 161 T-Base 2: Inlays, C9675; fg. 217 T-Base 3: C70.298; fgs. 218–19 T-Base 4: CD 396, CE 431; fgs. 220–21 Also: A square plinth? found in the garden of the House of Diana, inv. no. C9686. Julio-Claudian Fig. 338 Unpublished. Precise fndspot not known. Only one fat edge preserved, other three sides broken away. Badly lime encrusted, bits of mortar. Top is fat, underside has anathyrosis whose fat border measures 0.025–0.030 m. L. 0.20, W. 0.17 along straight, fat edge, Th. of this edge 0.03 m.

Lumachella orientale DS-Other 9: Platter or Plate, CE 1618a–c; fg. 164

Pavonazzetto DS-Other 8: Plinth, CE 1622; fg. 162 T-Base 5: Decorative Facing, C9664, from the House of Diana; fg. 222

Portasanta DS-Other 10: Marble Sample, C73.37; fg. 165

Select Bibliography

Abbreviations for standard reference works, journals, and book series follow those of the American Journal of Archaeology. In addition: EAD MusNazRom

Exploration archéologique de Délos Museo Nazionale Romano

Adam 1994: J.-P. Adam. Roman Building: Materials and Techniques, tr. A. Mathews. London and New York: Routledge. Adamo Muscettola 1998: S. Adamo Muscettola. “La Triade del Capitolium di Cuma.” In I Culti della Campania antica: Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi in ricordo di Nazarena Valenza Mele, Napoli—15–17 Maggio 1995, 219–30. Rome: G. Bretschneider. Agnoli 2002: N. Agnoli. Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Palestrine: Le sculture. Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider. Alexandridis 2004: A. Alexandridis. Die Frauen des römischen Kaiserhauses: eine Untersuchung ihrer bildlichen Darstellung von Livia bis Iulia Domna. Mainz: Zabern. Ambrogi 1995: A. Ambrogi. Vasche di età romana in marmi bianchi e colorati. Studia Archaeologica 79. Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider. Ambrogi 2005: A. Ambrogi. Labra di età romana in marmi bianchi e colorati. Studia Archaeologica 136. Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider. Attanasio et al. 2006: D. Attanasio, M. Brilli, and N. Ogle, eds. The Isotopic Signature of Classical Marbles. Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider. Attolini et al. 1991: I. Attolini et al. “Political Geography and Productive Geography between the Valleys of the Albegna and the Fiora in Northern Etruria.” In G. Barker and J. A. Lloyd, eds., Roman Landscapes: Archaeological Survey in the Mediterranean Region, 142–52. Archaeological Monographs of the British School at Rome 2. London: British School at Rome. Bacchetta 2006: A. Bacchetta. Oscilla: Rilievi sospesi di età romana. Milan: LED. Bace 1983: E. J. Bace. “Cosa: Inscriptions on Stone and Brick-Stamps.” Diss., University of Michigan. Belloni 1960: G. G. Belloni. Le Monete romane dell’età repubblicana. Milan: Archetipografa di Milano. Bianchi 1997: C. Bianchi. “I Mosaici di una casa Vulcente: la Domus del Criptoportico.” In R. M. C. Bonacasa and F. Guidobaldi, eds., Atti del IV Colloquio dell’Associazione Italiana per lo Studio e la Conservazione del Mosaico (Palermo, 9–13 December 1996), 839–52. Ravenna: Edizioni del Girasole. Bieber 1961: M. Bieber. The Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age, rev. ed. New York: Columbia University Press. Bishop and Coulston 2006: M. C. Bishop and J. C. N. Coulston. Roman Military Equipment from the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Bol 1992: P. C. Bol, ed. Forschungen zur Villa Albani: Katalog der antiken Bildwerke, vol. 3. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. Bonanno 1977: A. Bonanno. “Un gruppo di ermette decorative a Malta.” ArchCl 29:399–410. Borriello 1996: M. R. Borriello. Pompei: Abitare sotto il Vesuvio. Ferrara: Ferrara Arte.

250

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boschung 1993: D. Boschung. “Die Bildnistypen der iulisch-claudischen Kaiseramilie: ein kritischer Forschungsbericht.” JRA 6:39–79. Brown 1951: F. E. Brown. Cosa I: History and Topography. MAAR 20:5–113. Brown 1967: F. E. Brown. “Scavi a Cosa-Ansedonia (1965–1966),” BdA 52:37–41. Brown 1980: F. E. Brown. Cosa: The Making of a Roman Town. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Brown et al. 1960: F. E. Brown, E. H. Richardson, and L. Richardson, jr. Cosa II: The Temples of the Arx. MAAR 26. Rome: American Academy in Rome. Brown et al. 1993: F. E. Brown, E. H. Richardson, and L. Richardson, jr. Cosa III: The Buildings of the Forum. MAAR 37. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. Brown 1960: W. L. Brown. The Etruscan Lion. Oxford: Clarenden Press. Bruneau 1972: P. Bruneau. Les mosaïques. EAD 29. Paris: Fontemoing et Cie. Bruneau and Ducat 2005: P. Bruneau and J. Ducat. Guide de Délos, 4th ed. Paris: De Boccard. Bruno 1970: V. J. Bruno. “A Town House at Cosa.” Archaeology 23:232–41. Bruno and Scott 1993: V. J. Bruno and R. T. Scott. Cosa IV: The Houses. MAAR 38. University Park, PA.: Pennsylvania State University Press. Budde and Nicholls 1964: L. Budde and R. Nicholls. A Catalogue of the Greek and Roman Sculpture in the Fitzwilliam Museum Cambridge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Buttrey 1980: T. V. Buttrey. “Cosa: The Coins.” MAAR 34:6–153. Carandini 1985a: A. Carandini, ed. La romanizzazione dell’Etruria, il territorio di Vulci. Milan: Electa. Carandini 1985b: A. Carandini, ed. Settefnestre: una villa schiavistica nell’Etruria romana, 3 vols. Modena: Panini. Carandini and Cambi 2002: A. Carandini and F. Cambi, eds. Paesaggi d’Etruria: Valle dell’Albegna, Valle d’Oro, Valle del Chiarone, Valle del Tafone, progetto di ricerca Italo-Britannico seguito allo scavo di Settefnestre. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura. Carrella et al. 2008: A. Carrella et al., eds. Marmora Pompeiana nel Museo Archeologico di Napoli: Gli arredi scultorei delle case pompeiane. Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider. Carlsen 1984: J. Carlsen. “Considerations on Cosa and Ager Cosanus.” AnalRom 13:49–58. Carlsen 2006: J. Carlsen. The Rise and Fall of a Roman Noble Family: The Domitii Ahenobarbi 196 bc–ad 68. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark. Castagnoli 1959/60: F. Castagnoli. “Sulla tipologia degli altari di Lavinio.” BullComm 77:145–72. Castagnoli 1984: F. Castagnoli. “Il tempio romano: questioni di terminologia e di tipologia.” PBSR 52:3–20. Castagnoli et al. 1975: F. Castagnoli et al., eds. Lavinium 2: Le tredici Are. Rome: De Luca. Catani 1981: E. Catani. “Statua loricata da Forum Sempronii.” Picus 1:87–104. Ciarallo and De Carolis 1999: A. Ciarallo and E. De Carolis. Pompeii: Life in a Roman Town. Exhibition catalogue, Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 17 October 1999–9 January 2000. Milan: Electa. Cirelli and Fentress 2012: E. Cirelli and E. Fentress. “After the Rats: Cosa in the Late Empire and Early Middle Ages.” In N. Christie and A. Augenti, eds., Vrbes Extinctae: Archaeologies of Abandoned Classical Towns, 97–113. Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Claridge 1988: A. Claridge. “Roman Statuary and the Supply of Statuary Marble.” In J. C. Fant, ed., Ancient Marble Quarrying and Trade: Papers from a Colloquium Held at the Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, San Antonio, Texas, December, 1986, 139–52. BAR International Series 453. Oxford: B.A.R. Coarelli and Monti 1998: F. Coarelli and P. G. Monti, eds. Fregellae I: Le fonti, la storia, il territorio. Rome: Quasar. Cohon 1984: R. Cohon. “Greek and Roman Stone Table Supports with Decorative Reliefs.” Diss., New York University. Collins 1970: J. Collins. “The Marble Sculptures from Cosa.” Diss., Columbia University. Collins-Clinton 1977: J. Collins-Clinton. A Late Antique Shrine of Liber Pater at Cosa. EPRO 64. Leiden: Brill. Collins-Clinton 1988: J. Collins-Clinton. “Evidence for an Imperial Cult at Cosa.” AJA 92:270 (abstract).

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

251

Collins-Clinton 1993: J. Collins-Clinton. “A Hellenistic Torso from Cosa.” In R. T. and A. R. Scott, eds., Eius Virtutis Studiosi: Classical and Postclassical Studies in Memory of Frank Edward Brown (1908–1988), 257–78. Studies in the History of Art 43. Washington DC: National Gallery of Art. Collins-Clinton 2000: J. Collins-Clinton. “The Neronian Odeum at Cosa and Its Sculptural Program: A New Julio-Claudian Dynastic Group.” MAAR 45:99–130. Collins-Clinton 2001: J. Collins-Clinton. “Dionysus in the Garden.” In N. W. Goldman, ed., New Light from Ancient Cosa: Classical Mediterranean Studies in Honor of Cleo Rickman Fitch, 123–43. New York: Peter Lang. Collins-Clinton 2014: J. Collins-Clinton. “Lumachella at Cosa: Late Republican?” In P. Pensabene and E. Gasparini, eds., ASMOSIA X: Interdisciplinary Studies on Ancient Stone. International Conference Proceedings, Rome, 21–26 May 2012, 73–80. Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider. Collins-Clinton, Attanasio, Platania 2008: J. Collins-Clinton, D. Attanasio, and R. Platania. “Sculptural Marbles from Cosa (Tuscany, Italy) and Their Provenance by EPR and Petrography.” Marmora 4:19–56. Colonna 1985: G. Colonna, ed. Santuari d’Etruria. Milan: Electa. Comstock and Vermeule 1971: M. B. Comstock and C. Vermeule. Greek, Etruscan, & Roman Bronzes in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts. Conlin 1997: D. A. Conlin. The Artists of the Ara Pacis: The Process of Hellenization in Roman Relief Sculpture. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Connelly 2007: J. B. Connelly. Portrait of a Priestess: Women and Ritual in Ancient Greece. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Crawford 1977: M. H. Crawford. “Rome and the Greek World: Economic Relationships.” The Economic History Review, n.s. 30, 1:42–52. D’Arms 1981: J. H. D’Arms. Commerce and Social Standing in Ancient Rome. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. De Carolis 2007: E. De Carolis. Il Mobile a Pompei ed Ercolano: Letti, tavoli, sedie e armadi, Contributo alla tipologia dei mobili della prima età imperiale. Studia Archaeologica 151. Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider. De Giorgi 2015: A. U. De Giorgi. “New Excavations at Cosa.” Paper delivered at the 116th Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, New Orleans, 8–11 January 2015. Abstracts, vol. 38, 128–29. De Giorgi 2018: A. De Giorgi. “Sustainable Practices? A Story from Roman Cosa (Central Italy).” JMA 31.1:3–26. De Nuccio and Ungaro 2002: M. De Nuccio and L. Ungaro, eds. I Marmi colorati della Roma imperiale. Venice: Marsilio. De Ruyt 1982: F. De Ruyt. Alba Fucens 3: Sculptures d’Alba Fucens. Rome: Institut historique belge de Rome. de Souza 1999: P. de Souza. Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Deonna 1938: W. Deonna. Le mobilier délian. EAD 38. Paris: Fontemoing et Cie. Denti 1991: M. Denti. Ellenismo e romanizzazione nella X Regio: la scultura delle élites locali dall’età repubblicana ai Giulio-Claudi. Rome: G. Bretschneider. Dräger 1994: O. Dräger. Religionem signifcare: Studien zu reich verzierten römischen Altäre und Basen aus Marmor. Mainz: Zabern. Dunbabin 1999: K. M. D. Dunbabin. Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dwyer 1979: E. J. Dwyer. “Sculpture and Its Display in Private Houses of Pompeii.” In Pompeii and the Vesuvian Landscape, 59–77. A Symposium Sponsored by The Archaeological Institute of America, Washington Society and The Smithsonian Institution. Washington DC: Archaeological Institute of America. Dwyer 1981: E. J. Dwyer. “Pompeian Oscilla Collections.” RömMitt 88:247–306. Dwyer 1982: E. J. Dwyer. Pompeian Domestic Sculpture: A Study of Five Pompeian Houses and Their Contents. Archaeologica 28. Rome: G. Bretschneider. Dyson 1976: S. L. Dyson. Cosa: The Utilitarian Pottery. MAAR 33. Rome: American Academy in Rome.

252

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dyson 1978: S. L. Dyson. “Settlement Patterns in the Ager Cosanus: The Wesleyan University Survey, 1974–1976.” JFA 5:251–68. Dyson 1992: S. L. Dyson. Community and Society in Roman Italy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Dyson 2002: S. L. Dyson. “The Excavations at Le Colonne and the Villa Culture of the Ager Cosanus.” MAAR 47:209–28. Dyson 2013: S. L. Dyson. “Cosa.” In J. D. Evans, ed., A Companion to the Archaeology of the Roman Republic, 472–84. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Eck and von Hesberg 2004: W. Eck and H. von Hesberg. “Tische als Statuenträger, mit einem epigraphischen Kataloganhang.” RömMitt 111:143–92. Edmondson 2008: J. Edmondson. “Public Dress and Social Control in Late Republican and Early Imperial Rome.” In J. Edmondson and A. Keith, eds., Roman Dress and the Fabrics of Roman Culture, 21–46. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Espérandieu 1913: É. Espérandieu. Recueil général des bas-reliefs, statues et bustes de la Gaule romaine, vol. 5. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. Fant et al. 2002: J. C. Fant, S. Cancelliere, L. Lazzarini, M. Preite-Martinez, and B. Turi. “White Marble at Pompeii: Sampling the Casa dei Vettii.” In L. Lazzarini, ed., ASMOSIA VI: Interdisciplinary Studies on Ancient Stone, 309–15. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference Venice, June 15–18, 2000. Padua: Bottega D’Erasmo. Farrar 1998: L. Farrar. Ancient Roman Gardens. Stroud: Sutton. Felletti Maj 1977: B. M. Felletti Maj. La tradizione italica nell’arte romana. Archaeologica 3. Rome: G. Bretschneider. Fentress 1994: E. Fentress. “Cosa in the Empire: The Unmaking of a Roman Town.” JRA 7:208–22. Fentress 2000: E. Fentress, ed. Romanization and the City: Creation, Transformations, and Failures. Proceedings of a Conference Held at the American Academy in Rome to Celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Excavations at Cosa, 14–16 May 1998. JRA suppl. 38. Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology. Fentress et al. 2003: E. Fentress et al. Cosa V: An Intermittent Town, Excavations 1991–1997. MAAR suppl. 2. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Fentress et al. 1991: E. Fentress, T. Clay, M. Hobart, and M. Webb. “Late Roman and Medieval Cosa I: The Arx and the Structure near the Eastern Height.” PBSR 59:197–230. Fentress and Perkins 2016: E. Fentress and P. Perkins. “Cosa and the Ager Cosanus.” In A. E. Cooley, ed., A Companion to Roman Italy, 378–400. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Fitch and Goldman 1994: C. R. Fitch and N. W. Goldman. Cosa: The Lamps. MAAR 39. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. Fittschen and Zanker 1983: K. Fittschen and P. Zanker. Katalog der römischen Porträts in den Capitolinischen Museen und den anderen kommunalen Sammlungen der Stadt Rom. Vol. 3: Kaiserinnen- und Prinzessinnenbildnisse. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern. Fittschen and Zanker 1985: K. Fittschen and P. Zanker. Katalog der römischen Porträts in den Capitolinischen Museen und den anderen kommunalen Sammlungen der Stadt Rom. Vol. 1: Kaiser- und Prinzenbildnisse. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern. Fulton 2018: C. Fulton. “Agents of Appropriation: Shipwrecks, Cargoes, and Entangled Networks in the Late Republic.” In M. Loar, C. MacDonald, and D. Padilla Peralta, eds., Rome, Empire of Plunder: The Dynamics of Cultural Appropriation, 194–213. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gibbs 1976: S. L. Gibbs. Greek and Roman Sundials. New Haven: Yale University Press. Ginsburg 2006: J. Ginsburg. Representing Agrippina: Constructions of Female Power in the Early Roman Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gnoli 1988: R. Gnoli. Marmora romana. Rome: Elefante. Goette 1988: H. R. Goette. “Mulleus—Embas—Calceus: Ikonografsche Studien zu römischem Schuhwerk.” JdI 103:401–64. Goette 1990: H. R. Goette. Studien zu römischen Togadarstellungen. Mainz: Zabern. Golda 1997: T. M. Golda. Puteale und verwandte Monumente. Mainz: Zabern. Gradel 2002: I. Gradel. Emperor Worship and Roman Religion. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

253

Gregarek 1999: H. Gregarek. “Untersuchungen zur kaiserzeitlichen Idealplastik aus Buntmarmor.” Kölner Jahrbuch 32:33–284. Grimal 1969: P. Grimal. Les jardins romaines, 2nd ed. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Gros 2000: P. Gros. “L’odéon dans la basilique: mutation des modèles ou désagrégation des programmes?” In Fentress 2000, 211–20. Gruen 1974: E. Gruen. The Last Generation of the Roman Republic. Berkeley: University of California Press. Guidoboni 1994: E. Guidoboni, ed. Catalogue of Ancient Earthquakes in the Mediterranean Area up to the 10th Century, tr. B. Phillips. Bologna: Istituto Nazionale di Geofsica. Hanfmann et al. 1957: G. M. A. Hanfmann, C. C. Vermeule, W. J. Young, and H. Jucker. “A New Trajan.” AJA 61:223–53. Hänlein Schäfer 1996: H. Hänlein Schäfer. “Die Ikonographie des Genius Augusti im Kompital- und Hauskult der frühen Kaiserzeit.” In A. Small, ed., Subject and Ruler: The Cult of the Ruling Power in Classical Antiquity, 73–98. JRA suppl. 17. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Hardiman 2005: C. Hardiman. “The Nature of Hellenistic Domestic Sculpture in Its Cultural and Spatial Contexts.” Diss., Ohio State University. Harris 1971: W. V. Harris. Rome in Etruria and Umbria. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Harris 2015: W. V. Harris, “Prolegomena to a Study of the Economics of Roman Art.” AJA 119:395–417. Harrison 1965: E. B. Harrison. Archaic and Archaistic Sculpture. The Athenian Agora 11. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Hayes 1972: J. W. Hayes. Late Roman Pottery. London: British School at Rome. Hellenkemper Salies 1994: G. Hellenkemper Salies, ed. Das Wrack: Der antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia, 2 vols. Cologne: Rheinland-Verlag. Hemelrijk 2015: E. A. Hemelrijk. Hidden Lives, Public Personae: Women and Civic Life in the Roman West. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Hermann 1961: W. Hermann. Römische Götteraltäre. Kallmünz: M. Lassleben. Hesberg 1981: H. von Hesberg. “Girlandenschmuck der republikanischen Zeit in Mittelitalien.” RömMitt 88:201–45. Honroth 1971: M. Honroth. Stadtrömische Girlanden: Ein Versuch zur Entwicklungsgeschichte römischer Ornamentik. Vienna: Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut. Jashemski 1979: W. F. Jashemski. The Gardens of Pompeii, Herculaneum and the Villas Destroyed by Vesuvius. New Rochelle: Caratzas. Jashemski 1993: W. F. Jashemski. The Gardens of Pompeii, vol. 2. New Rochelle: Caratzas. Jehasse 1976: J. Jehasse. “Un Lion Étrusco-Romain d’Aléria.” In L’Italie préromaine et la Rome républicaine: Mélanges offerts à Jacques Heurgon, 487–95. CÉFR 27. Rome: École française de Rome. Jockey 1995: P. Jockey. “Unfnished Sculpture and Its Workshops on Delos in the Hellenistic Period.” In Y. Maniatis, N. Herz, and Y. Basiakos, eds., ASMOSIA III: The Study of Marbles and Other Stones Used in Antiquity, 87–93. Transactions of the 3rd International Symposium of the Association for the Study of Marbles and Other Stones used in Antiquity, Athens 17–19 May 1993. London: Archetype. Kaltsas 2002: N. Kaltsas. Sculpture in the National Archaeological Museum, Athens, tr. Dr. D. Hardy. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum. Keenan-Jones 2015: D. Keenan-Jones. “Somma-Vesuvian Ground Movements and the Water Supply of Pompeii and the Bay of Naples.” AJA 119:191–215. Kleiner 1992: D. E. E. Kleiner. Roman Sculpture. New Haven: Yale University Press. Kleiner 1980: F. S. Kleiner. “Early Roman Putto-and-Garland Reliefs.” BABesch 55:37–49. Kreeb 1988: M. Kreeb. Untersuchungen zur fgürlichen Ausstattung delischer Privathäuser. Chicago: Ares. Laidlaw 1963: L. A. B. Laidlaw. “The Painted Decoration of the Cosa Basilica.” Diss., Yale University. Laidlaw 1985: A. Laidlaw. The First Style in Pompeii: Painting and Architecture. Rome: G. Bretschneider. Laird 2015: M. L. Laird. Civic Monuments and the Augustales in Roman Italy. London: Cambridge University Press. Laube 2006: I. Laube. Thorakophoroi: Gestalt und Semantik des Brustpanzers in der Darstellung des 4. bis 1. Jhs. v. Chr. Tübinger Archäologische Forschungen 1. Rahden/Westf.: Marie Leidorf.

254

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

La Regina 1998: A. La Regina, ed. Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, English ed. tr. G. Bailey. Rome: Electa. Lippold 1956: G. Lippold. Die Skulpturen des vaticanischen Museums, vol. 3, 2. Berlin: G. Reimer. Lullies 1931: R. Lullies. Die Typen der griechischen Herme. Königsberg: Gräfe und Unzer. Maderna 1988: C. Maderna. Iuppiter Diomedes und Merkur als Vorbilder für römische Bildnisstatuen: Untersuchungen zum römischen statuarischen Idealporträt. Heidelberg: Verlag Archäologie und Geschichte. Magdelain 1969: A. Magdelain. “L’Auguraculum de l’Arx à Rome et dans d’autres villes.” RÈL 47:253–69. Magdelain 1976: A. Magdelain. “Le pomerium archaïque et le mundus.” RÈL 54:71–109. Maiuri 1927: A. Maiuri. “Casa dell’Efebo in Bronzo.” NSc 1927:32–83. Manacorda 1978: D. Manacorda. “The Ager Cosanus and the Production of the Amphorae of Sestius: New Evidence and a Reassessment.” JRS 68:122–31. Manacorda 1979: D. Manacorda. “Considerazioni sull’epigrafa della regione di Cosa.” Athenaeum 57:73–97. Manacorda 1980: D. Manacorda. “L’ager Cosanus tra tarda Repubblica e Impero: Forme di produzione e assetto della proprietà.” In J. H. D’Arms and E. C. Kopff, eds., The Seaborne Commerce of Ancient Rome: Studies in Archaeology and History, 173–84. Rome: American Academy in Rome. Manacorda 1981: D. Manacorda. “Produzione agricola, produzione ceramica e protrietari nell’ager Cosanus nel I secolo a.C.” In A. Giardina and A. Schiavone, eds., Società romana e produzione schiavistica, vol. 2: Merci, mercati e scambi nel Mediterraneo, 3–54. Bari: Laterza. Marcadé 1969: J. Marcadé. Au Musée de Délos. Paris: De Boccard. Martin 1987: H. G. Martin. Römische Tempelkultbilder: Eine archäologische Untersuchung zur späten Republik. Studi e Materiali del Museo della Civiltà Romana 12. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Martin 1988: H. G. Martin. “Die Tempelkultbilder.” In W. D. Heilmeyer, E. La Rocca, and H. G. Martin, Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene Republik, 255. Eine Ausstellung im Martin-Gropius-Bau, Berlin 7. Juni–14. August 1988. Mainz: Zabern. McCann et al. 1987: A. M. McCann, J. Bourgeois, E. K. Gazda, J. P. Oleson, and E. L. Will. The Roman Port and Fishery of Cosa. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Moevs 1973: M. T. M. Moevs. The Roman Thin-Walled Pottery from Cosa (1948–1954). MAAR 32. Rome: American Academy in Rome. Moevs 1980a: M. T. M. Moevs. “Aco in Northern Etruria: The Workshop of Cusonius at Cosa.” MAAR 34:230–80. Moevs 1980b: M. T. M. Moevs. “Italo-Megarian Ware at Cosa.” MAAR 34:163–227. Moevs 2006: M. T. M. Moevs. Cosa: The Italian Sigillata. MAAR suppl. 3. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Moltesen 2007: M. Moltesen. “Agrippina Minor in the Montemartini: The Statue Type.” In M. Moltesen and A. M. Nielsen, eds., Agrippina Minor: Life and Afterlife, 123–36. Meddelelser fra Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek n.s. 9. Copenhagen: Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek. Moreno 1995: P. Moreno, ed. Lisippo: L’arte, la fortuna. Milan: Fabbri. Morley 1996: N. Morley. Metropolis and Hinterland: The City of Rome and the Italian Economy 200 b.c.–a.d. 200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Moss 1988: C. F. Moss. “Roman Marble Tables.” Diss., Princeton University. Mühlenbrock and Richter 2004: J. Mühlenbrock and D. Richter, eds. Verschüttet vom Vesuv: Die letzten Stunden von Herculaneum. Mainz: Zabern. Mustilli 1939: D. Mustilli. Il Museo Mussolini. Rome: La Libreria dello Stato. Napp 1933: A. E. Napp. Bukranion und Guirlande. Wertheim am Main: E. Bechstein. Nappo 1997: S. Nappo. “The Urban Transformation at Pompeii in the Late Third and Early Second Centuries B.C.” In R. Laurence and A. Wallace-Hadrill, eds., Domestic Space in the Roman World: Pompeii and Beyond, 91–120. JRA suppl. 22. Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology. Nielsen 2014: I. Nielsen. Housing the Chosen: The Architectural Context of Mystery Groups and Religious Associations in the Ancient World. Tournhout, Belgium: Brepols. Niemeyer 1968: H. G. Niemeyer. Studien zur statuarischen Darstellung der römischen Kaiser. Monumenta Artis Romanae 7. Berlin: Gebr. Mann.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

255

Olmer 2003: F. Olmer. Les amphores de Bibracte—2, Le commerce du vin chez les Eduens d’après les timbres d’amphores: Catalogues: Les timbres de Bibracte (1984–1998), Les timbres de Bourgogne. Collection Bibracte 7. Glux-en-Glenne: Centre archéologique européen. Olson 2008: K. Olson. Dress and the Roman Woman: Self-representation and Society. New York: Routledge. Pala 1976: C. Pala. Nomentum. In Forma Italiae, Regio I, vol. 12. Rome: De Luca. Papi 2000: E. Papi. L’Etruria dei Romani. Rome: Quasar. Patterson 2006: J. R. Patterson. Landscapes and Cities: Rural Settlement and Civic Transformation in Early Imperial Italy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pernice 1932: E. Pernice. Hellenistische Tische, Zisternmündungen, Beckenuntersätze, Altäre und Truhen. Die Hellenistische Kunst in Pompeji 5. Berlin: de Gruyter. Pesando and Guidobaldi 2006: F. Pesando and M. P. Guidobaldi. Pompei, Oplontis, Ercolano, Stabiae. Guide Archeologiche Laterza, F. Coarelli, ed. Rome: Laterza. Poggesi 2001: G. Poggesi. Mura di cinta di Cosa. L’intervento di restauro 1999–2000. Florence: Tecnostudio 77. Polaschek 1972: K. Polaschek. “Studien zu einem Frauenkopf im Landesmuseum in Trier un zur weiblichen Haartracht der iulisch-claudischen Zeit.” TrZ 35:141–210. Polito 1998: E. Polito. Fulgentibus Armis: Introduzione allo studio dei fregi d’armi antichi. Xenia Antiqua. Monografe 4. Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider. Pollitt 1966: J. J. Pollitt. The Art of Rome c. 753 b.c.–337 a.d.: Sources and Documents. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Pollitt 1986: J. J. Pollitt. Art in the Hellenistic Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Post 2004: A. Post. Römische Hüftmantelstatuen: Studien zer Kopistentätigkeit um de Zeitenwende. Paderborn: Bonifatius Druck, Buch Verlag. Poulsen 1962: V. Poulsen. Les Portraits romains. Publications de la Glytothèque Ny Carlsberg 7. Copenhagen: Glytothèque Ny Carlsberg. Rabinowitz and Fentress 2002: A. Rabinowitz and E. Fentress. Excavations at Cosa (1991–1997) Part 2: The Stratigraphy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press at http://www.press.umich.edu/webhome/cosa/. Rathbone 1981: D. W. Rathbone. “The Development of Agriculture in the ‘Ager Cosanus’ during the Roman Republic: Problems of Evidence and Interpretation.” JRS 71:10–23. Raubitschek 1949: A. E. Raubitschek. Dedications from the Athenian Akropolis. Cambridge, MA: Archaeological Institute of America. Rauh 1993: N. K. Rauh. The Sacred Bonds of Commerce. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben. Regoli 2002: E. Regoli. “l.6: Il Paesaggio delle ville (II secolo a.C.–metà I a.C.” In Carandini and Cambi 2002, 145–54. Richter 1966: G. M. A. Richter. The Furniture of the Greeks, Etruscans and Romans. London: Phaidon. Ridgway 1970: B. S. Ridgway. The Severe Style in Greek Sculpture. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Ridgway 1981: B. S. Ridgway. Fifth Century Styles in Greek Sculpture. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Ridgway 1990: B. S. Ridgway. Hellenistic Sculpture I: The Styles of ca. 331–200 b.c. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Ridgway 2000: B. S. Ridgway. Hellenistic Sculpture II: The Styles of ca. 200–100 b.c. Madison WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Rose 1997: C. B. Rose. Dynastic Commemoration and Imperial Portraiture in the Julio-Claudian Period. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rückert 1998: C. Rückert. “Miniaturhermen aus Stein: Eine vernachlässigte Gattung kleinformatiger Skulptur der römischen Villeggiatur.” MadMitt 39:176–237. Ryberg 1955: I. S. Ryberg. Rites of the State Religion in Roman Art. MAAR 22. Rome: American Academy in Rome. Saladino 1977: V. Saladino. “Iscrizioni del Territorio di Cosa.” Epigraphica 39:42–51. Saletti 1968: C. Saletti. Il Ciclo statuario della basilica di Velleia. Milan: Ceschina. Sanders 2001: H. M. Sanders. “Sculptural Patronage and the Houses of Late Hellenistic Delos.” Diss., University of Michigan.

256

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Sauer 1996: E. Sauer. End of Paganism in the North-western Provinces of the Roman Empire: The Example of the Mithras Cult. BAR International Series 634. Oxford: Tempvs Reparatvm. Scott 2008: A. R. Scott. Cosa: The Black-Glaze Pottery 2. MAAR suppl. 5. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Scott 1981: R. T. Scott. “A New Inscription of the Emperor Maximinus at Cosa.” Chiron 11:309–14. Scott 1988: R. T. Scott. “The Latin Colony of Cosa.” In F. Cassola et al., La colonizzazione romana tra la Guerra latina e la Guerra annibalica. Atti del convegno, Acqasparta 20–30 maggio 1987, DialArch 3, series 6:73–77. Scott 1992: R. T. Scott. “The Decoration in Terracotta from the Temples of Cosa.” In La coroplastica templare etrusca fra il IV e il secolo a.C., 91–128. Florence: Olschki. Scott et al. 2015: R. T. Scott, A. De Giorgi, S. Crawford Brown, A. Glennie, and A. Smith. “Cosa Excavations: The 2013 Report.” Orizzonti 16:11–22. Sebesta and Bonfante 1994: J. L. Sebesta and L. Bonfante, eds. The World of Roman Costume. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Seiler 1992: F. Seiler. Casa degli Amorini Dorati (VI 16,7.38). Häuser in Pompeji 5. Munich: Hirmer. Shoe 1965: L. T. Shoe. Etruscan and Republican Roman Mouldings. MAAR 28:1–233. Reprinted as L. T. Shoe Meritt and I. E. M. Edlund-Berry. Etruscan and Republican Roman Mouldings. University Museum Monograph 107. Philadelphia: University Museum, 2000. Page references are the same in both. Stackelberg 2009: K. T. von Stackelberg. The Roman Garden: Space, Sense, and Society. New York: Routledge. Steingräber 1982: S. Steingräber. “Überlegungen zu etruskischen Altären.” In Miscellanea Archaeologica Tobias Dohrn dedicata, 103–116. Archaeologica 26. Rome: G. Bretschneider. Steingräber and Menichelli 2010: S. Steingräber and S. Menichelli. “Etruscan Altars in Sanctuaries and Necropoleis of the Orientalizing, Archaic and Classical Periods.” In L. Bouke van der Meer, ed., Material Aspects of Etruscan Religion, 51–74. Proceedings of the International Colloquium Leiden, May 29 and 30, 2008. BaBesch suppl. 16. Leuven: Peeters. Stemmer 1978: K. Stemmer. Untersuchungen zur Typologie, Chronologie und Ikonographie der Panzerstatuen. Archäologische Forschungen 4. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. Stewart 1990: A. Stewart. Greek Sculpture, 2 vols. New Haven: Yale University Press. Taylor 1957: D. M. Taylor. “Cosa: Black-Glaze Pottery.” MAAR 25:65–193. Taylor 2002: R. Taylor. “Temples and Terracottas at Cosa.” AJA 106:59–83. Taylor 2003a: R. Taylor. “Sculpture and Furniture.” In Fentress et al. 2003, 191–213. Taylor 2003b: R. Taylor. “The Cult Statue and Other Decoration in Stone” and “Conclusion.” In Fentress et al. 2003, 51–55. Trillmich 1974: W. Trillmich. “Ein Bildnis der Agrippina Minor von Milreu/Portugal.” MM 15:184–202. Tronchin 2011: F. C. Tronchin. “The Sculpture of the Casa di Octavius Quartio at Pompeii.” In E. Poehler, M. Flohr, and K. Cole, eds., Pompeii: Art, Industry and Infrastructure, 33–49. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Trümper 1998: M. Trümper. Wohnen in Delos: Eine baugeschichliche Untersuchung zum Wandel der Wohnkultur in hellenistischer Zeit. Internationale Archäologie 46. Rahden/Westf.: Marie Leidorf. Tsiolis 2013: V. Tsiolis. “The Baths at Fregellae and the Transition from Balaneion to Balneum.” In S. K. Lucore and M. Trümper, eds., Greek Baths and Bathing Culture: New Discoveries and Approaches, 89–111. BABesch suppl. 23. Leuven: Peeters. Vaccaro 2011: E. Vaccaro. Sites and Pots: Settlement and Economy in Southern Tuscany (ad 300–900). BAR International Series 2191. Oxford: Archaeopress. Vanderpool 1960: E. Vanderpool. “Newsletter from Greece.” AJA 64:265–71. Vermeule 1959: C. C. Vermuele. “Hellenistic and Roman Cuirassed Statues.” Berytus 13:1–82. Vermeule 1964: C. C. Vermeule. “Hellenistic and Roman Cuirassed Statues: A Supplement.” Berytus 15:95–110. Vermeule 1966: C. C. Vermeule. “Hellenistic and Roman Cuirassed Statues: Second Supplement.” Berytus 16:49–59.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

257

Vermeule 1980: C. C. Vermeule. Hellenistic and Roman Cuirassed Statues. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts. Vorster 1998: C. Vorster. Die Skulpturen von Fianello Sabino: zum Beginn der Skulturenausstattung in römischen Villen. Palilia 5. Rome: “Lerma” di Bretschneider. Vos 1991: M. de Vos. “Paving Techniques at Pompeii.” ArchNews 16:36–60. Wallace-Hadrill 2008: A. Wallace Hadrill. Rome’s Cultural Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Weinberg et al. 1965: G. D. Weinberg et al. The Antikythera Shipwreck Reconsidered. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. Welch 2006: K. E. Welch. “Domi Militiaeque: Roman Domestic Aesthetics and War Booty in the Republic.” In S. Dillon and K. E. Welch, eds., Representations of War in Ancient Rome, 91–161. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Westgate 2000: R. C. Westgate. “Space and Decoration in Hellenistic Houses.” BSA 95:391–426. Will 1956: E. L. Will. “Les Amphores de Sestius.” RAEst 7:224–44. Will 1979: E. L. Will. “The Sestius Amphoras: A Reappraisal.” JFA 6:339–60. Will 1987: E. L. Will. “The Roman Amphoras.” In McCann et al. 1987, 170–220. Will 1989: E. L. Will. “Relazioni mutue tra le anfore romane: I ritrovamenti in Oriente, alla luce dei dati ottenuti nell’Occidente.” In Amphores romaines et histoire économique: dix ans de recherche, Actes du Colloque de Sienne (22–24 mai 1986), 297–309. Rome: École française de Rome. Will 1997: E. L. Will. “Shipping Amphoras as Indicators of Economic Romanization in Athens.” In M. C. Hoff and S. I. Rotroff, eds., The Romanization of Athens, 117–33. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Will 2001: E. L. Will. “Defning the Regna vini of the Sestii.” In N. W. Goldman, ed., New Light from Ancient Cosa, 35–47. New York: Peter Lang. Will 2005: E. L. Will. “The Port of Cosa and Economic Romanization in Gaul and the Danube Valley.” In J. Pollini, ed., Terra Marique: Studies in Art History and Marine Archaeology in Honor of Anna Marguerite McCann, 255–62. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Will and Slane 2019: E. L. Will and K. W. Slane. Cosa: The Roman and Greek Amphoras. MAAR suppl. 14. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Wrede 1985: H. Wrede. Die antike Herme. Mainz: Zabern. Yavis 1949: C. G. Yavis. Greek Altars: Origins and Typology. Saint Louis, MO: Saint Louis University Press. Yegül 2010: F. Yegül. Bathing in the Roman World. New York: Cambridge University Press. Zanker 1976: P. Zanker, ed. Hellenismus in Mittelitalien. Göttingen: Akademie der Wissenschaften. Zevi 1976: F. Zevi. “Proposta per un’interpretazione dei rilievi Grimani.” Prospettiva 7:38–41.

Plates

Fig. 1. Town plan (after Cosa III, plan I)

PLATE 1

PLATE 2

Fig. 2. Actual state plan of forum (after Cosa III, plan II)

Fig. 3. Plan of houses (after Cosa IV, fg. 3)

PLATE 3

PLATE 4

Fig. 4. Forum, north corner (after Cosa III, plan II, detail)

Fig. 5. Plan of basilica/odeum, actual state (after Cosa III, plan X)

PLATE 5

PLATE 6

Fig. 7. Pillar in Proconnesian marble (photo courtesy M. Brennan)

ST

RE

HOUSES

ET

4

ST

RE

ET

0

ST

RE

ET

N

Fig. 6. House of Diana, plan (after Cosa V, fg. 19)

TEMPLE D

ARX ARX POSTERN

CAPITOLIUM

Fig. 8. Plan of arx (after Cosa III, plan I, detail)

Fig. 9. Odeum, reconstruction of scaenae frons (reconstruction author and L. Sterner)

PLATE 7

Fig. 10. Shrine of Liber Pater, actual state plan (after Cosa III, plan II, detail)

PLATE 8

Fig. 11. Shrine of Liber Pater, location of fnds (image author and L. Sterner)

PLATE 9

Fig. 12. Detail of forum, southeast end, actual state (after Cosa III, plan VI)

PLATE 10

PLATE 11

13. Front

15. Underside

14. Back

Figs. 13–15. PS 1: Torso of Aesclepius (photos AAR)

PLATE 12

16. Right side (photo author)

17. Left side with attached shoulder and arm (photo AAR)

18. Left side, attachment surfaces (photo AAR)

20. Detail, neck (photo author)

19. Left shoulder and arm, inner attachment surface (photo author) Figs. 16–20. PS 1: Torso of Aesclepius

PLATE 13

22. Right fank

21. Back

23. Right fank, drawing

25. Underside

24. Left fank

Figs. 21–25. PS 2: Hindquarters of Lion (photos AAR)

PLATE 14

26. Front

28. Back

27. Right side, oblique view

29. Left side, oblique view Figs. 26–30. PS 3: Jupiter Capitolinus (photos AAR)

30. Underside

PLATE 15

31. Front (photo AAR)

32. Back, attachment surface (photo author)

Figs. 31–32. PS-Head 1: Drusus Minor?

Fig. 33. PS-Head 2: Nero? (photo author)

PLATE 16

35. Head, right side (photo author)

36. Head, left side (photo author)

34. Front (photo courtesy D. Attanasio)

37. Head, back (photo author)

39. Bust, back (photo AAR)

40. Bust, underside (photo AAR)

38. Bust, front (photo AAR) Figs. 34–40. PS-Head 3: Bust of Agrippina Minor

PLATE 17

41. Front

43. Right side

42. Left side

43. Back

Figs. 41–44. PS-Head 4: Head of Agrippina Minor (photos B. Bini)

PLATE 18

45. Front

46. Right side

47. Left side

48. Back

Figs. 45–48. PS-Head 5: Head of Hadrian (photos with permission of the Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali–Polo Museale della Toscana–Firenze)

PLATE 19

50. Torso, back (photo author)

49. Torso, front (photo AAR)

51. Head (photo author)

52. Right hand (photo AAR)

53. Right hand, palm (photo author) Figs. 49–53. PS-St 1: Divus Claudius Waering Hip-mantle

PLATE 20

55. Back

54. Front 56. Neck tenon Figs. 54–56. PS-St 2: Togate Figure of Nero (photos author)

PLATE 21

57. Front

59. Reconstruction

58. Back

Figs. 57–60. PS-St 3: Agrippina Minor as Priestess (photos author)

60. Detail, bedding for right shoulder

PLATE 22

61. Piece of right shoulder (photo author)

62. Piece of right shoulder, detail, inner side (photo author)

64. Right foot, inner side (photo author)

63. Right foot (photo AAR) Figs. 61–64. PS-St 3: Agrippina Minor as Priestess

PLATE 23

66. Upper body, back (photo author)

65. Upper body, front (photo author)

67. Lower legs, front (photo author)

69. Hand (photo AAR)

Figs. 65–69. PS-St 4: Draped Female Figure

68. Lower legs, back (photo author)

PLATE 24

70. Feet, front (photo AAR)

72. Right shoulder and upper arm, side view (photo AAR)

71. Feet, back (photo author)

73. Right shoulder and upper arm, front (photo AAR)

Figs. 70–74. PS-St 5: Fragmentary Togate Figure

74. Right shoulder and upper arm, back (photo author)

PLATE 25

75. Front (photo AAR)

77. Left side (photo AAR)

76. Back (photo AAR)

79. Right foot (photo author) 78. Detail, pteryges (photo author)

80. Left lower leg (photo author)

Figs. 75–80. PS-St 6: Cuirassed Figure

PLATE 26

81a. Top, outer side

81b. Top, inner side

81e. Near bottom

81c. Near bottom, one side

81d. Near bottom, other side

Fig. 81a–e. PS-St 6: Cuirassed Figure, pieces of drapery from below left arm (photos courtesy M. Brennan)

PLATE 27

1a 1b

Fig. 82. DS-St 1a, b: Locks of Hair (photos AAR)

84. Oblique view 83. Front

85. Left side Figs. 83–85. DS-St 2: Pan (photos author)

PLATE 28

86. Back (photo author)

87. Right side (photo author)

90. Comparandum, Private Collection (photo courtesy Justin Kerr)

88. Head, front (photo author)

89. Head, back (photo author)

Figs. 86–90. DS-St 2: Pan

PLATE 29

91. Front (after Cosa V, pl. 81)

92. Right side (photo author)

93. Back (after Cosa V, pl. 82)

Figs. 91–93. DS-St 3: Female Head (used for Diana)

94. Front

95. Right side

Figs. 94–95. DS-St 4: Female Head, Venus? (photos AAR)

96. Front (photo AAR)

97. Right side (photo AAR)

Figs. 96–98. DS-St 5: Female Bust

98. Back (photo author)

PLATE 30

99. Front

101. Right side

100. Back

102. Left side

Figs. 99–103. DS-St 6. Bacchus (photos author)

103. Right hand

PLATE 31

105. Back (photo author)

104. Front (after Cosa V, pl. 78)

106. Left hand (photo author)

106. Right hand (photo author)

107. Dog (after Cosa V, pl. 79)

Figs. 104–7. DS-St 7: Diana as Huntress

108. Front

Figs. 108–9. DS-St 8: Half-nude Female Figure (photos author)

109. Back

PLATE 32

110. Front

111. Back

Figs. 110–11. DS-St 9: Hercules Tunicatus? (photos author)

112. Front

113. Left side

Figs. 112–13. DS-St 10: Sarapis Enthroned (photos author)

PLATE 33

114. Front.

115. Back

Figs. 114–16. DS-St 11: Torso of Nude Male Figure (photos author)

117. Front

118. Right side

Figs. 117–18. DS-St 12: Head of Attis (photos AAR)

116. Left side

PLATE 34

119. Front (photo author)

120. Right profle (photo AAR)

Figs. 119–20. DS-St 13: Male Head

Fig. 122. DS-St 15: Small Right Hand Holding Cantharus (photo author) Fig. 121. DS-St 14: Face of Child, front (photo author)

PLATE 35

127. Neck cavity (photo author)

123. Front (after Cosa V, pl. 92)

124. Right side (photo author)

Figs.123–24. DS-Herm 1: Draped Herm of Satyr?

125. Front (after Cosa V, pl. 93)

126. Right side (photo author)

Figs. 125–27. DS-Herm 2: Draped Female Herm

129. Front Fig. 128. DS-Herm 3: Fragment of Draped Female Herm, front (after Cosa V, pl. 94)

130. Back Figs. 129–30. DS-Herm 4: Hip Herm (photos AAR)

PLATE 36

Fig. 135. DS-Herm 8: Phallus (photo AAR)

Fig. 131. DS-Herm 5: Herm Shaft? (photo author)

Fig. 132. DS-Herm 6: Herm Shaft? (photo author)

133. Shaft in two pieces Figs. 133–34. DS-Herm 7: Herm Shaft? (photos author)

134. Side view of tenon end

PLATE 37

Fig. 136. DS-MHB 1: Bearded Dionysus, front (photo author)

138. Front

139. Left side

Figs. 138–39. DS-MHB 3: Eros (photos author)

Fig. 137. DS-MHB 2: Bearded Dionysus on Separate Shaft, front (photo author) Fig. 140. DS-MHB 4: Helmeted Warrior, headless, front (photo author)

PLATE 38

141. Front

142. Left side Figs. 141–42. DS-MHB 5: Bearded Hercules (photos author)

Fig. 143. DS-MHB 6: Bearded Silenus, front (photo author)

Fig. 144. DS-MHB 7: Headless Bust, front (photo AAR)

Fig. 145. DS-MHB 8: Headless Bust, front (after Cosa V, pl. 95)

PLATE 39

Fig. 146. DS-Osc 1: Mask of Papposilenus (after Cosa V, pl. 96)

147. Side A, satyr

Figs. 147–48. DS-Osc 2: Tondo (photos author)

Fig. 149. DS-Osc 3: Tondo (photo author)

148. Side B, grape vine

PLATE 40

150. Front, Papposilenus (after Cosa V, pl. 97)

151. Back, lion attacking deer (after Cosa V, pl. 98)

Figs. 150–51. DS-Osc 4: Pinax

152. Front, mask (after Cosa V, pl. 100)

153. Back, animal (after Cosa V, pl. 99)

Figs. 152–53. DS-Osc 5: Pinax

154. Fragments all together (photo author)

155. Fragments CE 798ab (photo AAR)

Figs. 154–55. DS-Other 1: Krater Rim

PLATE 41

Fig. 156. DS-Other 2: Miniature Feline Leg (after Cosa V, pl. 104)

Fig. 157. DS-Other 3: Relief with Old Man (photo author)

Fig. 158. DS-Other 4: Round Plinth (photo AAR) Fig. 159. DS-Other 5: Round Plinth (photo author)

Fig. 160. DS-Other 6: Round Plinth, top (photo AAR)

Fig. 161. DS-Other 7: Square Plinth, top (photo AAR)

PLATE 42

162. Top (photo AAR) 163. Oblique view (photo author)

Figs. 162–63. DS-Other 8: Square Plinth

Fig. 164. DS-Other 9: Platter?, upper surface (photo author)

Fig. 165. DS-Other 10: Marble Sample (photo author)

Fig. 166. DS-Other 11: Pillar (photo courtesy M. Brennan)

PLATE 43

167. Front (photo author)

168. Back (photo author)

170. Head, front (photo author)

Figs. 167–71. T-Supp 1: Bearded Herm

169. Right side (photo AAR)

171. Head, left side (photo author)

PLATE 44

Fig. 172. T-Supp 2: Rosette (photo author)

Fig. 173. T-Supp 3: Lion's Head, front (photo AAR)

174. Top (photo AAR)

175. Underside (photo author)

Figs. 174–75. T-Supp 4: Stretcher with K

176. Front

177. Left side

Figs. 176–77. T-Supp 5: Paw from Console Table (photos AAR)

PLATE 45

178. Left side

179. Front

Figs. 178–79. T-Supp 6: Fragment, Lion Griffn (photos author)

180. Outer side

181. Inner side

Figs. 180–81. T-Supp 7a: Slab Support (photos AAR)

PLATE 46

Fig. 182. T-Supp 7a: Note from F. E. Brown regarding T-Supp 7a (photo AAR)

PLATE 47

183. Outer side

184. Inner side

Figs. 183–84. T-Supp 7b: Slab Support (photos author)

Fig. 187. T-Supp 10: Fragment of Griffn's Foot, front (photo author) Fig. 186. T-Supp 9: Fragment of Feline Foot, front (photo author)

Fig. 185. T-Supp 8: Winged Goat, left side (after Cosa V, pl. 84)

PLATE 48

188. Reconstruction (photo courtesy M. Brennan)

189. Oblique view, front/ right side (photo author)

190. Front, detail (photo author)

191. Head, front (photo author)

Figs. 188–92. T-Supp 11: Herm

192. Head, left side (photo author)

PLATE 49

Fig. 195. T-Supp 14: Fragmentary Leg of Tripod Table (after Cosa V, pl. 89)

Fig. 194. T-Supp 13: Columnar Support (after Cosa V, pl. 83)

Fig. 193. T-Supp 12: Inscribed Herm Shaft, front (photo author)

196. Top (after Cosa V, pl. 88)

197. Arm, detail (photo author)

198. Arm end, detail (photo author) Figs. 196–98. T-Supp 15: Stretcher with E

PLATE 50

199. Top

200. Underside

Figs. 199–200. T-Top 1: Rectangular Leaf with Raised Rim (photos AAR)

201. Top

202. Underside

Figs. 201–2. T-Top 2: Rectangular Leaf with Raised Rim (photo AAR)

Fig. 203. T-Top 3: Rectangular Leaf with Raised Rim (photo author)

Fig. 204. T-Top 4: Rectangular Leaf with Raised Rim (photo author)

PLATE 51

Fig. 205. T-Top 5: Rectangular Leaf with Raised Rim (photo author) Fig. 206. T-Top 6: Round Leaf with Raised Rim (photo author)

208. Top

Fig. 207. T-Top 7: Round Leaf with Raised Rim (photo author)

209. Underside

Figs. 208–9. T-Top 8: Round Leaf with Raised Rim (photos AAR)

PLATE 52

210. Top

211. Underside

Figs. 210–11. T-Top 9: Round Leaf with Raised Rim (photos author)

Fig. 212. T-Top 10: Round Leaf with Raised Rim (photo author)

213. Top

214. Underside

Figs. 213–14. T-Top 11: Rectangular Leaf (photos author)

PLATE 53

215. Top

216. Underside Figs. 215–16. T-Base 1: Plinth? (photos author)

Fig. 217. T-Base 2: Base for Monopod Table (after Cosa V, pl. 87)

PLATE 54

218. Side

219. Top

Figs. 218–19. T-Base 3: Base for Monopod Table (photos AAR)

220. 4a

221. 4b

Figs. 220–21. T-Base 4a, b: Base for Table Support, profless at 1:2 (scans L. Sterner)

Fig. 223. A 1: Small Round Altar (after Cosa V, pl. 103)

Fig. 222. T-Base 5: Facing for Table Base (after Cosa V, pl. 86) Fig. 224. A 2: Small Round Altar (photo author)

PLATE 55

3b

3a

225. Fragments 3a and 3b as displayed in the museum (photo author)

226. Fragment 3b (photo author)

227. Fragment 3c (after Cosa V, pl. 101) Figs. 225–27. A 3a–c: Three Fragments of Double Ritual Procession

PLATE 56

229. Fragment 4b (photo AAR)

228. Fragment 4a (photo AAR)

231. Fragment 4d (photo author) 230. Fragment 4c (photo AAR)

233. Fragment 4f (photo AAR) 232 Fragment 4e (photo AAR) Figs. 228–33. A 4a–f: Fragments of Bucranium/Garland Frieze

PLATE 57

Fig. 234. A 5: Fragment of Lares Altar (photo AAR)

Fig. 235. A 6: Panel with Attributes of Minerva (photo AAR)

236. Fragment 7c on right rear

236.Fragment 7a on left

236. Fragment 7b on right front

237. Fragment 7b, front of right pulvinus Figs. 236–37. A 7a–c: Altar Pulvini (photos author)

PLATE 58

238. Top (photo AAR)

239. Underside (photo author)

Figs. 238–39. B 1: Public Bath Basin

240. Fragment 2b at bottom, 2a in middle, 2c on top

241. Profle , Fragment 2b

Figs. 240–41. B 2a–c: Inscribed Labrum (photos AAR)

Fig. 242. B 3: Basin or Bowl, profle (after Cosa III, 67 fg. 23)

PLATE 59

Fig. 243. B 4: Hemispherical Basin, fragment of rim, interior (photo AAR)

6a

Fig. 244. B 5: Hemispherical Basin, fragment of rim (photo AAR)

6b

Fig. 246. B 7: Fragment of Rectangular Fountain Basin (after Cosa V, pl. 90) Fig. 245. B 6a, b: Fragments of Rectangular Fountain Basin, (photo author)

Fig. 247. B 8: Fragment of Foot of Columnar Basin Support (photo author)

Fig. 248. B 9: Columnar Basin Support (photo author)

PLATE 60

250. Upper surface, joiner's marks (photo author)

249. Pair of supports (after Cosa V, pl. 85)

251. Grayish veins as seen on one side (photo author)

Figs. 249–51. B 10a, b: Pair of Fountain Basin Supports

Fig. 252. B 11: Foot of Columnar Basin (photo author)

PLATE 61

Fig. 254. P 3: Fragment of Base (photo AAR) Fig. 253. P 1: Fragment of Rim and Upper Shaft (after Cosa III, 106 fg. 39)

Fig. 255. P 4: Fragment of Base (photo AAR)

256. As restored (photo B. Bini)

257. Relief (photo AAR) Figs. 256–57. P 5: “Capitolium” Puteal I

PLATE 62

Fig. 258. P 6: Fragment of Shaft (photo author) 7a

7b

Fig. 259. P 7a, b: Fragments of Rim and Upper Shaft (photo AAR)

260. Front

261. Back

Figs. 260–61. P 8: Fragment of Rim (photos AAR)

PLATE 63

9d

9a

9e

Fig. 263. P 10: Fragment of Rim, profle (photo author) 9c

9b

Fig. 262. P 9a–e: Fragments of Rim, Shaft, and Base (photo AAR)

Fig. 264. P 11: “Capitolium” Puteal II, fragments of rim with part of inscription (photo B. Bini)

Fig. 265. P 12: Fragment of Rim (photo AAR)

PLATE 64

Fig. 267. S 2: Part of Lower Dial (photo AAR, adjusted with proper orientation)

Fig. 266. S 1: Part of Base and Lower Dial, front (photo author)

Fig. 268. BP 1: Hair (photo author)

Fig. 269. BP 2: Nape of Neck (photo author)

271. Front

Figs. 271–72. BP 4: Neck (photos AAR)

Fig. 270. BP 3: Hair (photo author)

272. Back

PLATE 65

Fig. 274. BP 6: Tenon (photo author)

Fig. 273. BP 5: Neck and Tenon, front, drawing at 1:2 (photo AAR)

Fig. 275. BP 7: Tenon, front (photo author)

276. Front

277. Side

278. Back

Figs. 276–78. BP 8: Right Shoulder (photos author)

PLATE 66

279. Front

280. Back

Figs. 279–80. BP 9: Left Shoulder to Elbow (photos author)

281. Front oblique view

Figs. 281–82. BP 10: Right Shoulder (photos author)

282. Side

PLATE 67

Fig. 283. BP 11: Right Upper Arm, front (photo AAR)

Fig. 284. BP 12: Left Elbow of Togatus (photo author)

286. Arm (photo AAR) Fig. 285. BP 13: Right Forearm and Elbow (photo AAR)

287. Dowel channel (photo author) Fig. 288. BP 15: Right Forearm and Hand (photo author)

Figs. 286–87. BP 14: Upper Arm?

PLATE 68

Fig. 290. BP 17: Left Elbow and Forearm (photo AAR)

Fig. 289. BP 16: Right Forearm (photo author)

Fig. 291. BP 18: Left Hand, male (photo author)

293. Thumb side

292. Outer side Figs. 292–93. BP 19: Left Hand Holding Rotulus (photos author)

294. Top

295. Palm

Figs. 294–95. BP 20: Left Hand, male (photos AAR)

296. Top

297. Palm

Figs. 296–97. BP 21: Left Hand, male (photos author)

PLATE 69

300. Palm (photo AAR)

299. Top (photo author)

Figs. 299–300. BP 23: Right Hand Fig. 298. BP 22: Finger on Sword Hilt (photo AAR)

Fig. 301. BP 24: Right Hand (photo author)

Fig. 302. BP 25: Male Thigh (photo author)

303. Leg, front

304. Leg, outer side

305. Foot, inner side

Figs. 303–5. BP 26: Right Leg and Foot (photos author)

PLATE 70

Fig. 306. BP 27: Lower Leg, male (photo AAR)

Fig. 307. BP 28: Lower Leg, male (photo AAR) Fig. 308. BP 29: Lower Leg, female, draped (photo author)

Fig. 310. BP 31: Left Heel, male (photo AAR)

Fig. 309. BP 30: Right Lower Leg and Foot (photo author)

311. Inner side

312. Outer side

Fig. 313. BP 33: Right Foot Wearing Calceus (photo AAR)

Figs. 311–12. BP 32: Left Foot, male (photos author)

PLATE 71

315. Inner side (photo author)

314. Top (photo AAR)

Figs. 314–15. BP 34: Left Foot Wearing Calceus

316. Outer side

317. Top

Figs. 316–17. BP 35: Right Foot Wearing Calceus (photos author)

319. Top

Fig. 318. BP 36: Right Toes, male (photo author) 320. Inner side

Figs. 319–20. BP 37: Right Female Foot Wearing Soft Shoe (photos author)

PLATE 72

321. Front

322. Inner side

323. Outer side

Figs. 321–23. BP 38: Right Female Foot Wearing Soft Shoe (photos author)

Fig. 326. BP 41: Right Foot of Togatus (photo author)

Fig. 324. BP 39: Right Female Foot Wearing Soft Shoe (photo author).

Fig. 325. BP 40: Right Female Foot Wearing Soft Shoe (photo author)

PLATE 73

327. Outer side

328. Inner side

Figs. 327–28. BP 42: Right Foot Wearing Calceus (photos AAR)

Fig. 329. BP 43: Sandaled Right Foot on Plinth (photo AAR)

330. Outer side

331. Front

Figs. 330–31. BP 44: Nude Right Foot (photos author)

PLATE 74

332. Top

333. Outer side

334. Top 335. Inner side

Figs. 332–33. BP 45: Nude Right Foot (photo AAR) Figs. 334–35. BP 46: Nude Right Foot (photos AAR)

Fig. 336. BP 47: Nude Right Foot (photo AAR)

Fig. 338. Plinth? from House of Diana, Giallo antico (photo author)

Fig. 337. Revetment Molding from House of Diana, Bardiglio (photo author)