What Did the Sarcophagus of Symmachus Look Like?: Late Antique Pagan Sarcophagi [1 ed.] 877184743X, 9788771847437

Citation preview

NIELS HANNESTAD is professor

This book concerns the chronology of Roman mythological

emeritus of Classical Archaeology at

sarcophagi. The traditional chronology assumes a peak in

Aarhus University. His publications

production during the reign of Gallienus (AD 259-268) that fades

cover a variety of Roman topics, with his main focus being portraiture. He is the author of Roman Art and Imperial Policy (Aarhus University Press 1984, paperback 1988). A new area of research was opened up by Tradition in Late Antique Sculpture. Conservation – Modernization – Production. (Aarhus University Press 1994).

away in the reign of Constantine. This chronology has some obvious flaws. The supposed peak under the reign of Gallienus, when the empire was falling apart, can only be described as a mirage. Some very fine sarcophagi were indeed produced in this period, but the number is very limited. With the reign of Constantine (AD 306-337) came wealth, and the so-called ‘villa boom’ that also revived sculpture in the round. At that time, it is believed that production of pagan sarcophagi had ceased, to be replaced by Christian sarcophagi. However, this raises a very simple question: how were pagans buried? No doubt production of pagan sarcophagi continued beyond the turn of the century and Symmachus, who died in AD 402, was buried in such a sarcophagus.

What did the Sarcophagus of Symmachus look like?

What did the Sarcophagus of Symmachus look like?

What did the Sarcophagus of Symmachus look like? Late Antique Pagan Sarcophagi

  AARHUS UNIVERSITY PRESS

111117_cover_Sarcophagus_r2.indd 1

a

By Niels Hannestad · Aarhus University Press

27/09/2019 07.40

W hat did the sarcophagus of s ymmachus l ook like ?

l ate a ntique

pagan sarcophagi

Niels Hannestad

What did the sarcophagus of Symmachus look like? © Author and Aarhus University Press 2019 Cover: Jørgen Sparre Cover illustration: The Acilia Sarcophagus, Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, Museo Nazionale Romano, Rome. Photo by the author. Layout and typesetting: Ryevad Grafisk This book is typeset in ITC Legacy Serif Std E-book production by Narayana Press, Denmark

ISBN 978 87 7184 156 5 Aarhus University Press Finlandsgade 29 DK-8200 Aarhus N Denmark www.unipress.dk Published with the financial support of: Aarhus University Research Foundation Ny Carlsbergfondet International distributors: Oxbow Books Ltd. The Old Music Hall 106-108 Cowley Road Oxford, OX4 1JE United Kingdom www.oxbowbooks.com ISD 70 Enterprise Drive, Suite 2 Bristol, CT 06010 USA www.isdistribution.com

/ In accordance with requirements of the Danish Ministry of Higher Education and Science, the certification means that a PhD level peer has made a written assessment justifying this book’s scientific quality.

Contents Page 7

Introduction

Page 11

The revival of mythological sculpture

Page 15

The question of pagan sarcophagi in Late Antiquity

Page 18

The City of Rome

Page 21

Luxury crafts

Page 34

The Getty sarcophagus in the context of Late Antique mythological sculpture

Page 43

Mythological marble sculpture of Late Antiquity – an overview Muse sarcophagi Dionysian/Season sarcophagi Sarcophagi with Nereids and sea centaurs Sarcophagi with mythological themes Hunting sarcophagi

Page 79

Chronology – the end of production

Page 88

Postscript

Page 89

Bibliography

Page 97

Credit of photographs

IntroduCtIon

What did the sarcophagus of Symmachus look like? To my knowledge this hypothetical question has never been asked and by all likelihood it will never be answered. However, we can reasonably expect such a sarcophagus to have existed, and it may be possible to imagine the appearance. Surely it must have been magnificent. One of the most prominent figures in the pagan resistance against rising Christianity was the city prefect, politician and rhetor Q. Aurelius Symmachus (c. 345-402), descendent of an old aristocratic family that continued to be influential. The last Symmachus we really know about, Q. Aurelius Memmius Symmachus, was consul in 485. The circle around him were high ranking members of society, many of whom are well known through literary sources1. They were immensely rich but mentally in opposition to Constantinople and the emperor – which, however, did not influence their career. Not until the beginning of the 5th century did the imperial house and an aggressive church cause the disappearance of this pagan aristocracy. ‘Pagans’ formed a very varied group of cults and attitudes, contrary to the members of the church. In fact, it was the Christians that condescendingly labelled the non-Christians as pagans. Despite dissimilarities of belief between Christians and pagans, members of the upper-class shared the same cultural heritage. The model of education and learning had changed little since the time of Cicero and would not do so for another two centuries. From the Moselle to the Levant, the upper classes read the same authors, discussed the classic masterpieces of sculpture (whether they had seen them or not) and

1

On the pagan aristocracy in Late Antique Rome, not in fact a homogenous group: Cameron 2011; Gwynn 2011. introduction

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

7

adorned their stately homes in the old way with sculptures and mosaics deemed appropriate for such settings. When it came to burials, only the Christians are supposed to have marked their graves while pagan burials supposedly were shrouded in darkness – which is hardly the case. A grandiose example of a huge and delicately carved Christian sarcophagus is that of the city prefect Junius Bassus, who died in 359. His son of the same name, also a Christian, built a basilica-like structure on the Esquiline decorated with a wall revetment in opus sectile featuring, among other themes, the myth of Hylas attacked by the nymphs, while rows of Egyptian gods spread over the floor2. To contemporary society, this presented no contradiction. To approach the question asked in the title, it is necessary to take a closer look at the chronology of the later phase of Roman monumental sarcophagi. Sarcophagi, many of which were decorated with reliefs, came into fashion in the late Trajanic period initiated by the ‘Greek wave’. Not surprisingly, Rome was the centre of production with c. 6.000 specimens of all types registered. Sarcophagi with reliefs are categorized chronologically in ten groups3 each favouring specific motifs. The traditional chronology marks a peak in production and quality in the late Antonine period (c. 170-200). In the early and middle Severan period (c. 200-220/230) as well as the late Severan period (c. 220/250) were introduced new ways of sculpting details, such as eyes, which were to be introduced later in sculpture in the round. The Gallienic period (c. 253-268) hold the same standard and the following ten years (c. 270-280) still produced high quality pieces but in limited numbers, while the Tetrarchic period (c. 280-311/313) was a period of decline producing few sarcophagi. Production of pagan sarcophagi ended in the final period (c. 311/312 – end of the 4th century) with only a few attested beyond the reign of Constantine. Pagan motifs were vanishing but some ‘neutral’ sarcophagi were still produced depicting themes such as hunting in various versions. In this period new motifs were introduced—such as the good herdsman, a figure also carved in the round, which became

2 3 8

Ensoli – La Rocca 2000, cat. no. 177. Koch 1993, 92-94.

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

favoured by Christians. The change of motifs paved the road for the Christian sarcophagi that would be the future. Portraits of the deceased had a long tradition in Roman funerary art. When Greek style sarcophagi entered Rome mythological themes became favoured.4 In the early period, the coffin was decorated with reliefs depicting various Greek myths without any portraits. Later the reliefs could be reinterpreted in the way that the head of the main figure(s) was transformed into a portrait, making the deceased part of the story. Among the many types is the kline sarcophagus featuring the married couple laying on the lid while the mythological scene is placed on the coffin. For unknown reasons, however much discussed, many portraits on sarcophagi are unfinished. By contrast, the reliefs on hunting sarcophagi usually have finished portraits. When the portraits are missing or unfinished, we have to rely on typology and style alone. The 3rd century is regarded as the culmination of Roman sarcophagi, representing a great variety of motifs. In this period were produced several large and high quality pieces, the so-called ‘Prunksarkophage’ – a group, however, vaguely defined. The basic work concerning these sarcophagi is a short article, published in 1977 by Bernard Andreae and Helmut Jung, in which they schematically present 250 Prunksarkophage from the 3rd century5. In the following article in the same volume by Jung alone6 he notes that the sarcophagi of the Gallienic period differ so much from sarcophagi of the previous periods that they cannot be attributed to specific workshops. This observation about the diversity of sarcophagi produced in this period (and later) creates a link to mythological sculpture of Late Antiquity. The traditional chronology faces us with two serious problems: The supposed peak, during the reign of Gallienus, correlates with the military anarchy, when the Empire was falling apart. Sarcophagi were, indeed, still produced in Rome in this period—some of very high quality, such as the

4 5 6

Koch 1993, 51-53. Andreae – Jung 1977, 432-436. Jung 1977, 436-444. introduction

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

9

so-called Plotinus sarcophagus7. In contrast to the 3rd century, the 4th was a wealthy period reviving the grandeur of the Empire as it had been before the military anarchy. Considering the historical evidence, we may expect that members of the pagan nobility were buried in coffins that continued the grand tradition. The idea that pagan sarcophagi vanished with the reign of Constantine may be based on the profound changes in the mental climate that took place in this period. The edict of tolerance was issued in Milan; and as a ruler, Constantine staunchly based his policy on a religion that in all probability would be victorious. However, the empire did not become Christianized overnight, and paganism was not banished until much later.

7

10

Wegner 1966, cat. no. 116; for a most comprehensive review of Wegner, see Fittschen in Gnomon 44, pp. 486-504; Ewald 1999, no. D3 with references; on the sarcophagus trade, see Russell 2013, chap. 7.

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

the revIval of mythologICal sCulpture

The presumed disappearance of mythological sarcophagi following the reign of Constantine has a parallel in the idea that mythological sculpture – or ‘Idealskulptur’, a more apt term – disappeared at the same time. The chaos created by the military anarchy of the mid and later 3rd century left a physical and mental vacuum in aristocratic life. But the reign of Constantine inaugurated a time of peace and prosperity, which also initiated a flurry of upper-class building activity, termed the ‘villa boom’. It peaked from about 320 to the end of the century; in most of the empire, upper-class mansions, domus in the cities, suburban villas and countryside villas were restored, and new were built. The floors were covered with marble slabs or mosaics, often presenting mythological motifs matching the sculpture and silver on view in the same rooms. As an innovative architectural concept, these wealthy mansions were embellished with niches suitable for displaying sculpture. Much sculpture, in particular small-scale pieces, has indeed been found in these houses. An explosive growth of such material has been recovered since the Second World War by excavation activity – some scientific, other more random due to construction work, not to mention clandestine digs to satisfy a booming art market. The ever-rising number of well-preserved marble sculptures found in Late Antique upper-class houses makes it increasingly difficult to accept the conventional chronology, which would also leave us with a very simple question: where were all these well-preserved sculptures stored during the troubled years of the third century? Additionally it should be noted that the limited number of sculptures found in Late Antique contexts and unquestionably dated to the early and high empire are mostly worn and often heavily restored using techniques only attested in Late Antiquity. t h e r e v i va l o f m y t h o l o g i c a l s c u l p t u r e

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

11

Fig. 1. Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek: The Esquiline Group.

12

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

Mythological marble statuary found in late Antique private contexts has been explained as reuse from earlier periods. On the assumption that such sculpture was not produced in Late Antiquity, such pieces were – and to a large extent still are – dated to the Antonine-Severan period based simply on the highly polished surface treatment. However, this conventional dating has increasingly been questioned since the early 1980s. A new understanding of Late Antique mythological sculpture came with the appearance of two unrelated articles. In 1981 Elaine Gazda published a marble statuette of Ganymede and the eagle excavated in Carthage, which she dated to the “Age of Augustine”, thereby demonstrating that production of small-scale sculpture continued into Late Antiquity8. In her large comprehensive article, she broadened the art circle to involve various groups of artefacts such as small-scale mythological sculpture as well as full scale reliefs and Christian sarcophagi. Her most epoch-making contribution to the understanding of the period was to draw on a very different material: Late Antique silver plates in the classical tradition regardless of the unknown faith of the then owners. A year later Charlotte Roueché re-dated the so-called Esquiline Group [Fig. 1] now in Copenhagen from the mid-second century to late Constantinian times based on epigraphic evidence9. The statues of this large ensemble all have inscribed plinths giving the names of two Aphrodisian sculptors. Five sculptures – Jupiter, Neptune, Sol, Satyr with the infant Dionysos on his shoulder and the upper part of Hercules – out of what could have been more than ten statues altogether making the group the largest one known from Late Antiquity. Based on these two articles a new field of research emerged focusing on Late Antique mythological sculpture10.

8 9 10

Gazda 1981, 125-178. Roueché – Erim 1982. The main contributions are: Hannestad 1994 and 2012, 75-112; Bergmann 1999; Kranz 2006; Vorster 2012/2013. On the Esquiline group Moltesen 2000, 111-131. t h e r e v i va l o f m y t h o l o g i c a l s c u l p t u r e

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

13

The traditional view that production of mythological sculpture came to a halt with the military anarchy of the third century has, however, some truth. A rare example from Rome is a poor quality Dionysos statue (H: 94 cm.) dated by an inscription to the end of the 3rd century, but more unrecorded pieces may exist11. Otherwise, the very few pieces securely dated to the period of upheaval were mostly produced in remote, but protected areas, such as central Spain and Cyprus12. The scanty material makes it difficult to establish a line of continuation, but it appears that production was slowly resumed at the end of the century. The absence of mythological sculpture during the troubled period is a puzzling fact considering that production, however modest, of monumental sarcophagi continued. In many respects, most of the 3rd century is a black hole in which villa life too is poorly understood. When mythological sculpture reappeared, starting with small-scale sculpture, it is obvious that much had changed. Large-scale sculpture of Late Antiquity is rooted in the tradition of the early and high empire. The amount of such sculpture in Late Antiquity is modest, in contrast to the multitude of sculptures on a smaller scale. As opposed to larger sculpture of the period, small-scale sculpture is an offshoot of the production of sarcophagi for the nobility that were carved in very high relief.

11 12 14

Giuliano 1981, I 2 Ala IV 13, 292 f. inv. 74025 (M. A. Rizzo). Hannestad 2014, 230-231, 244 with references.

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

the questIon of pagan sarCophagI In late antIquIty

It has never directly been ruled out that pagan sarcophagi could have existed in Late Antiquity as more than a fading tradition. Rather, it has simply not been a topic of discussion. Hugo Brandenburg has indicated a huge sarcophagus [Figs. 2a-c] standing in the courtyard of the Museo Nuovo, Rome, as a candidate for a possible corpus of sarcophagi produced for members of the Late Antique pagan aristocracy13. Brandenburg dates it to c. 320/330. This strigillated sarcophagus has a very plain decoration referring to aristocratic life without any hint to Christianity. The two panels to the left and right depict a married couple, both represented as learned persons, each holding a book scroll in their left hand with a collection of scrolls at their feet. They stand in a parapetasma; in the middle is a small mandorla with the figure of Victory writing on a shield. The lid decorated with two reliefs showing hunting scenes are separated by a tabula, unfortunately with no inscription preserved. The portraits are unfinished, but the female has a coiffure that came into fashion in the Tetrarchic period and continued until the very end of female portraiture. A closer analysis of stylistic and typological details of the relief figures of the married couple suggests a date in the later part of the 4th century. The anatomy of the figures is unnatural and abstract. The unfinished heads are too large, as are the hands with fingers that are hardly shaped. The right arm of the male is absurdly elongated—the hand goes below the knee. The feet are sloppy, almost ‘drop-feet’ ren-

13

Brandenburg 2004, 12 fig. 10; Musei Capitolini 1. 2010, 40-45 no. 3 inv. S 9 (L. Buccino); Birk 2013, cat. no. 82; Fittschen – Zanker 2014, cat. no. 168 (puzzled by the fact that the portraits are not finished). t h e q u e s t i o n o f pag a n s a r c o p hag i i n l at e a n t i q u i t y

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

15

16

‹‹‹

Fig. 2 a–c. Rome, Musei Capitolini, Palazzo Nuovo, inv. 9/5: Strigilated sarcophagus with a learned couple.

dered without the foreshortening like in much ivories of late Antiquity. The drapery appears almost to float. For comparison, one can look at Christian sarcophagi. A strigillated sarcophagus in Villa Savoia, Rome, has a tondo with busts of a learned couple14. In this case the portraits are finished, giving a date in the last third of the 4th century. The two sarcophagi share several traits. The coiffure of both couples is similar. The draperies are non-naturalistic, the hands likewise (but carved to be in normal size). It can plausibly be argued that the Villa Savoia and the Museo Nuovo sarcophagus were produced at the same time and illustrate how popular strigillated sarcophagi were among both pagan and Christian customers of the time.

14

Repertorium 2, cat. no. 108. t h e q u e s t i o n o f pag a n s a r c o p hag i i n l at e a n t i q u i t y

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

17

the CIty of rome

When Constantine transferred the capital of the Empire to Constantinople and Rome was reduced to the second city of the Empire, it became a city of proud tradition and a stronghold of paganism nursed by a rich upper class. The hilly, green belt surrounding the old centre of Rome was a favourite residential area of the upper class, as it has been since Republican times, but also fine suburban villas are attested mostly by random excavations. Sadly, the areas in question fell victim to the forced building activity following the unification of Italy. Finds were rarely reported, and much sculpture, now to be dated to Late Antiquity, was neglected because the pieces looked odd compared to sculpture of the high Empire. In a recent article Christiane Vorster discusses a great number of Late Antique sculptures, mostly life size, which can be linked to Rome.15 Predominately the sculpture under discussion can be attributed to the ‘School of Aphrodisias’, but other workshops were also active in the old capital.16 In chronological terms the production lasted from the Constantinian period to the early part of the following century, while in the East it continued for more than a hundred years, albeit in steadily reduced number.17 But sculpture continued to be on show in public spaces— mainly in the baths, individual pieces were also set up throughout the city. Private collections too existed long after the end of Antiquity18. In Constantinople sculpture often remained in these locations for a long

15 16 17 18

18

Vorster 2013, 393-497. Hannestad 2012, 75-112. For a recent contribution: Witschel 2015, 322-339. On collections in Constantinople, see Basset 2004, chapters 3-5; on attitudes toward ancient sculpture: Mango 1963.

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

time. Thus the horses of San Marco in Venice were still a part of the cityscape when Constantinople fell to the crusaders in 1204. A fine insight into religious life in Late Antique Rome is provided by pagan sanctuaries, some of which were still in use until the end of Antiquity. Despite imperial edicts and local harassment, pagan activities did not cease. The pagan resistance was connected with such places of worship, and especially those for oriental cults thrived. The most notable shrine, the old Iseum and Serapeum on the Campus Martius, still existed in the fifth century19. The sculptural finds in two minor shrines are particularly relevant for the understanding of pagan upper class life in Late Antiquity: a sanctuary of Jupiter Dolichenus on the Aventine Hill was in use beyond the mid fourth century20, and a private shrine, part of a domus on the Esquiline Hill (the so-called Larario di San Martino ai Monti) was a sanctuary of Isis21. Supposedly the sanctuaries came to an end in the 4th century. From the sanctuary of Jupiter Dolichenus, 55 pieces of sculpture have survived, while the private ‘Larario’ in the shape of a small chapel contained 21 sculptures22. The sculptures in both sanctuaries had been gathered from various sources, making the collections very uneven, the sizes ranging from life size to tiny statuettes. Several pieces were produced during the high Empire but the majority belong to the fourth century; and a few very late pieces may belong to the end of the century. The late pieces, all with highly-polished surfaces, are dated to the second century, conventionally to the Antonine period, when polishing of marble sculpture was standard. Relevant is a find – and many more of this type must have existed – of a collection of sculptures from a stately home. The ensemble had been

19 20 21

22

Hannestad 2007, 289 f.; Ensoli – La Rocca 2000, 281. For a general discussion of the situation in Rome, see Ensoli – La Rocca 2000, sezione III. 2. Chini, in: Ensoli – La Rocca 2000, 288-294 with cat. nos. 165-172 (S. Ensoli). Ensoli – La Rocca 2000, 267-287 with cat. nos. 146-160 (M. Paola del Moro). The sculptures from these two sanctuaries have not been harmed. On the attitude towards sculpture in Late Antiquity, see Caseau 2011, “Religious Intolerance and Pagan Statuary”. For further references: Hannestad 2007, n. 97-99. the cit y of rome

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

19

hidden, waiting for better times to come23. The find was made during construction work on the Via Praenestina about two kilometers outside of Rome. In a small arched room was piled up “un certo numero di statuarie frammentarie” of which only five are briefly discussed24. Two sculptures are on display in the cortile of the Museo Nazionale Romano, a girl with a dove and a fisherman (one of the most favoured figures in Late Antiquity)25. The fisherman is the only piece that the scholarship has taken an interest in, because he was of particular interest for a discussion of Stilkritik. For this reason this sculpture has been – and still is – dated to the 2nd century. We know nothing about the owner or the location of his suburban villa, but he was likely a member of the pagan upper class and thus had to hide these sculptures. When he was eventually buried, he must have been entombed in a pagan sarcophagus, not visible to the public.

23 24 25

20

Hannestad 2012, 103. Mancini 1920, 225-227. Giuliano 1981, 276-278 Ala IV no. 4 (L. de Lachenal) and 276-278 Ala IV no. 4 (L. de Lachenal) and 295-297 Ala IV no. 16.

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

luxury Crafts In classical archaeology there is a general tendency to study particular groups of artefacts in isolation. Scholars studying sarcophagi are in this respect no exception. Marble sculpture in the round, reliefs and sarcophagi are rarely put into context with other art forms, despite the fact that these groups of artefacts came into existence in the same cultural milieu: the upper class. Much information can be gathered by including in particular luxury crafts in the discussion. This will also as pointed out by Elaine Gazda elucidate the mental climate26. Within two groups of luxury crafts, silver plates and ivory diptychs, some pieces can undoubtly be connected with faith. From an interpretation of classical motifs as clear evidence of pagan belief, the pendulum is now swinging to the opposite side: classical motifs in art tell nothing at all about belief27. A position in between may be more likely, if difficult to manage, when it comes to individual pieces. As a group of artefacts, only the contorniates, produced into the first half of the 5th century, can certainly be regarded as a manifesto of paganism28. The Parabiago plate (diam.: 39 cm) [Fig. 3], named after the find spot close to Milan, is presumably pagan29. On the plate, favoured deities of the time are rendered in three zones with figures in various sizes. Thus, the middle scene features oriental deities much favoured by pagans of all social strata. As seen in much Late Antique silver, mostly plates, there is little relation between the individual groups, as stressed by their difference in size. Rather, the decoration is a statement of paganism.

26 27 28 29

Gazda 1981, 125-178. Cameron 2011, chap. 19. Alföldi – Alföldi 1990, 7-12. Age of Spirituality 1979, cat. no. 164; Leader-Newby 2004, 146 f. pl. 3, 13; 151 f. 154 f. 156. 159 pl. 3, 15. lu x u ry c r a f t s

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

21

Fig. 3. Milano, Civico Museo Archeologico, inv. AO.9.14264: Parabiago Plate.

22

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

Contrary to silver, ivory, often in the shape of diptychs, was rarely hoarded but instead handed down through generations, often ending up in church treasuries. The material was extremely costly due to the limited amount of ivory accessible30. The prime exponents of this group of artefacts are the large-scale consular diptychs. Several private diptychs were also carved, and among them are quite a number with unquestionably pagan motifs. Some have been produced in workshops that simultaneously produced diptychs with Christian motifs, which tells us, not surprisingly, that workshops could produce for different groups of customers at the same time. The same goes for other workshops producing luxury crafts or carving marble sculpture. A common theme on the consular diptychs is officials attending games arranged to entertain the public. A unique piece, dated to the early 5th century, is a leaf now in Liverpool depicting a deer hunt staged in the arena31 [Fig. 4]. Three men in toga trabea are seated frontally behind an ornately carved parapet overlooking the arena. The central figure pours a libation. An older man to the left gestures toward him, while the young man to the right clasps a mappa in his right hand. It has been noted that the status of the three officials is uncertain since none wears the triumphal toga of the consul and no inscription identifies the occasion. The three men may be members of an aristocratic family sponsoring the games for the populace to mark an unrecorded occasion – if this occasion indeed ever took place. A closer look at this leaf reveals some oddities: the man in the middle holds a patera – not a bowl, as often stated – to pour a libation, but where is the altar? Adding to the strangeness of this diptych, the animals depicted are clearly elk, an animal otherwise not attested in Late Antique art. The elk was a very exotic animal living in the deep forests of the North. It was among the animals brought to Rome to celebrate the thousand-year anniversary of the founding of Rome, as mentioned in the Historia Au-

30 31

The Romans had then exterminated the North African elephant. Age of Spirituality 1979, cat. no. 84; Gibson 1994, cat. no. 7 (colour plate on p. 16). lu x u ry c r a f t s

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

23

Fig. 4. Liverpool, National Museums & Galleries, inv. M 10042: Venatio diptych. 24

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

Fig. 5. London, British Museum, inv. 57,10-13,1: Consecratio diptych. lu x u ry c r a f t s

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

25

gusta (v. Gordiani Tres XXXIII 1-2). It was depicted in a series of coins struck by the then-emperor Philip I to celebrate the occasion32. Another retrospective piece is the so-called Consecratio diptych, also with only one leaf preserved [Fig. 5]. An emperor is shown brought to heaven by Aion33. The very dense scene on the panel contains all the elements of the imperial apotheosis of previous periods. In all likelihood, the apotheosis of Julian the Apostate is depicted. The dating of this unique piece is disputed, as is the origin of production. Presumably it was carved in Rome on the occasion of the death of Julian. Mortally wounded in the 363 war against the Sassanids, he was buried in Tarsus according to his wishes. As the last pagan emperor, Julian is also depicted on contorniates34. He was an important figure for the pagan nobility, not least in Rome; but who could have commissioned this diptych? It is topped by a monogram, which has usually been deciphered as Symmachorum. While not definitively proven, it would make sense that Symmachus was the person responsible for the manufacturing of this ivory. At the top of the scenes, five persons are waiting for the emperor. Two winged males, both naked except for gowns flowing behind them, are carrying him to heaven. Small wings spring from their heads. Usually these unique personifications are identified as winds, but they must Aion in duplicate: one is young Aion, the other mature Aion with a beard. The iconography would thus follow an old Roman tradition in making a pair out of one individual. The persons above appear to be deceased family members: three females to the left and a married couple to the right. The male is definitely a portrait of a man with a high forehead and beard. The couple could be the parents of the emperor, both devout Christians. Below the deceased is the main figure sitting in a quadriga topped by a temple-like

32 33

34

26

RIC IV part III 62 nos. 19 f. Delbrueck 1929, no. 59; St. Clair 1964, 205-211; Age of Spirituality no. 60; Cameron 2011 – suggesting that the depicted is Symmachus himself, which is most unlikely. It would have been an affront to the imperial house. Alföldi – Alföldi 1990, cat. nos. 4-7 pl. 184; for the contorniates in Late Antique society: 6-74; see also index: 431.

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

Fig. 6 a-b. Paris, Musée de Cluny, inv. N. CL 1036 e 17.048 (Nicomachorum) and London, Victoria and Albert museum, inv. N. 212-1865 (Symmachorum): Nicomachorum – Symmachorum diptycha.

lu x u ry c r a f t s

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

27

structure. He holds a sceptre in his left hand and a laurel in his right. Four elephants pull the quadriga. Above the elephants, two eagles are soaring. Between the eagles and the emperor, Sol Invictus is standing in his quadriga, his windblown gown rising above his head. In the religious universe of Julian, Sol Invictus played an important role. No doubt this diptych has to be understood in a pagan context. In great detail it refers to the earlier empire, further stressed by the dress of the main figure. Like Antoninus Pius on his apotheosis relief, Julian is shown in the simple toga of the high empire and without a diadem. Reassuming old traditions in the form of dress, signs of dignity and iconography may be labelled ‘revived tradition’. Older elements could be mixed up in new contexts, if not always consistently35. Julian’s interest in the past is also reflected in a statue in the Louvre depicting the emperor in the role of a Greek priest36. Julian may have offended powerful groups, but his statues were not harmed after his death; and despite its offensive motif, the diptych has survived37. Now divided between Paris and London is an extraordinary ivory diptych with both leafs preserved. The quality of carving is exquisite and, unique among diptychs from a private context, they are inscribed jointly for the families of the Symmachi and the Nichomachi, another leading pagan family [Figs. 6a-b]. In a tabulae ansatae placed above the figural scenes is written, respectively, NICOMACHORVM – SYMMACHORVM.

35

36

37

28

A gem in the Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore depicts an unidentified emperor with his wife. He wears a laurel wreath, she a diadem, both insignia of previous times. The style is oddly abstract, Richter II 1971; ideal sculpture paraphrasing earlier periods could also be produced, such as an oversized togatus found in Aphrodisias paraphrasing the Hadrianic period (see below). De Kerauson 1996, cat. no. 251. It is strongly rejected by Fittschen, that the portraits, normally attributed to Julian can represent this emperor, but rather the person is a pagan priest (in more versions). Fittschens suggestion has hardly any followers. This is rather an example of how a pastiche wrongly can be dated to the period it imitates. However, the Christians remembered him, but differently. On an ivory diptych he is the iconographic model for the evil king Herodes attending the slaughter of the infants in Jerusalem: Hannestad 2001, 104 figs. 11 a–b; Age of Spirituality 1979, cat. nos. 406-407.

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

The families were intermarried and both were prominent in the pagan resistance. The diptych may celebrate a marriage tentatively dated to various years around 390 A.D.38 The Nicomachus leaf depicts a sacrificial scene. A priestess dressed in a simple sleeveless garment holds two lighted torches, presumably indicative of a nocturnal ritual. She stands in front of a large pine tree from which hang cymbals or bells referring to the cult of Magna Mater, much favoured by pagans of the period. The Symmachus leaf, now in London, presents a priestess before an altar scattering incense over a small fire. She is accompanied by an attendant who holds a bowl of fruits and a kantharos. Both figures wear wreaths of ivy in their hair, a reference to Dionysos. A gnarled oak tree fills the background. The panels of the diptych are a sort of announcement of two aristocratic families united in their pagan resistance. The iconography of both leaves is deliberately retrospective; but despite the high quality of carving, the diptych is obviously a pastiche in a mannerist style. Rather odd are the position of the right heel of the priestess as well as the sloping shoulder of the attending boy. The lack of naturalism is obvious as in the rendering of the amateur philosopher discussed below. In this respect the style of the diptych is concordant with silver plates but also sculpture in the round as well as sarcophagi. Related to the same circles, but not inscribed, is a diptych now in Liverpool featuring Asclepios and Hygeia39. In a more classicist style, the couple is depicted as statues standing on bases between pillars. These gods are present in nearly every sculptural collection of Late Antiquity. The saviour god Asclepios was so favoured that he was usurped by early Christianity as the model for the first image of Christ. In an age of acculturation, when the decoration of an upper-class house tells nothing

38 39

Kinney 1994; Age of Spirituality 1979, cat. no. 166; Aurea Roma 2000, cat. nos. 68 f.; Cameron 2011, index: 861. Age of Spirituality 1979, cat. no. 133; Gibson 1994, cat. nos. V–VI with colour plates on p. 10. lu x u ry c r a f t s

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

29

Fig. 7. Monza, Tesoro del Duomo, inv. 12: ivory diptych with poet and muse.

30

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

about belief, the presence of something as private as a diptych may indicate another situation. A somewhat later diptych is now in the Tesoro del Duomo in Monza [Fig.  7], a city at its peak in late Antiquity40. This high-quality and well-preserved diptych, dated to the mid- or late fifth century, depicts another traditional scene: a poet and his muse. The poet is dressed as a Greek-style philosopher, a himation partly covering his right shoulder, while the drapery over his left arm rather oddly changes into the sleeve of a tunic. This amateur philosopher presents a very realistic portrait of a middle-aged man, who must be a rich member of the nobility, whether pagan or not. The portrait is realistic and suggestions for names have been put forward. The date correlates with the abovementioned oversized statue of a togatus found in Aphrodisias41. The toga imitates the fashion of the high Empire, for which reason it is mostly dated to that period42. The Aphrodisias statue may represent a young genius, as suggested by Hans Rupprecht Goette43. It was found in a Late Antique context which, thanks to an inscription, can be dated to about A.D. 450. This dating is confirmed by the coiffure: a bald top of the head is encircled by hair, often very curly as in this case. This coiffure is only encountered in Late Antiquity and mostly in Asia Minor. The sculpture shares stylistic and typological traits with the Monza diptych. These figures wear garments that are similarly ornate, elaborate, flowing and non-plastic – neither traditional nor realistic. Stressing the diversity that can occur in this late period is a head of Ares Borghese, the last copy of a classical masterpiece, found in a late collection in Antioch. This head represents a different trend, more in agreement with portraits of the mid-fifth century44. The mode of expression has changed his face so that he looks like a sage, with staring, almost

40 41 42 43 44

Hannestad 2012, 84 f.; Milano capitale 1990, cat. no. 5b. 1d (colour plate on p. 311). Hannestad 2012, 83-86. Smith 2006, cat. no. 3. Goette 1990, 28. 49 f. Hannestad 1994, 119; Meischner 2004, cat. no. 17; Hannestad 2012, n. 25. lu x u ry c r a f t s

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

31

Byzantine eyes, and a deeply wrinkled brow: he represents the “Age of Spirituality”. This Ares is also an Aphrodisian work. The production of mythological marble sculpture in Aphrodisias continued longer than in most other cities. The last pieces of sculpture produced in Aphrodisias are tiny statuettes, with a ‘soapy’ surface that can also be found on some late sarcophagi45. Access to marble may not have been as abundant in Rome as it was during the high Empire. This problem is evidenced in the Esquiline group, carved in two different types of Aphrodisian marble. But Rome was never really in short supply of marble. We can still see the huge blocks of unworked marble in Ostia and Portus46. The Tiber was still navigable at that time, as noted by Rutilius of Narbo, who was leaving by sea for his homeland in A.D. 41747. Numerous fragments of sarcophagi, pagan as well as Christian, have been found in Ostia. Apparently, they were prepared for the limekilns that also swallowed marble statuary. We have little knowledge about the types of sarcophagi, pagan as well as Christian, that might have been produced in the area. Ostia and Portus have been in desperate need of proper excavations, but things are changing. Portus has been almost untouched, and would have been an obvious location for workshops of sarcophagi that could be floated upstream to the city. We have detailed knowledge about a rich and mighty pagan upper class in Rome. We have names, families, and written evidence concerning individual persons. We have luxury crafts that fit into the social and religious pattern with some pieces that are definitely produced for pagans. The contorniates represents a strong statement of a still vital

45

46 47 32

Erim 1990 27, fig. 30: two tiny statuettes of Cybele and Asklepios (?) inserted in the same oval marble base (no size given); Smith 1996, 20-24 figs. 17-18: a statuette of a priestess, H.: 18 cm. Smith notes the alabaster-like finish similar to the Cybele and Asclepios. A strigilated sarcophagus in Jerusalem (Rep. 2 no. 105) has a panel in the center depicting a young Atlas holding a shell-shaped clipeus with a portrait of the deceased Octavia Bebiana flanked by statues of a young couple. The shaping of the figures comes rather close to the Aphrodisian statuettes. Boin 2013. Boin 2013, 52 f. (Rut. Namat. 1. 180 f.).

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

paganism. It can be established that the classical tradition in sculpture continued into the fifth century. These facts make it difficult to explain the proposed absence of pagan sarcophagi in this period. The huge sarcophagus in the Museo Nuovo produced for a learned couple, discussed above, can hardly be the only candidate for a corpus of pagan sarcophagi in Late Antiquity. Consequently, we have to search for other sarcophagi that can with good reason be attributed to members of the pagan upper class in Late Antique Rome as well as other cities. In this search it may also be relevant to include the well-documented corpus of Christian sarcophagi.

lu x u ry c r a f t s

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

33

the getty sarCophagus In the Context of late antIque mythologICal sCulpture

A sarcophagus now in the J. Paul Getty Museum will be the starting point, because it can be conclusively related to various sculptures in the round. The motif is a learned couple surrounded by muses [Figs. 8a–d]. The very fragmentary coffin (c. 1.42 m x c. 2.6 m) has been published by G. Koch, who dates it to the early Gallienic period, i. e. A.D. 253-26048. It has no secure provenience but is discussed by Koch as “one of the largest sarcophagi still preserved from the city of Rome”. The surface of the heads and other protruding parts is somewhat weathered, while the highly polished areas in the more protected part of the surface are still shining. This indicates that the sarcophagus stood in the open, which is not common practice in Rome or its vicinity. The scene on the coffin features a learned couple with all nine muses, of which only four are preserved. Of the buried couple, the seated man is almost entirely lost, while his wife – to the left, also seated – is fairly well preserved, except for the now-lost head. However, the rough traces of the claw chisel on the preserved chin indicate that the portrait was unfinished. The figure stands in very high relief, almost freestanding. Forming a connected group with the married couple stands Terpsichore, Thalia and Euterpe. Then comes a gap where only the upper edge of the coffin is preserved with the brow and lion skin of Hercules. He is standing in front of a well-preserved Melpomene.

48 34

Koch 1988, no. 18.

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

The Getty sarcophagus has some peculiar stylistic traits characteristic of Late Antique mythological sculpture. The drapery particularly of Euterpe in the middle is rather abstract, with long linear grooves [Fig. 8b]. The drilling starts at various distances below the belt with no real connection to the flat fabric above, but also neglecting the hips. The drapery flowing forward from Euterpe’s left hip does not correspond with the drapery on her right hip. On all four muses, the drilling of the hair leaves small bridges crossing the channels. The transition between skin and hair is blurred and sometimes the drilling even starts in the skin. Next on the left stands Thalia, dressed in her typical close-fitting, netlike garment [Fig. 8c]. Thalia’s most revealing trait is her doughy right hand resting on a comic mask. A similarly shapeless hand, holding the upper part of a lute, is seen on a reclining female on a Meleager sarcophagus in the Palazzo dei Conservatori [Fig. 21b]. Turned away from the other muses stands Terpsichore [Fig. 8d]. The carving of her face is not of the same quality as that of the other muses. Most notable is the uncontrolled drilling of the tear duct, which is often met in small-scale Late Antique sculpture, sarcophagi and sculpture in the round. Another significant trait is the shape of the lower part of the brow and the ridge of the nose: this area forms an unbroken flat area with a sharp edge to the hollow of the eyes. The eyebrows are marked as a thin sculpted line. The upper part of the brow protrudes into the clumsily-drilled hair. The nose of Terpsichore has been knocked off, presumably during transport. The missing part had been reconstructed with plaster, as evidenced by three drilled holes, in which small metal sticks had been fixed to hold a new nose in plaster. This is a quite common restoration technique only seen in Late Antiquity, however rarely observed49. The surface of the break is just as weathered as other parts of the protruding surfaces, which tells us that the restoration did not last long.

49

An illustrating example from the far west is a life-size head of a female goddess found in Trier. The head, carved in the 2nd century, has been damaged and repaired. The hair has been perforated by coarse drilling and the battered nose restored with plaster, as evidenced by three drill holes for metal dowels: Hannestad 2006, 206 fig. 5.

t h e g e t t y s a r c o p hag u s i n t h e c o n t e x t o f l at e a n t i q u e m y t h o l o g i c a l s c u l p t u r e

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

35

36

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

Figs. 8 a–d. Malibu, The J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 72.AA.90: Getty muse sarcophagus. t h e g e t t y s a r c o p hag u s i n t h e c o n t e x t o f l at e a n t i q u e m y t h o l o g i c a l s c u l p t u r e

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

37

(a) inv. 94.AA.27: Polyhymnia.

(b) inv. 68.AA.21: muse.

(c) inv. 68.AA.22: muse.

(d) inv. 71.AA.461: muse.

38

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

‹‹‹

Figs. 9 a–d.

Malibu, The J. Paul Getty Museum: statues of muses from Cremna.

Also on display in the Getty Museum are four small muses found in Pisidian Cremna, now Turkey50 [Figs. 9a–d]. They can be considered as freestanding sisters of those of the Getty sarcophagus. They are very well preserved, with shining surfaces, however battered in the same way as the Getty sarcophagus. Some mechanical tool, betraying the damage caused by clandestine digging, has scratched the right side of the chin of the muse inv. 68.AA.21 [Fig. 10b]. The muses may have been standing in the library of a house in the same way that Cicero adorned the library of his house with muses. The ivory diptych in Monza also illustrates this long tradition, continuing up to A.D. 600. Polyhymnia is the most popular muse of the time, but strangely, the three others cannot be identified as they can on sarcophagi. The muses are nearly the same height, averaging a little more than 90 cm. and can with reason be dated to the later 4th century. As freestanding sculptures, they are more heterogeneous according to type but not least the quality of carving. They are also turning their heads in different directions. Obviously each of the statuettes was carved by a different sculptor, presumably working in the same workshop. Notable too is that the plinths are rather different, which by itself indicates a late dating. The front of the figures is highly polished, while their backs are unfinished in various ways: from the ponytail of Polyhymnia [Fig. 9a] to the neck support of 68.AA.21 [Fig. 9b] that should have been cut away. The difference between the individual figures is well illustrated by their faces [Figs. 10a–d]. The often-depicted Polyhymnia is by far the best of the figures [Fig. 10a]. The quality of carving is very high. The hair is combed back from the brow, while the temples have more volume, with deep drilled lines spanned by tiny bridges similar to the muses on the Getty sarcophagus; the ponytail has the same standard

50

Birk 2012, 27-31; see also Hannestad 2012, 87.

t h e g e t t y s a r c o p hag u s i n t h e c o n t e x t o f l at e a n t i q u e m y t h o l o g i c a l s c u l p t u r e

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

39

a

b

c d

Figs. 10 a–d. Malibu, The J. Paul Getty Museum: heads of the statues of muses from Cremna. (a) inv. 94.AA.27: head of Polyhymnia. (b) inv. 68.AA.21: head of muse. (c) inv. 68.AA.22: head of muse. (d) inv. 71.AA.461: head of muse. 40

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

as the hair at the temples. The eyes, with the paint partly preserved, are not sculpted. The muse inv. 68.AA.21 [Fig. 10b] has the same coiffure as Polyhymnia but the hair bulges, making it strangely voluminous with haphazardly drilled channels. The hairline rises oddly at the right side of her brow. Overall the work is rather crude, stressed by the awkward neck support. The drapery is sloppily carved and definitely un-naturalistic. The face has an unusual oval shape with deeply-drilled holes for pupils. The second figure in terms of quality is the muse inv. 68.AA.22 [Fig. 10c]. Traces of paint are preserved especially around the eyes, which have drill holes to indicate the pupils. Her hair is parted in the middle and swept up to the top of the head. Strangely, her gown appears to be fastened to her hair, which is best seen in profile view. The carving of the hair is soft, with no drilling, but the inorganic structure reveals the Late Antique manufacture. The muse inv. 71.AA.461 [Fig. 10d] has the same hairstyle as inv. 68.AA.22 [Fig. 10c] but is of a very inferior quality. The entire statue is out of proportion. In particular the shoulders are too narrow. The face is long and thin, the hair wry. The most striking feature is the shape of the lower part of the brow and the ridge of the nose, which forms an unbroken flat area with a sharp edge to the hollow of the eyes exactly like that of Terpsichore on the Getty sarcophagus [Fig. 8d]. This peculiar shape of the brow brings us to an essential piece of sculpture: the small seated Christ now in the Palazzo Massimo in Rome [Figs. 11a–b], generally dated to about A.D. 36051. A comparison of the facial features shows similarities in the areas around the eyes of Christ and Terpsichore in particular, but also the Cremna muse [Fig. 10d]. In fact, they may be attributed to the same group of workshops being active in more parts of the empire. Christ has long curly hair with the individual locks ending in an s-shape, which Marianne Bergmann has

51

Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Massimo, inv. 61565: Ensoli – La Rocca 2000, 650 f. cat. no. 262 (M. Sapelli, with bibliography). On the figure’s possible identification as Christ, see Hannestad 1999, 174 f. For a short entry: Repertorium 2, cat. no. 132.

t h e g e t t y s a r c o p hag u s i n t h e c o n t e x t o f l at e a n t i q u e m y t h o l o g i c a l s c u l p t u r e

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

41

Figs. 11 a–b. ed Christ.

Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Massimo, inv. 61565: Seat-

pointed out as “the mark of Aphrodisias”, so to speak52. Very similar is also the coiffure of the Jupiter of the Esquiline group53: beneath a sloppy executed band, dividing the top of the head from the unruly locks framing the face of the god.

52 53 42

Bergmann 1999. Moltesen 2000 pls. 76 and 78.

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

mythologICal marble sCulpture of late antIquIty  – an overvIew

To sum up characteristic features of sculpture in this period: Late Antique mythological sculpture, whether carved in the round or in relief (mainly sarcophagi), is characterized by some specific stylistic and typological traits. Notable is, as mentioned, a high degree of polish standing out against roughly-carved areas such as hair. The area of transition between skin and hair is often rather blurred. Sometimes the drilling in the hair even starts in the skin, and generally the drill is used haphazardly, very differently from earlier periods. Sculpture in any size tends to be un-naturalistic, mannerist or sloppy. The glossy surface recalls sculpture of the Antonine–Severan periods, which, as noted, has often led to a confusion of dating. In general, small-scale sculptures are flattened, with unfinished backs. In some workshops small scale sculptures were carved from the front to the back, using the same technique as applied for sarcophagi. Often they have an interconnected composition, which has the advantage of strengthening the sculpture. The flat back but also this composition further facilitated transport, which had become an important issue in a world where infrastructure had suffered such that transport of heavy goods could become a major obstacle. Only transport by water functioned as before. Small-scale sculptures of Late Antiquity spread over most of the empire, while large-scale sculptures are primarily found in readily accessible areas. Bulky sarcophagi rarely travelled a greater distance from the workshops. Late Antique sculpture often combines a mix of earlier periods. A very fine paraphrase of a severe style Athena, only the head preserved, was produced by an Aphrodisian sculptor for the villa of Chiragan, discussed

m y t h o l o g i c a l m a r b l e s c u l p t u r e o f l at e a n t i q u i t y   – a n o v e rv i e w

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

43

below.54 Notably the locks of the Athena are clearly separated in the manner typical of the High Empire. More examples of ‘retrospective’ sculpture have been mentioned. In fact no other period of marble sculpture presents such a diversity of types and forms, but also insignia of former time could re-appear in various media. The diversity of way to render eyes, for instance, is astonishing. The five statues from the Esquiline may serve as an example. The Satyr, Jupiter, Neptune and the Sun have carved eyes, but each in a different manner; and the Hercules’ eyes are uncarved, for which reason this delicately carved head could be given a Hadrianic dating. The vast majority of Late Antique sculptures have carved eyes in a multitude of forms. The organisation of workshops changed, which may explain why many diverging traits can appear in the same ensemble of sculptures. In the Esquiline group, the statues were clearly carved by different sculptors – a procedure not attested before Late Antiquity, when the traditional organization of workshops came to an end. Earlier sculptors were trained in carving special parts of a statue such as the eyes, making the individual statues of a group of sculptures very consistent. The Esquiline sculptures have only one feature in common: they have the same height. Sometimes sculptures carved for specific settings, such as the Getty muses, are only approximately the same size; but in appearance the figures are very different. As evidenced by the Getty sarcophagus, more sculptors could work on the same sarcophagus and in some cases started without having an overall layout.

muse sarCophagI As noted above, muses are favoured themes in Late Antiquity across various media55. A particularly pretty statue now in the Museo Capitolino was found in 1928 (159 cm.) at the Via Terni in Rome just outside the city walls. The sculpture produced by an unknown workshop is well

54 55 44

Cazes 1999, 114. Wegner 1966 enumerates 237 sarcophagi in the catalogue of ASR V 3.

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

finished on the back, indicating that it was freestanding. The muse, representing Polyhymnia, is a common figure on several mythological sarcophagi. Freestanding muses will always make up a limited ensemble, while sarcophagi mostly offer space for all nine muses. Standing muses accompanied by other figures appear to be a common motif on Late Antique sarcophagi, of which only a small number will be discussed here. A most impressive piece is a monumental sarcophagus, L 2.55 m, H 1.29 m, W 1.30 m., in the Palazzo Massimo56 [Figs. 12a–h]: All nine muses are represented standing in horseshoe-shaped, arched niches supported by twisted columns. There are five on the front and two on the short ends, both with men dressed as philosophers, perhaps poets, between them. It has generally been accepted that the sarcophagus dates to the later Gallienic period, but the overall composition and several details point to a dating somewhat later than the Getty sarcophagus. One feature will in particular be crucial for analyses: the carving of the hair. The hair of Euterpe [Figs. 12d–e], the only figure on the front with her head preserved, is most illustrative. Her hair is punctured by crude drilling, but very different from the technique of the Gallienic period still rooted in the tradition of the high Empire. The drilling of the hair in the Gallienic period follows the bending locks, while the lines of drilling in Late Antiquity are haphazardly added, with the areas in between only roughly tooled. This makes the hair un-naturalistic, which also goes for the faces and drapery. Further, there is no clear dividing line between skin and hair; and sometimes the drilling extends into the skin. The so-called Brother Sarcophagus in Naples may be used for comparison57 [Fig. 29]. This high-quality sarcophagus is without any doubt dated to the early Gallienic period due to four rather similar male portrait figures. The standing figures, presumably the same person, all wear

56

57

Wegner 1966, cat. no. 128 pls. 84. 87-89. 91 b. 99; Giuliano 1985, 51-57 cat. no. II 2 (M. E. Micheli); Ewald 1999, A 17; Thomas 2011, fig. 12.14 c. 280-290. Reinsberg 2006, cat. no. 36 pl. 78, 3. m y t h o l o g i c a l m a r b l e s c u l p t u r e o f l at e a n t i q u i t y   – a n o v e rv i e w

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

45

a

b

c

d

e

Figs. 12 a–h. Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Massimo, inv. 80.711: Muse sarcophagus.

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

f

g

h

different garments with well-preserved portrait heads. One is attended by his wife; the scene may depict a wedding ceremony. The drapery of all figures is very elegantly carved and the non-portrait figures have deeply, but very refined drilled hair. The locks are separated by deep drilling sometimes with small bridges. The border between hair and skin is clear, not blurred. The lower part of the relief is missing, for which reason it will be relevant to include the Acilia sarcophagus found in the vicinity of Rome58 [Figs. 30a–d]. Like the ‘sarcophagus of the Brothers’ it is badly damaged. Only the left part of the coffin is well preserved, while the upper part of the right end is gone except for four feet of draped females. At the rounded end stands a group of philosopher-like men. One of them is the Genius Senatus. The surface is, like the ‘sarcophagus of the Brothers’, very well preserved. The shape of the elegantly-carved drapery comes close to that on the ‘sarcophagus of the Brothers’, and the same goes for the faces.

58

Reinsberg 2006, cat. no. 88 pl. 90, 2. 5. m y t h o l o g i c a l m a r b l e s c u l p t u r e o f l at e a n t i q u i t y   – a n o v e rv i e w

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

47

The men’s drapery ends when reaching the ground, while that of the fragmented female figures clings round the feet in a natural way. One particular figure sticks out as being different. Very exposed, a young man stands in front of the rounded surface so that that he is visible from all sides. Unlike the other figures, he looks directly at the spectator. He has the short ‘a penna’ hairstyle, the tooth chisel has tooled the entire surface, the eyebrows stand out, and the pupils are deeply-drilled holes. All details telling how different he is from the other figures with their ornate hairstyles. Obviously, he is the main figure, presumably buried in a reused sarcophagus. The size of the head has been much reduced by the recurving. Probably the intention was to change the direction of the face that would now address the spectator. Seen in profile, the distance between the back of the head and the chest is large. To prevent a break of the neck, a clumsy ‘strut’ was left, also illustrating how much the head has been reduced in size.59 Without a doubt, a date around A.D. 280 is not valid. Rather, it should be dated to the same period as the ‘sarcophagus of the Brothers’. The likeness of the two sarcophagi is so close that they could have been produced in the same workshop. Notably, the drilling of the hair applied to the muse sarcophagus in the Palazzo Massimo is very different from the two sarcophagi discussed being rather crude and imprecise. On the front, only the central figure of Euterpe is preserved with her head intact, flanked by the two, both headless theatrical muses each holding a mask: Melpomene to the right of Euterpe and Thalia to her left. At the outermost corners of the coffin stand two muses playing stringed instruments, to the left Erato with the kithara, and to the right Terpsichore with the lyre60. The four missing heads on the front were repairs attached shortly after the sarcophagus was finished. The restoration was made applying the crude carving technique of Late Antiquity, while the nose of Euterpe was restored in the post-antique period.

59

60 48

This has by some been stubbornly denied. The puntello is mostly hidden on photographs presumably because it is ugly. However, it is easily visibly to the spectator when taken a closer look. Wegner 1966, cat. no. 128.

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

The head of Euterpe [Figs. 12f-g] has still more traits that place her in a Late Antique context. Her hair is parted above the brow but askew, the transition between brow and hair is blurred, and at her temple the drilling in the hair has accidentally entered the skin. Above the hair in the front a band is visible, but it has no ends, again an example of the lack of logic found in Late Antique sculpture. Her lips are separated, showing the teeth – which are quite often shown in Late Antique sculpture, but rarely before, and then only when depicting a person in great agony. The corner of her left mouth has a clumsy opening made by a drill too big for the purpose. The front of this sarcophagus reveals more details that exclude a Gallienic dating. The drapery of the figures is ornamental and unnatural, very different from the elegant togas of the two sarcophagi discussed above. The figure of Melpomene is not only too slim, but the belt below her breasts is placed too high and effaces the hips in the same way as for Euterpe on the Getty sarcophagus. The drapery above and below the belt is also inconsistent. The headless muse to the left of Euterpe, Thalia, has rather ornamental drapery, and one detail in particular is telling: her right foot and the drapery around it [Fig. 12f]. The folds are crudely shaped, while the foot (just a lump of marble) is separated from the garment by a crude groove which gives the impression that the drapery is lifted from the foot. Some of the figures on the ends of the coffin are very poorly carved, such as the head of Urania, standing furthest to the left on the right side of the sarcophagus [Fig. 12h]. Presumably it was carved by a less skilled sculptor. The hair is very summarily done but her face is striking: Like the other muses it has discretely carved iris and pupils, but the tear ducts are just deeply drilled holes and the mouth is marked by four drill holes, otherwise hardly shaped. The architectural framing of the figures is elegant, but notably very little has been done by carving with a chisel. The drill was the dominant tool. This way of using the drill for rendering architecture, but also floral elements such as wine leaves, is often seen in Late Antiquity continuing into the Byzantine period. The sarcophagus of Junius Bassus has related kinds of arcades at the lower register, but the quality of the carving of the architecture as well as the delicate figures (in much smaller scale) m y t h o l o g i c a l m a r b l e s c u l p t u r e o f l at e a n t i q u i t y   – a n o v e rv i e w

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

49

Figs. 13 a–b. 50

Porto Torres (Sardinia), Basilica di San Gavino: Muse sarcophagus.

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

is far superior to that of the muse sarcophagus. Based on the evidence, we may assume that the muse sarcophagus was produced one or two generations later than the sarcophagus of Junius Bassus, but surely also for a member of the elite. Less monumental than the sarcophagus in the Palazzo Massimo is a series of Late Antique sarcophagi with standing muses on the front. The composition can vary and so too the quality, but a certain standard, also in size, prevails. Some Late Antique sarcophagi of the same dimensions combine the strigilated form with panels that can feature a limited number of muses61 as well as other subjects. A muse sarcophagus found in Porto Torres on Sardinia62 stands out in that it can be dated to Late Antiquity without any doubt [Figs. 13a–b]. Only the front of the coffin (2.14 m x 0.71 m) is sculpted. The quality of the carving is mediocre, but for once both portraits of a married couple are finished, providing a secure dating to c. A.D. 400. They are both seated, the lady to the left in a comfortable chair, her husband more formally on a stool. In the middle, holding a kithara, Apollo is resting on a rock. The wife is handed a kithara, presumably meant for Erato to play while her husband to the right opens a book scroll. His well-preserved head has a close resemblance to a head now mounted on an unrelated statue in the Museo Nazionale Romano. This head of a private person is dated by Jutta Meischner to the early 5th century63. A colossal head of an imperial prince in the Museo Capitolino dated to c. A.D. 400 also comes close64. For comparison with the Porto Torres sarcophagus, two marble tondi may be relevant. Marianne Bergmann has pointed to a group of marble tondi which she convincingly dates to Late Antiquity. A tondo bust, for-

61

62 63 64

e. g. Wegner 1966, cat. no. 35; Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek no. 779 (inv. 853); Wegner cconsiders it to be a fake, but rather it is simply very late; Wegner’s suggestion has been turned down: see Stubbe Østergaard 1996, cat. no. 43 with references. Wegner 1966, cat. no. 80. Meischner 2001, no. 333. Fittschen – Zanker 1985, no. 127. m y t h o l o g i c a l m a r b l e s c u l p t u r e o f l at e a n t i q u i t y   – a n o v e rv i e w

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

51

Figs. 14 a–c.

Rome, Palazzo Rospigliosi: Muse sarcophagus.

merly in Port Said65 and perhaps featuring a god, is very much like the heads of Apollo and some of the muses. Common to both are the swollen eyelids framing the deeply drilled eyes. The crudely carved mouths are half open, and the hair has the same type of curls with a drilled hole in the centre of the locks. The drapery is similarly sloppy, as seen on the sarcophagus. A rather similar but better executed tondo bust in the Getty Museum is said to come from Rome. The head wears a band, whether a god or not66. The face has the same type of deeply drilled holes for pupils, but less swollen eyelids. The mouth is slightly opened by drilling. The hair

65 66 52

Bergmann 1999, 47. 58 f. pl. 23. Bergmann 1999, 45. 47. 51. 57 pl. 35.

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

curls in the Aphrodisian manner with small drill holes. This tondo bust seems to be a refined version of the Port Said bust. Marianne Bergmann relates the tondo to a small statue of Helios found in the suburban villa at Silahtarağa dated to c. A.D. 400,67 concluding that both heads can be attributed to the school of Aphrodisias. The front of a sarcophagus in the Palazzo Rospigliosi in Rome68 [Figs. 14a–c] is built into the wall of the Casino, for which reason no measurements exist. The relief is carved very deep to make the figures almost freestanding. In the middle of the scene, the deceased is rendered as the figure of Calliope. Thus she is characterized as a learned person, emphasized by a container for book scrolls placed at her left foot. Apollo is not present but replaced by the god of wisdom, Athena, to stress the female aspect. Athena is standing to the left of the deceased, with her left foot rather oddly resting on the head of an owl. On the other side of the deceased stands Terpsichore with the tortoise-shell lyre. As the only muse, she rests her left leg on a book container in almost the same pose as Athena. The deceased female has the same coiffure as the female on the large strigilated sarcophagus depicting a learned couple in the Palazzo Nuovo [Figs. 2-3]. The figures have all the traits of Late Antiquity: they are disproportionate, the drapery stiff and non-plastic. The drapery below the belts of three of the muses is a crude version of the drapery of Euterpe on the Getty sarcophagus, marked by long linear grooves. The figures are rather uneven, presumably carved by different sculptors. The two muses to the left, Polyhymnia and Euterpe [Figs. 14a-c], have rather uniform faces with the characteristic shape of the lower part of the brow and the ridge of the nose. Similarly, this area forms an unbroken flat area with a sharp sculpted edge serving as eyebrows. The drilling of the hair of these two muses is very crude, which also goes for several others of the figures. An example of a high-quality sarcophagus of the muse type is a piece found in Castellamare di Stabia, the front measuring 2.10 m x 0.76 m69

67 68 69

Chaisemartin – Örgen 1984, cat. no. 1 pls. 4-6 (suggesting Apollo). Wegner 1966, no. 170. Wegner 1966, no. 24. m y t h o l o g i c a l m a r b l e s c u l p t u r e o f l at e a n t i q u i t y   – a n o v e rv i e w

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

53

Figs. 15 a–b. 54

Castellamare di Stabia, Capitolo della Cattedrale: Muse sarcophagus.

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

[Figs. 15a–b]. The main figure, Apollo, turns his head back towards Terpsichore. Together they mark the centre line. The left part of the frieze depicts five muses in a well-composed position, while the figure of Apollo almost sprawls – giving very little space to the remaining figures on the other half, which are oddly squeezed together. Only the head of Athena is visible behind Apollo. Although the figures look very uniform, an overall design was not applied when work began. For this reason the master carver miscalculated the space available.70 Such an inconsistency is often seen in Late Antique sculpture, in sarcophagi as well as sculpture in the round. Presumably the sculptors also worked with sculpture in the round: a totally unnecessary strut connects the upper right arm of Apollo with the lyre of Terpsichore. Further, the strut is twisted – stressing that it is purely ornamental. Late Antique sculpture has more struts than found in earlier periods of marble sculpture. Basically the reason was to strengthen the sculpture so that it would not be harmed during transport; but often struts became a mannerist trait without any function71. The satyr of the Esquiline group dancing forwards, overexcited, with the Dionysos child on his left shoulder, is supported on his right side by a heavy trunk reaching the right hip. Quite unnecessary therefore are the small struts on this leg: one below the heel and another between the leg and the trunk. The left heel too has such a strut72. Sometimes struts can be very ornamental compared to earlier periods. A very refined example is the twisted strut on a sandal-tying Venus in Alexandria, found in a maritime suburban villa73. Consequently the strut on the Castellamare sarcophagus leaves little doubt about a Late Antique dating. As evidenced by the detailed figures, several Late Antique traits stand out: the abstract and rather crude drilling of the hair, the pupils marked as large drill-holes, the stiff composition of the frieze and the feet turned outwards with the garment slightly lifted above the feet.

70 71 72 73

For the layout of sarcophagus reliefs in earlier periods, see Birk 2012, 21-25. On the aesthetics of struts, particularly in Roman sculpture, see Hollinshead 2000. For brilliant illustrations: Moltesen 2000; Hollinshead 2000, pl. 70-72. Hannestad 1994, figs. 80-82. m y t h o l o g i c a l m a r b l e s c u l p t u r e o f l at e a n t i q u i t y   – a n o v e rv i e w

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

55

dIonysIan/season sarCophagI Both Dionysian themes and seasons are common motifs, and often they are mixed (resulting in double publication of some)74. Sarcophagi featuring seasons in different variations make up one of the largest groups of Late Antique sarcophagi. The reason may be that the motif was neutral and the cycles of the year were important to everybody. The Dionysiac thiasos is rarely represented in late sarcophagi; and if so, the scene will often be broken up – for example, so that two antithetical figures, often centaurs, hold a tondo with portraits or an inscribed shield. A very popular type is the strigilated sarcophagus with three panels. In the middle, Dionysos stands effeminately, supported by a small satyr, and sometimes accompanied by muses. At each of the corner panels a figure moves forwards in direction of the central scene. The way the thiasos is cut up in sections or has antithetical figures in the centre, such as the centaurs holding a shield, tells us that the idea of a Dionysiac thiasos is gone. Late Antiquity offers several examples of traditional scenes split up to become pure decoration, telling no story. Among the many presumably Late Antique sarcophagi, a sarcophagus formerly in Berlin-Dahlem may be taken into account. The striglilated sarcophagus has been reused in modern times for a grave monument [Figs. 16a–b].75 It was found in Rome at the via Nomentana in 1910, but we do not have any further information. Only the coffin is preserved, measuring 2.35 m x 0.60 m. It is well carved and conventionally dated to the early Severan period. In the central panel Dionysos is standing in an arch supported by a tiny satyr holding a syrinx in his hand. A panther is sitting between his legs. To the right side of Apollo, a dancing maenad turns her head away while a female to the other side is moving forward carrying a basket with

74 75

56

Matz 1975 and Kranz 1984. Matz 1975, cat. no. 286. The Sintenis sarcophagus was transferred to the Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Antikensammlung in 1975 (inv. 1975.1) (information by A. Schwarzmaier).

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

Figs. 16 a–b. Formerly Berlin-Dahlem, Friedhof, Grabstätte Sintenis (now: Staatliche Museen, Antikensammlung, inv. 1975.1): Dionysian/Seasons sarcophagus. m y t h o l o g i c a l m a r b l e s c u l p t u r e o f l at e a n t i q u i t y   – a n o v e rv i e w

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

57

fruit. Typical Late Antique the figures are not related to each other and the branch of wine curving above simply fills in the space available. On the left panel, a maenad is dancing forwards, blowing a flute. To stress movement, her garment is flowing in the wind. In front of her, partly hidden by her left leg, a panther is sitting looking up at her. On the right panel a satyr is tiptoeing forwards, much like the satyr of the Esquiline group. He too has a panther sitting by his the foot. He is carrying a wine sack on his right shoulder and the Dionysos child on his left. Taking a closer look at the composition as well as details of this sarcophagus, a Late Antique dating seems most likely. The entire composition is odd. Thus the maenad and the satyr are placed on plinths, while the figures of the central panel are standing on the ground dwarfed by the vine. Other details also point to a late dating. The satyr has a resemblance to his mate in the Esquiline group. The legs in particular are mannered, as stressed by the strange, indeed impossible, twist of the left foot; but more conclusive are the eyes and the drilling of the hair of the maenad and satyr. The shape of the head but also the hair of the flute-playing maenad has a close resemblance to the muses on the short sides of the huge sarcophagus in the Palazzo Massimo discussed above. On a detailed picture of Apollo in the publication by Matz, one notes an unusual rendering of the eye [Fig. 16b]. The carving of the eyes of the god, but also the right eye of the female passing by, includes deeply-carved semi-circular depressions that point to a date in the late 4th century76. The left side of Apollo’s face is very different, almost blurred, contrary to the more exposed right side. It looks as if hair and eyebrow are joined. The hair is very crudely carved, only sketchily, and coarse drilling separates the forearm and hand resting on his head77. Puzzling is a sarcophagus in Palazzo Massimo.78 [Fig. 17a–b]. Both coffin and lid are preserved. Quite unusually, we have both a tabula with

76 77 78

58

Compare with the head of a muse found in Chania: Hannestad 2012, 88 f. figs. 8 a–b. Well illustrated on Matz 1975, pl. 286. Repertorium 1, 1967, cat. no. 771; Ewald 2004, 263 f. n. 39 with references [not located in the Vatican].

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

Fig. 17 a-b. Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Massimo, inv. 455: sarcophagus with the scene “The miracles of Christ”. m y t h o l o g i c a l m a r b l e s c u l p t u r e o f l at e a n t i q u i t y   – a n o v e rv i e w

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

59

Figs. 18 a–d. Georgetown, Dumbarton Oaks College, Byzantine Collection, inv. 36.65: Season sarcophagus with tondo portraits.

60

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

an inscription and a well-finished portrait of the deceased, Marcus Claudianus. He died at the age of 43, and the sarcophagus was bought by his friend Lucius. Both are called clarissimus. The portrait bust of Marcus Claudianus illustrates him as a learned person holding a book roll in his left hand. The characteristic haircut with bands of short curls has parallels to portraits around A.D. 400. A head in the Museo Capitolino dated by Zanker and Cain79 to the end of the 4th century has very similar facial features. On the sarcophagus, coffin as well as lid, are depicted scenes from the old and New Testament in no particular order: such as the miracles of Christ and more gloomy the arrest of Peter by two soldiers. The mood is different from the portrait on the lid, but the explanation is quite simple: the portrait and the tabula are re-carved. Among more details, the neck of Claudianus is markedly too slim contrary to the enormous hands. If the portrait bust were not finished it would have been tempting to usurp the sarcophagus. Whether the tabula had been blank and later re-carved is difficult to say. One of the most discussed pieces in the entire corpus of sarcophagi is now to be found in Dumbarton Oaks College80 [Figs.18a–d]. Only the coffin is preserved, the front measuring 1.09 m x 2.24 m. In the middle a married couple, unfortunately with unfinished portraits, is depicted in a zodiac held by two winged seasons. The other two seasons are standing at the corners, turning toward the centre. Below, tiny figures are busy with agricultural work. The carving is elaborate and of a very high quality. Koch dates it to the late Constantinian period while others have suggested somewhat later; and one scholar (D. Strong) has suggested the period of Valens. The seasons have a schematic version of the Aphrodisian locks, not curling as seen on those of the seated Christ and the facial features are more mask-like. The naked bodies of the seasons are unnaturally abstract and thin. This is particularly evident for the two pairs of seasons carrying the Zodiac. The colour photograph

79 80

Fittschen – Zanker 2010, 183-185 cat.no.181 pl. 225, 1-4. Kranz 1984, no. 34 known to have been in the Palazzo Barberini since 1693. m y t h o l o g i c a l m a r b l e s c u l p t u r e o f l at e a n t i q u i t y   – a n o v e rv i e w

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

61

used by Björn Ewald81 shows the sarcophagus in strong artificial light, which illustrates the odd shape of the figures. Strong’s suggestion may be valid. A crucial, but somewhat overlooked piece is a sarcophagus now in the Hermitage, St. Petersburg82 [Figs. 19a–b]. Only the front, measuring 0.87 m x 2.16 m, is preserved. The central part presents a very elaborately carved female portrait in a tondo carried by two seasons. Two more seasons at the corners finish the scene. The relief is supposed to have been heavily restored, the portrait even reworked in a later period. The relief is, however, not much restored, as can be confirmed by close observation. The portrait of the woman in the tondo shows no signs of reworking: the face is not reduced in size nor distorted in the manner of reused portraits83. All over the front, except for the tondo, the surface is dotted with scattered drill holes. The carving is rather poor, which also goes for the bust in the tondo. Of particular interest is the head of the female figure. She wears a very complicated coiffure. The hair is parted in the middle by a sloppy dividing line. The hair running to the ears has some superficially scratched lines to indicate the structure of hair. Behind the ears, bunches of curly locks reach down to the shoulders. On the top of her head she wears a stephane, indicating a close relation to the imperial house. Over a row of semi-precious stones is fixed a metal band, presumably of gold, inlaid with various gems. Behind her head unfurls a floral ornament in very low relief. In the catalogue of the sarcophagi in the Ermitage, I. Saverkina states that such a hairstyle with curly locks is not attested in the second half of the the 3rd century or the 4th century84. Two female portraits in the Museo Capitolini, securely dated to the Gallienic period and the late

81 82

83 84 62

Zanker – Ewald 2012, 166 fig. 228 with references. Saverkina 1979, no. 28; Kranz 1984, no. 38 (using the same photographs). Saverkina goes into a detailed discussion, while Kranz is very laconic concerning this sarcophagus. In particular evidenced by the too-large eyes: Prusac 2011. Saverkina 1979, 55.

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

Figs. 19 a–b. St. Petersburg, Eremitage, inv. A. 1126: Sarcophagus with seasons carrying a tondo bust. m y t h o l o g i c a l m a r b l e s c u l p t u r e o f l at e a n t i q u i t y   – a n o v e rv i e w

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

63

Gallienic period have variations of this coiffure85. That we can find the same hairstyle in a much later period should be no surprise, considering the interest in Late Antiquity for picking up motifs and elements from earlier periods. The lady is no doubt a member of the nobility and could be close to the imperial house. The discrepancy between her head and the enormous, crudely-carved hands (the left holding a book scroll) indicates that the head was carved by a skilled sculptor, presumably trained in carving portraits. The portrait points to the final period of female portraiture. Some related portraits of members of the imperial house (as testified by the stephane) can be taken into account for establishing an approximate dating86. Fairly close is a head labelled Galla Placidia (A.D. 392-450), married to Constantius III. The head is now in Viterbo, but supposed to come from Rome87. The lady wears a diadem inlaid with precious stones, but the headgear is not as elaborate as that of the lady on the sarcophagus. Marianne Bergmann suggests a date in the mid-5th century, while Schade suggests the first half of the 5th century. Fairly close, too, is a statuette in the Cabinet des Medailles, Paris, from Cyprus, often identified as Pulcheria (399-453)88, married to Marcian. Also close to the woman on the Eremitage sarcophagus is a head carved for insertion in a statue now in the Museo Archeologico Paolo Giovio in Como. In all likelihood it comes from Milan. The head, which is dated by both Marianne Bergmann and Kathrin Schade, as “valentinianisch”89, is crowned by a stephane very much resembling that of the woman on the sarcophagus. The arrangement of the hair above the brow is also similar. Female portraits wearing a stephane are not numerous. Despite

85 86

87 88 89 64

Fittschen – Zanker 1983, cat. nos. 171 f. For a thorough discussion of Late-Antique female portraits, see Schade 2003 (not keen on identifying every portrait discussed as a member of the imperial house). Bergmann 2000, cat. no. 262; Schade 2003, cat. no.I 55 (“eine Frau mit Stephane”). Schade 2003, cat. no. I 46. Bergmann 1983, cat. no. 54; Schade 2003, cat. no. I 27.

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

the similarities, the dating ranges from the late 4th century to the mid5th century. Based on the portraits discussed above – and more heads could be included – a dating of the Hermitage sarcophagus to the earlier part of the 5th century may be proposed. The inconsistent combination of a finely executed head on an otherwise poorly-carved relief is simply due to the fact that it is Late Antique.

sarCophagI wIth nereIds and sea Centaurs More than 400 preserved sarcophagi feature inhabitants of the sea90. A high-quality example is located in the Museo Nazionale Romano91 [Figs. 20a–c]. The well-preserved coffin measures L 2.32 m, H 0.96 m, W 1.08 m. The figures are almost floating above the rolling sea. The two sea horses in the middle, one young and the other old (following the established Roman tradition), are playing music. They are each carrying a Nereid on their back. Two other Nereids are sitting on the back of each centaur, here too one young and one old. The figures are framed by waving drapery, above which small putti are flying. In the water a dolphin and a fish surface. The drilling of the hair and eyes points to Late Antiquity but even more significant are the unnaturally long and thin legs of the Nereids. The legs are indistinctly shaped, and in their lack of naturalism they almost look like Barbie dolls. Similarly thin, elongated legs can be found on strigilated sarcophagi featuring Graces in the central panel. In the ASR XII 2 Sichtermann92 lists several catalogue numbers illustrated in the usual high quality with fine details93, all with features pointing to a Late Antique date. To focus

90 91 92 93

Ewald 2004, “Pleasure by the sea”: 112-122; “Sea-Creatures”: 396-401. Rumpf 1939, cat. no. 144; Giuliano 1985, 57-60 cat. no. II 3; Ewald 2004, 114 f. with references 120-121 (notes 4. 7 on p. 272). Sichtermann 1992. Sichtermann 1992, cat. nos. 152-170. m y t h o l o g i c a l m a r b l e s c u l p t u r e o f l at e a n t i q u i t y   – a n o v e rv i e w

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

65

Figs. 20 a–c. Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano, inv. 78684: Sarcophagus with sea-creatures.

66

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

on one particular piece now in Penrice Castle94, it may be noted that the hairstyle of the well-preserved head of the left Grace has the same parallel rows of oblong drilled holes making rigid bands as seen on the head of a nymph (or perhaps a Grace) found in Antioch95. The two heads sharing this peculiar and uncommon hairstyle are so close that they must have been carved at the same time, perhaps even the same place – which gives an insight into the mobility of Late Antique workshops. The three Graces may not be an obvious motif for reliefs on sarcophagi, but apparently, they were very popular in Late Antiquity. Several small-scale sculptures in the round featuring this theme have been found in Late Antique houses. Some sarcophagi too depict the Graces standing as statues on a plinth. The basic composition of three females bound together by the middle one turning the opposite direction of her two companions makes it easy to ‘flatten’ the sculptures into relief on sarcophagi

sarCophagI wIth mythologICal themes A monumental sarcophagus representing the Caledonian boar hunt was found in a tomb in 1871, some distance from Tivoli96 [Figs. 21a–g]. Protected in the tomb, it is very well preserved. Unfortunately, the heads of the couple resting on the lid are unfinished. The coffin, now in the Palazzo dei Conservatori, measures L 2.56 m, H 1.25 m, W 1.37 m, with the height of lid 0.79 m. In the middle of the scene, Meleager is attacking the boar with his spear, his limbs unnaturally elongated. The head of

94

95

96

Sichtermann 1992, cat. no. 162 pl. 125, 4 and 127, 8 (lowest to the right) – this photograph is interchanged with that of Brocklesby Park, cat. no. 161 pl. 124, 4 and pl. 127, 7 (lowest in the middle). Brinkerhoff 1970, 39-40; Ridgeway 1994, no. 27 with excellent plates: frontal and two profiles. What Ridgeway discretely notes as “high polish, perhaps caused by chemical cleaning” is a surface totally destroyed by acid. The head (inv. y.1992-49) was on show in 1992, when I visited the museum, but absent in the 2001 Princeton catalogue (Najberg); Hannestad 2014, 245 f. Koch 1975, cat. no. 67. For a well illustrated overview Sichtermann and Koch 1973. m y t h o l o g i c a l m a r b l e s c u l p t u r e o f l at e a n t i q u i t y   – a n o v e rv i e w

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

67

a

b

c

e

68

d

f

Figs. 21 a–f. Rome, Musei Capitolini, Palazzo dei Conservatori, inv. 917: Meleager sarcophagus.

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

Fig. 22. Schloss Sigmaringen: Statuette of Diana.

Meleager has bending lines for eyebrows. The transition between skin and hair is blurred and the drilling goes into the skin. The corners of the eyes are deeply drilled holes, the lips separated by crude drilling and the mouth wry. The right hand holding the spear is hardly shaped; and between the fingers are three drilled holes, stressing the mannerist way of sculpting. The hair is no longer cut short like that of the Greek hero, but long and curly – recalling the hairstyle of Dionysos and putti as represented on Late Antique sarcophagi. The accompanying Atalante wears a chiton that is flowing and abstract at the same time. The difference in the sculpting of the drapery compared to earlier times can be illustrated by a comparison with an Artemis in the same pose depicted on the lid of a m y t h o l o g i c a l m a r b l e s c u l p t u r e o f l at e a n t i q u i t y   – a n o v e rv i e w

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

69

sarcophagus in Providence dated to the late 3rd century97. The difference indicates that a long time has elapsed between the productions of the two sarcophagi. The Atalante on the Meleager sarcophagus is very close to a tiny statuette of Diana (35 cm high) [Fig. 22] found in a sanctuary in Bertrich, close to the Mosel River. The sanctuary was still in function about A.D. 40098. The statuette is flat with an interconnected composition looking very much like a relief. The chiton is flowing, stressing her speed. The drapery is abstract in the same way as that of Atalante, and on both figures the lower edge is sharply cut with no regard for the folds99. The face of Atalante shows a similar drilling of the eyes and mouth as that of Meleager. The other figures have faces dotted with haphazardly scattered drill holes. The figures of the relief frieze on the coffin are in general rather disproportionate and their heads have different sizes. The males wear chitons that, due to the composition, are more visible than that of Atalante. The sharply cut lower edge forms almost a straight line. The figures on the front of the sarcophagus mostly appear as individuals, not incorporated in a coherent frieze as in earlier times. The couple resting on the lid wears garments that appear almost to float. From behind, the woman’s doughy left hand a part of the drapery spreads towards the edge of the kline [Fig. 21c].100 The garment of the husband is rather dull, very different from that of his wife. Such a shape of drapery is not common on sarcophagi but appears fairly often in Late Antique sculpture in the round, reliefs as well as also ivory diptychs. Being a Hellenistic motif, it came into fashion in the later part of Antiquity to become steadily more abstract and mannered.

97 98 99

100

70

Sichtermann 1992, cat. no. 3. Hannestad 2009. The Diana from Bertrich has little in common with other sculptures from Gaul, except from Arles, that had a vast production of Christian sarcophagi in this period. The Diana may be a subsidiary production from a workshop in Arles: Hannestad 2009, 443 f. Matz 1975, cat. no. 249. A similar shape of drapery (but more elegantly carved) is seen on the lid of a sarcophagus found in Turmuzaya and now in Jerusalem.

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

Fig. 23. Toulouse, Musée Saint-Raymond, inv. 30381: Hercules fighting an amazon from the villa of Chiragan.

To carve such flowing drapery is demanding and appears to be an Aphrodisian specialty101. Quite a number of fine examples are found in the vast villa at Chiragan, southeast of Toulouse. The villa was refurbished in the late 4th century with the largest known sculptural ensemble from a private collection in the Roman Empire. Aphrodisian sculptors working in different genres carried out the commission. An exquisite piece illustrating this demanding carving is a relief depicting Hercules fighting an Amazon102 [Fig. 23]. Only the feet of Hercules are preserved,

101 102

Stressed by Bergmann 1999 with several examples. Bergmann 1999, pls. 5, 1 and 71, 2. m y t h o l o g i c a l m a r b l e s c u l p t u r e o f l at e a n t i q u i t y   – a n o v e rv i e w

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

71

Figs. 24: a–d. Split, Archaeological Museum, inv. D 29: Sarcophagus featuring the myth of Hippolytos.

72

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

indicating that the hero was seen in a frontal view, presumably turning his body to the left to repel a mounted Amazon. The back of the horse forms the centre of the composition. The Amazon turns the upper part of her body toward Hercules, her double axe raised to strike. Her garment is windblown. The chiton, ending in a row of four deeply undercut folds, resembles the pattern seen on the folds seen on the Turmuzaya sarcophagus. A dating of the Meleager sarcophagus to the Tetrachic period is suggested by Koch, but if we turn to sarcophagi that are Tetrarchic beyond a doubt, it appears that they look very different with the odd brutal style of the period. Two telling examples, one in the Museo Nazionale Romano103 and another in the Vatican104 may be taken into consideration. Based on the above evidence a dating to the late 4th century for the Meleager sarcophagus should be proposed. Dalmatia is rich in Late Antique marble sculpture and small-scale statuary in the round as well as reliefs105. Several late marble sarcophagi are also preserved, many of which however are rather fragmentary. Production of sarcophagi continued even into the early 6th century106. A sarcophagus found in Manastirine, Salona, and now in the museum in Split, features the myth of Phaedra and Hippolytus107 [Figs. 24a–b+d]. The sarcophagus is dated by Koch to A.D. 300/311. The coffin is fairly large: L 2.36 m, H 0.96 m, W 1.30 m. It has reliefs on the front and the two ends. The lid with a resting couple is not finished. The front has well-finished figures, while the scenes on the two ends are rather summarily carved: the left depicts a seated philosopher, while the opposite end, marred by the crude hole carved by grave robbers, depicts a youth standing frontally holding a horse. The scene on the front is framed by two seated figures, Theseus to the right and Phaedra to the left. A female attendant is addressing Phaedra, turning her head upwards. The shape

103 104 105 106 107

Matz 1969, cat.178; Ewald 2012, 152 f. fig. 141; Ewald calls attention to the typical Tetrarchic style. Grassinger 1999, cat. no. 67; Ewald 2012, 210 f. pl. 191. For a survey Cambi 2004. Koch 1984, 605 f. For a survey Koch 1984; Ewald 1999. m y t h o l o g i c a l m a r b l e s c u l p t u r e o f l at e a n t i q u i t y   – a n o v e rv i e w

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

73

a

b

c

d

Figs. 25 a–e.

74

Aachen, Stadtmuseum, no inv. number: Head of Odysseus.

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

e

of her face, highly polished but very crudely carved, has coarse drilling that leaves no doubt about a very late date. In the middle, Hippolytus, with long curly hair, is standing in a frontal pose as if addressing the spectator [Fig. 24b]. He holds a diptychon that has been handed over by the wet-nurse. She is touching the elbow of Hippolytos, stretching her arm over a miniature horse. The head of the horse is visible between Hippolytos and the messenger hurrying to the right. In his left hand he holds a spear. Koch discusses this sarcophagus together with other pieces, including the Meleager sarcophagus in the Capitoline. They share the common feature that the figures on the front hardly relate to each other. The way Hippolytos is depicted goes one step further: we are now approaching the Christian realm, when direct contact between the sculpted figure and the viewer is often seen.

m y t h o l o g i c a l m a r b l e s c u l p t u r e o f l at e a n t i q u i t y   – a n o v e rv i e w

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

75

This fact indicates a rather late date. For comparison a small-scale statuette in Milan, presumably a Meleager, may be relevant [Fig. 24c].108 The freestanding sculpture is about the same size as the Meleager on the sarcophagus. The frontal pose is the same, but laterally reversed. The hip of the Meleager of the sarcophagus juts out to the left, that of the statuette to the right. The folds of drapery on the Meleager statuette come from behind his waist to flow over his bended arm, very like that of the seated Phaedra. The Meleager in Milan is dated to the end of the 4th century, and the same date can be applied to the sarcophagus. Stressing a late date is the donkey lying below the hoof of the horse [Fig. 24d]. It looks rather medieval. The discovery of the Meleager sarcophagus needs a further note: It was found in 1859 in the basilica of Manastirine together with with a monumental Christian sarcophagus featuring the good shepherd109. This context indicates that the crypt was the burial place for members of the same family, thus illustrating the transition from paganism to Christianity. Both chests were broken into through the right short end. An extraordinary head of Odysseus is now in Aachen [Figs. 25a–e]. It has no secure provenance, or rather it is stated that the head has been found in Nettersheim/Eifel, which is most unlikely unless the piece ended up there in more recent time. It was correctly published as a “spätrömischer männlicher Marmorkopf”110. Until recently the head has not attracted much attention, but two recent exhibition catalogues have changed this: “Odysseus, Mythos und Erinnerung” (1999, ed. B Andreae) and “Europas Spiegel” (2005, ed. D. Boschung). The head is 29.9 cm. high, which means full scale. Andreae111 considers the head to come from a sarcophagus produced in Asia Minor and dates it to c. 250 A.D. In the recent catalogue of the

108

109 110 111 76

Milano Capitale 1990, 5 a. 1 f; Bergmann 1999, 49 pl. 42, 4 (only head); a tiny but delicately carved head in Aphrodisias seems more abstract and presumably carved somewhat later: Bergmann 1999, 15. 49. 51 pl. 21, 4. Cambi 1977, 453-457 figs. 135-137; Cambi 2005, 29 figs. 29 f. Oellers 1985, 14 f. fig. 8. Andreae 1999, 78 f.

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

collection in Aachen Boschung112 compares the drilling of the hair with portraits of Commodus and suggests that the head was broken off a tondo. Considering the frequency of tondi representing portraits and mythological sculptures, particularly in Late Antiquity, this could have been a possibility – but the back of the head tells another story. Examining the back, it is obvious that a great amount of marble has been cut away with a pointed chisel, presumably to reduce the weight and thus make it more attractive for the art market [Fig. 25e]. Had the head been part of a tondo this would not have been necessary, because a tondo is much thinner than the side of a sarcophagus, and it should be added that tondi were, as far as we know, hollowed out to lighten the weight113. Unfortunately this fact is rarely noted or photographed114. Boschung notes the awkward angle of the head of Odysseus stretching out from the background and turned outwards [Fig. 25c]. Exactly the same position of the head is seen on Terpsichore on the Getty sarcophagus [Figs. 8a–d]. The head of Odysseus is slightly asymmetrical, as seen from a frontal view. Crucial, however, is the fact that the right side of the head is badly finished, with only summarily drilled furrows [Fig. 25d], while the left, exposed side is of a much higher quality. This indicates that the head was intended to be seen only in three-quarter profile, just as it was for Terpsichore. Apart from the rendering of the eyes, which is a sloppy version of those of the Jupiter from the Esquiline group [Fig. 25b] the piece has all the hallmarks of Late Antiquity: Highly polished skin with a blurred transition to the crudely drilled hair, which has a rough surface; at points the drilling goes into the skin. Based on these observations, the dating of the Odysseus head has to be raised to the later part of the 4th century. The sarcophagus from which this head of Odysseus comes must have been magnificent. It should be possible to find other parts of this sarcophagus, and Rome would be the place to search.

112 113 114

Sporn 2005, cat. no. 6 (D. Boschung). A rather similar head in Dresden, broken off a tondo, illustrates the difference: Vorster 2013, 449-451 fig. 41c. A rare exception is the photograph taken by Marianne Bergmann of one of a series of masks from the Villa at Chiragan: Cazes 1999, 33 f. fig. 14. m y t h o l o g i c a l m a r b l e s c u l p t u r e o f l at e a n t i q u i t y   – a n o v e rv i e w

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

77

huntIng sarCophagI A highly favoured non-mythological theme is the hunt. Appearing first on Hadrianic coins, the theme became increasingly popular until the very end of Antiquity. From a realistic rendering of the main figure (in a very few pieces female) holding a spear in his right hand, the scene is transformed to focus more on the main figure raising his hand in a gesture of power. As opposed to mythological sarcophagi, the head is normally finished – a great help concerning dating. In Bernard Andreae’s ASR publication of hunt sarcophagi, a piece of the battle type in the Palazzo Conservatori is considered to be one of the latest produced115. Andreae dates it to A.D. 370/380. Compared with portraits in the round, such as the abovementioned head in the Museo Nazionale Romano116, it may be suggested that the date should be raised with at least one generation. Looking through the corpus of hunt sarcophagi, it appears that more hunt sarcophagi should be dated to the same period due to the portrait types. That this type was favoured until very late is attested in various media, not least mosaics. Seuso117, on the great silver plate bearing his name, is represented as an eager huntsman.

115 116 117 78

Andreae 1980, cat. no.112. Meischner 2001, no.333. Leader-Newby 2004, esp. 7 f. 177-180 pl. I 1.

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

Chronology  – the end of produCtIon

According to the traditional chronology, hunt sarcophagi form the group of non-Christian sarcophagi that lasted longest, while sarcophagi featuring mythological themes, with a few exceptions, vanished during the reign of Constantine. When Symmachus died in 402, pagan sarcophagi had supposedly not been produced for a long time, which raises the question put forward in this book ‘What did the sarcophagus of Symmachus look like?’ Also Christian sarcophagi are supposed to have vanish in this period. In Repertorium der christlich-antiken Sarkophage 1 covering Rome and Ostia are listed about 1200 Christian sarcophagi produced from the end of the 3rd century to c. A.D. 400, with only a few produced later118. To this number were recently added 240 pieces in Repertorium 2, following the chronology of Repertorium 1. Some of the sarcophagi were found in Rome, while most are only attributed to Roman workshops119. When Q. Aurelius Memmius Symmachus, consul in 485, died, Christian sarcophagi should not have been produced for nearly a hundred years. In Ravenna the production of sarcophagi continued beyond the Gothic period, but in a very different style120. Sarcophagi, many with high reliefs, are supposed to vanish about A.D. 470.121 The Ravenna sarcophagi

118 119 120 121

Repertorium 1, 1967. Repertorium 2, 1998, cat. nos. 1-140. Kollwitz 1979, chapter D. Kollwitz – Herdejürgen 1979, 128-132. chronology – the end of production

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

79

Figs. 26 a–b.

80

Ravenna, Quadrarco di Braccioforte: Pignatta sarcophagus, back side.

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

are strongly influenced by the tradition of the Eastern Mediterranean and may have been produced in Constantinople122. A crucial piece is the so-called Pignatta sarcophagus dated to the end of the 4th century123. On the front and the ends are figures in high relief but very battered: Christ on the front sitting on a throne and the annunciation of the Virgin Mary on the left end and two angels on the right end. The back of the coffin is very different, showing a stag and a hind drinking from a metal krater [Figs. 26a–b]. The animals and the krater are delicately carved in a softly-modelled, very low relief. This type of low relief is often seen on Ravenna sarcophagi of the period, but none reaches the quality of the deer on the Pignatta sarcophagus. The back of the Pignatta sarcophagus is in many ways surprisingly close to a relief also in Ravenna depicting the Cerynean hind being subdued by Hercules (the hind however turned into a stag)124 [Figs. 27a–b]. Despite such a misunderstanding, the relief illustrates the still-vibrant tradition of Greco-Roman sculpture in distant Ravenna. The three deer share the same peculiar shape of the mouth, among other traits. The similarity is so close that we may assume that the sarcophagus and the relief were produced by the same workshop. The Hercules relief that is supposed to come from a not preserved Hercules basilica is dated to the early sixth century. In accordance with the Eastern Mediterranean touch reflected on Ravenna sarcophagi of the period, some characteristic traits of the Hercules relief point in the same direction. Notably, the strange rendering of the chest, resembling a cobbled pavement, seems to be a late version of those seen on mythological sculpture produced in Aphrodisias.

122

123 124

A sarcophagus in the Museo Nazionale di Ravenna depicts the ‘Traditio legis’ in a colour image revealing the bluish veins of Proconessos. The front was cut off in the modern p eriod and later reassembled. Martini 1998, no. 5 inv. 600. Kollwitz 1979, 105-114 (Pignatta-Sarkophag; bibliography: 54) pls. 24, 1-26, 3; Repertorium 2 cat. no. 376. Martini 1998, no. 7; Mauskopf Deliyannis 2010, 123 f. chronology – the end of production

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

81

Figs. 27 a–b. Ravenna, Museo Nazionale di Ravenna: Hercules subduing the Ceryneian hind.

82

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

Fig. 28. Paris, Bibliothèque national de France, Cabinet des Mèdailles, inv. 2879 2885: Hercules subduing the Nemean lion.

chronology – the end of production

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

83

Fig. 29. Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale, inv. 6603: ‘Brothers’ Sarcophagus’

The abovementioned satyr of the Esquiline group now in Copenhagen as well as several pieces in Aphrodisias itself have this peculiar feature.125 The Hercules relief may be compared with a silver plate in the Cabinet des Medailles in Paris depicting Hercules fighting the Nemean lion126 [Fig. 28]. The silver plate, normally dated to the sixth century, is considered to be one of the last pieces featuring a mythological theme. On a silver plate in the Eremitage depicting Meleager and Atalante127, the mood seems quieter, which could be due to the worn condition, but notably the shape of the two trees with leaves on both plates are very consistent. This plate has stamps indicating that it was made in Constantinople between AD 613-629/630. The same imperial workshop has produced

125 126 127 84

A sarcophagus in Salonika has an extreme version of the chest muscles: Koch 1975, cat. no. 173. Aurea Roma 2000, cat. no. 108 (F. Baratte); for the plate in context see Lapatin 2014, chap. 3 with figs. 54 and detail on p. 87 (R. Leader-Newby). Age of Spirituality 1997, cat. no. 141.

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

eight David plates128. The themes make them different, but the fighting scene, David and Goliath, comes very close to the Hercules plate in terms of anatomical details such as the legs. The Hercules on the Ravenna relief shares several traits with the Hercules on the silver plate, such as the odd and very abstract rendering of the knee and muscles of the right leg. The strangely broad and flat shoulder also connects both figures. Apparently the two marble reliefs, the Hercules relief and the deer on the Pignatta sarcophagus form a group with the silver plates – all pieces with the mark of Constantinople. Presumably, they have to be dated within the same span of time i.e. the early 7th century. Consequently, the dating of the Pignatta sarcophagus has to be raised by more than a hundred years. What did the sarcophagus of Symmachus look like? As stated in the introduction, this hypothetical question has never been answered and by all likelihood, it will never be answered. We can point to individual sarcophagi that can be dated to Late Antiquity and many are impressive. One of the finest pieces is the broken off head of Odysseus now in Aachen. By all likelihood, the monumental sarcophagus to which it belonged was produced in the capital in the same circles that produced the ivory diptychs of Symmachus and Nicomachus. According to the prevailing chronology, mythological sarcophagi vanished with the reign of Constantine and only a very limited number were produced later. The hunt sarcophagi lasted several generations beyond the reign of Constantine. As pointed out, this chronology is not in accordance with the historical evidence, nor the evidence based on silver and ivory carving. The pagan upper class in Rome were high-ranking members of society, still very influential beyond the first decades of the 5th century. Written sources too confirm the existence of rich and well-versed landowners. One of these was Rutilius of Narbo (Narbonne), a stubborn pagan129.

128 129

Age of Spirituality 1997, cat. nos. 425-432: Leader-Newby 2004, esp. 186-90. 191-208. For a broader discussion: Cameron 2011, 207-218. chronology – the end of production

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

85

Figs. 30: a–d. Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Massimo, inv. 126372: Acilia sarcophagus.

86

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

In the autumn of A.D. 417 he returned from Rome to his homeland over sea and land, a journey he describes in the poem de redito suo130. The destination was Arles. He describes the turmoil caused by invading Goths, but order was restored, and Rutilius may have been active in the reorganization of the affected areas. Apparently there was reason to return. The villa culture must still have been extant, and it is hard to believe that Rutilius would not have been buried in a pagan sarcophagus produced in Arles. However, paganism was fading among members of the nobility. To maintain their position they had to join the church – but still they read classical texts in their villas131 as illustrated on the Monza diptych [Fig. 7]. Undoubtedly they were buried in pagan sarcophagi out of sight for non-family-members. Less important but still wealthy people could also have been among the customers for traditional sarcophagi. The light was not put out around A.D. 400, when the production of Christian sarcophagi was supposed to have come to an end. Rome was indeed more exposed to barbarian invaders than Ravenna. But life continued and the aqueducts of the city were not cut until the Gothic wars in the mid-6th century. The chronology of later Roman sarcophagi calls for a revision. The supposed peak under the reign of Gallienus, when the empire was falling apart, can only be described as a mirage. We need to rethink the prevailing chronology, and apparently the chronology of Christian sarcophagi as well. We could wish for a closer co-operation between scholars working with sarcophagi and those working with sculpture in the round or reliefs; but other art forms should also be taken into consideration. Technical aspects such as identifying the origin of the marble used for coffins, informed by marble analyses, should play a greater role. Sometimes one has the feeling that scholars working with sarcophagi and those working with sculpture in the round, as well as reliefs, are drifting apart.

130 131

Rutilius, Doblhofer 1972. Cameron 2011, 13. chronology – the end of production

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

87

postsCrIpt The above study has some limitations. Essentially the work is based on sarcophagi published in the ASR, which inevitably has resulted in several ‘white spots’. In addition, only sarcophagi published with adequate illustrations (or those I have seen myself) have been taken into consideration. Further, this study has been rather selective in the way that only a limited number of sarcophagi outside the main areas of well published sarcophagi has been taken into consideration.

88

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

bIblIography Age of Spirituality

Alföldi – Alföldi 1990 Andreae – Jung 1977

Andreae 1980 Andreae 1999

Aurea Roma 2000 Basset 2004 Bergmann 1999

Birk 2013

Boin 2013 Bottini 2006 Brandenburg 2004

K. Weitzmann (ed.), Age of Spirituality: Late Antique and Early Christian Art, third to seventh century (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 1979) A. Alföldi – E. Alföldi, Die Kontorniat-Medaillons, AMuGS 6 (Berlin 1990) B. Andreae – H. Jung, Vorläufige tabellarische Übersicht über die Zeitstellung und Werkstattzugehörigkeit von 250 römischen Prunksarkophagen des 3. Jhs. n. Chr., AA 1977, 432-436 B. Andreae, Die römischen Jagdsarkophage, ASR I 2 (Berlin 1980) B. Andreae (ed.), Odysseus. Mythos und Erinnerung. Exhibition in Munich, Haus der Kunst, 1. 10. 1999 – 9. 1. 2000 (Mainz am Rhein 1999) See Ensoli – La Roccca, The Urban Image of Late Antique Constantinople (Cambridge 2004). M. Bergmann, Chiragan, Aphrodisias, Konstantinopel. Zur mythologischen Skulptur der Spätantike, Pallilia 7 (Wiesbaden 1999) S. Birk, Depicting the dead. Self-Representation and Commemoration on Roman Sarcophagi with Portraits (Aarhus 2013) D. Boin, Ostia in Late Antiquity (Cambridge 2013) A. Bottini, Musa Pendosa. L’imagine dell’intellettuale nell’antichità (Rome 2006) H. Brandenburg, Osservazioni sulla fine della produzione e dell’uso dei sarcofagi a relievo, in: F. Bisconti  – H. Brandenburg (eds.), Sarcofagi bibliography

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

89

Brinkerhoff 1970 Cambi 1977

Cambi 2005

Cameron 1985 Cameron 2011 Caseau 2011

Chaisemartin – Örğan 1984 Delbrueck 1929 Doblhofer 1972 Ensoli – La Rocca 2000 Enzoli Vitozzi 1993

Erim 1990

90

tardoantichi, paleocristiani e altomediovale: atti della giornata tematica del Seminario di archeologia cristiana (Ecole française de Rome, 8 maggio 2002) (Città del Vaticano 2004) D. M. Brinkerhoff, A Collection of Sculpture in Classical and Early Christian Antioch (New York 1970) N. Cambi, Jugoslavien 301-310 cat. 376 (pl.376), in: B. Brenk (ed.) Spätantike und Frühes Christentum (Propyläen Kunstgeschichte Suppl. 1) (Frankfurt am Main-Berlin-Wien 1977). N. Cambi, Kiparstvo rimske Dalmacije (The Sculpture of the Roman Province of Dalmatia) (Split 2005) A. Cameron, The Date and the Owners of the Esquiline Treasure, AJA 89, 1985, 135-145 A. Cameron, The Last Pagans of Rome (Oxford 2011) B. Caseau, Religious Intolerance and Pagan Statuary, in: L. Lavan – M. Mulryan (eds.), The Archaeology of Late Roman ‘Paganism’ (Leiden – Boston 2011) 479-502 De Chaisemartin, N. and E. Örğan, Les documents sculptés de Silathtarga (1984) R. Delbrueck, Die Consulardiptychen und verwandte Denkmäler (Berlin and Leipzig 1929) E. Doblhofer, Rutilius, De redito suo (Heidelberg 1972) S. Ensoli – E. la Rocca (eds.), Aurea Roma. Dalla città pagana alla città cristiana (Rome 2000) S. Enzoli Vittozi, Le sculture del ‘larario’ di S. Martino ai Monti. Un contesto recuperato, BCom 95, 1993, 221-243 K. T. Erim, Recent Work at Aphrodisias 1986-1988, in: C. Roueché – K.T. Erim (eds.), Aphrodisias Papers: Recent Work on Architecture and Sculpture. JRA Suppl. 1 (Ann Arbor 1990)

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

Ewald 1999

Fittschen 1972

Fittschen – Zanker 1983

Fittschen – Zanker 1985

Fittschen – Zanker 2010

Fittschen – Zanker 2014

Gazda 1981

Gibson 1994 Giuliano 1981 Giuliano 1985

B. Ewald, Der Philosoph als Leitbild. Ikonographische Untersuchungen römischer Sarkophagreliefs. RM Ergh. 34 (Mainz 1999) K. Fittschen, Gnomon 44. Bd. H. 5 (Aug. 1972) pp. 486-504. Review of Wegner, Die Musensarkophage. K. Fittschen – P. Zanker, Katalog der römischen Porträts in der Capitolinischen Museen und anderen kommunalen Sammlungen der Stadt Rom III. Kaiserinnen- und Prinzessinnenbildnisse. Frauenporträts (Mainz 1983) K. Fittschen – P. Zanker, Katalog der römischen Porträts in der Capitolinischen Museen und anderen kommunalen Sammlungen der Stadt Rom I. Kaiserund Prinzenbildnisse (Mainz 1985) K. Fittschen – P. Zanker – P. Cain, Katalog der römischen Porträts in der Capitolinischen Museen und anderen kommunalen Sammlungen der Stadt Rom II. Die männlichen Privatporträts (Berlin – New York 2010) K. Fittschen – P. Zanker, Katalog der römischen Porträts in der Capitolinischen Museen und anderen kommunalen Sammlungen der Stadt Rom IV. Kinderbildnisse. Nachträge zu den Bänden I–III. Neuzeitliche oder neuzeitlich verfälschte Bildnisse. Bildnisse an Reliefdenkmälern (Berlin – Boston 2014) E. Gazda, A Marble Group of Ganymede and the Eagle from the Age of Augustin, in: J. H. Humphrey (ed.), Excavations at Carthage Conducted by the University of Michigan VI (Ann Arbor 1981) 125-178 M. Gibson, The Liverpool Ivories. London 1994. A. Giuliano (ed.), Museo Nazionale Romano. Le sculture I 2 (Rome 1981) A. Giuliano (ed.) Museo Nazionale Romano. Le sculture I 8 (Rome 1985) bibliography

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

91

Goette 1990 Grassinger 1999

Gwynn 2011

Hannestad 1986 Hannestad 1994

Hannestad 2001

Hannestad 2006

Hannestad 2009

Hannestad 2012

Hollinshead 2002

92

H. R. Goette, Studien zu römischen Togadarstellungen (Mainz 1990) D. Grassinger, Die Mythologischen Sarkophage 1. Achill, Adonis, Aeneas, Aktaion, Alkestis, Amazonen, ASR (Berlin 1999). D. M. Gwynn, The End of Roman Senatorial Paganism, in: L. Lavan – M. Mulryan (eds.), The Archaeology of Late Roman ‘Paganism’ (Leiden  – Boston 2011) 135-161 N. Hannestad, Roman Art and Imperial Policy (Aarhus 1986) N. Hannestad, Tradition in late-antique sculpture: conservation, modernization, production (Aarhus 1994) N. Hannestad, The Ruler Image of the Fourth Century: Innovation or Tradition. ActaAArtHist 15, 2001, 93-107 N. Hannestad, Skulpturenausstattung spätantiker Herrschaftshäuser, in: A. Demandt  – J. Engemann (eds.), Konstantin der Grosse. Geschichte, Archäologie, Rezeption. Internationales Kolloquium vom 10.–15. Oktober 2005 an der Universität Trier zur Landesausstellung Rheinland-Pfalz 2007 “Konstantin der Grosse” (Trier 2006) 195-208 N. Hannestad, The Last Diana, in: T. Fischer-Hansen – B. Poulsen (eds.), From Artemis to Diana, ActaHyp 12 (Copenhagen 2009) 427-451 N. Hannestad, Mythological marble sculpture of late antiquity and the question of workshops, in: T. M. Kristensen – B. Poulsen (eds.), Ateliers and Artesans in Roman Art and Archaeology, JRA Suppl. 92 (Portsmouth 2012) 92-112 M. B. Hollinshead, Extending the Reach of Marble. Struts in Greek and Roman Sculpture, in: E. K. Gazda (ed.), The Ancient Art of Emulation: Studies in Artistic Originality and Tradition

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

Jung 1977 L’Orange – Wegner 1984

Kersauson 1996 Kinney 1994

Koch 1975 Koch 1984

Koch 1988

Koch 1993

from the Present to Classical Antiquity. MemAmAc Suppl. 1 (Ann Arbor MI 2002) 117-152 H. Jung, Zur Frage der Sarkophag Werkstätten in gallienischer Zeit, AA 1977, 436-444 H. P. L’Orange, Das spätantike Herrscherbild von Diokletian bis zu den Konstantin-Söhnen 284-361 n. Chr. M. Wegner, Die Bildnisse der Frauen und des Julian, Das römische Herrscherbild III (Berlin 1984) K. de Kersauson, Musée du Louvre. Catalogue des portraits romains II (Paris 1996) D. Kinney, The Iconography of the Ivory Diptych Nicomachorum-Symmachorum, JbAC 37, 1994, 64-96 G. Koch, Die mythologischen Sarkophage: Meleager. ASR XII 6 (Berlin 1975) G. Koch, Zum Hippolytossarkophag aus Salona. VAHD= Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku 77, 1984, 151-159 G. Koch, The John Paul Getty Museum. Roman Funerary Sculpture. Catalogue of the Collections (Santa Monica 1988) G. Koch, Sarkophage der römischen Kaiserzeit (Darmstadt 1993)

Koch 2000

G. Koch, Früchristliche Sarkophage (Munich 2000) Kollwitz – Herdejürgen 1979 J. Kollwitz – H. Herdejürgen, Die Sarkophage der westlichen Gebiete des Imperium romanum. ASR VIII 2. Die ravennatischen Sarkophage (Berlin 1979) Kranz 1984 P. Kranz, Jahreszeiten-Sarkophage. ASR V 4 (Berlin 1984) Kranz 2006 P. Kranz, Vom Kunstwert der Götzenbilder – Idealplastik in der Spätantike, in: U. Schmitzer (ed.), Vertumnus 1 (Göttingen 2006) 115-66 Leader-Newby 2004 R. E. Leader-Newby, Silver and Society in Late Antiquity (Ashgate 2004) bibliography

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

93

Leader-Newby 2014

Mancini 1920 Mango 1963 Martini 1998 Matz 1969 Matz 1975 Meischner 2001 Milano Capitale 1990

Moltesen 2000

Musei Capitolini 1. 2010 Najberg 2001

Oellers 1985 Prusac 2011

Reinsberg 2006

94

R. Leader-Newby, Heroes, Lions and Vandals: Four Late Roman Missoria, in: K. D. S. Lapatin (ed.), The Berthouville Silver Treasure and Roman Luxury (Los Angeles 2014) 89-105 G. Mancini, Roma. Nuove scoperte nella città e nel suburbane, NSc 1920, 225-227 C. Mango, Antique Statuary and the Byzantine Beholder, DOP 17, 1963, 53-75 L. Martini, Cinquanta capolavori nel Museo nazionale di Ravenna (Ravenna 1998) F. Matz, Die dionysischen Sarkophage. ASR IV 3 (Berlin 1969) F. Matz, Die dionysischen Sarkophage. ASR IV 4 (Berlin 1975) J. Meischner, Bildnisse der Spätantike 193-500 (Berlin 2001) A. Salvioni (ed.), Milano capitale dell’impero romano 286-402 d.c. Exhibition in Milano, Palazzo Reale 25. 1.–22. 4. 1990 (Milan 1990) M. Moltesen, The Esquiline Group. Aphrodisian Statues in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, AntPl 27 (München 2000) 111-129 E. La Rocca – C. Parisi Presicce (eds.), Musei Capitolini 1: Le sculture del Palazzo Nuovo (Milano 2010) T. Najberg, Sculpture from Antioch, in: M. Padget (ed.), Roman Sculpture in the Art Museum (Princeton 2001) A. D. Oellers, Burg Frankenberg, Aachen (Aachen 1985) M. Prusac, From Face to Face. Recarving of Roman Portraits and the Late-Antique Portrait Arts (Leiden – Boston 2011) C. Reinsberg, Die Sarkophage mit Darstellungen aus dem Menschenleben 3. Vita Romana. ASR I 3 (Berlin 2006)

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

Repertorium 1 Repertorium 2 Richter 1971

Ridgeway 1994

RIC IV. part III RIC V. part I Roueché – Erim 1982

Rumpf 1939 Russell 2013

Saverkina 1979 Shelton 1981 Shelton 1983 Sichtermann 1992

Sichtermann – Koch 1975 Smith 1996

F. W. Deichmann (ed.), Repertorium der christlich-antiken Sarkophage 1 (Wiesbaden 1967) B. Christern-Briesenick, Repertorium der christlich-antiken Sarkophage 2 (Mainz 2003) G. M. A. Richter, Engraved Gems of the Romans. A Supplement to the History of Roman Art. The Engraved Gems of the Greeks, Etruscans and Romans II (London 1971) B. S. Ridgeway, Greek Sculpture in the Art Museum, Princeton University: Greek Originals, Roman Copies and Variants (Princeton 1994) H. Mattingly and E. Sydenham (eds.), Roman Imperial Coinage IV 3 (London 1949) H. Mattingly and E. Sydenham (eds.), Roman Imperial Coinage V 1 (London 1927) C. Roueché – K. Erim, Sculptors from Aphrodisias: Some New Inscriptions, BSR 50, 1982, 102-115 A. Rumpf, Die Meerwesen auf den antiken Sarkophagreliefs. ASR V 1 (Berlin 1939) B. Russell, The Economics of the Roman Stone Trade, chap. 7: The Sarcophagus Trade (Oxford University Press 2013) I. I. Saverkina, Römische Sarkophage in der Ermitage (Berlin 1979) K. J. Shelton, The Esquiline Treasure (London 1981) K. J. Shelton, The Esquiline Treasure: The Nature of the Evidence, AJA 89, 1985, 147-155 H. Sichtermann, Die Mythologischen Sarkophage 2. Apollon, Ares, Bellerophon, Daidalos, Endymion, Ganymed, Giganten, Grazien. ASR XII 2 (Berlin 1992) Griechische Mythen auf römischen Sarkophagen (Tübingen 1975) R. R. R. Smith, Archaeological Research at Aphrodisias, 1989-1992, in: C. Roueché – R. R. R. bibliography

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

95

Smith 2006 Sporn 2005

St. Clair 1964 Stubbe Østergaard 1996 Thomas 2011

Vorster 2012/13 Wegner 1966 Witschel 2015

Zanker – Ewald 2012

96

Smith (eds.), Aphrodisias Papers 3: The setting and quarries, mythological and other sculptural decoration, architectural development, Portico of Tiberius, and Tetrapylon. JRA Suppl. Ser. 20 (Ann Arbor 1996) 11-72 R. R. R. Smith, Roman Portrait Statues from Aphrodisias. Aphrodisias III (Mainz am Rhein 2006) K. Sporn (ed.), Europas Spiegel: die Antikensammlung im Suermondt-Ludvig-Museum Aachen (Wiesbaden 2005) A. St. Clair, Notes: The Apotheosis Diptych. Art Bulletin 46 (1964) 205-211 J. Stubbe Østergaard, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek. Catalogue. Imperial Rome (Copenhagen 1996) E. Thomas, ‘Houses of the dead’? Columnar sarcophagi as ‘micro-architecture’ in: J. Elsner and J. Huskinson (eds.) Life, Death and Representation. Some New Work on Roman Sarcophagi (Berlin/New York 2011) C. Vorster, Spätantike Bildhauerwerkstätten in Rom. JdI 127/128, 2012/13, 393-497 M. Wegner, Die Musensarkophage. ASR V 3 (Berlin 1966) C. Witschel, Late Antique Sculpture, in: E. A. Friedland – Grunov Sobocinski – E. K. Gazda (eds.), Roman Sculpture. The Oxford Handbook of Roman Sculpture (Oxford 2015) P. Zanker – B. Ewald (author), Living with Myths. The Imagery of Roman Sarcophagi (Oxford 2012)

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

CredIt of photographs: Frontpage: Fig. 1: Figs. 2a-c: Fig. 3: Fig. 4:

Fig. 5: Fig. 6a: Fig. 6b: Fig. 7: Figs. 8a-d: Figs. 9a-d: Figs. 10a-d: Figs. 11a-b: Figs. 12a-b and e+h: Fig. 12c-d: Fig. 13a-b: Figs. 14a-c: Figs. 15a-b:

Fig. 16a-b: Figs. 17a-b: Figs. 18a: Figs. 18b-d:

N. Hannestad N. Hannestad. Photos Hans R. Goette. After Age of Spirituality, Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York 1977) No. 164. Ivory diptych Liverpool, courtesy Chrissy Partheni, National Museums Liverpool (World Museum). Photo: Hans R. Goette. Nichomacus leaf. Symmachus leaf. Monza diptych. Malibu. The J. Poul Getty Museum. Malibu. The Poul Getty Museum. Photos: Hans R. Goette. D-DAI-ROM-73.1767 and 73.1763. Niels Hannestad; D-DAI-ROM-80.711 and D-DAI-ROM-6.554 D-DAI-ROM-38.784 (right half) and D-DAI-ROM-38.784 (left half). D-DAI-ROM-38.784-786. M. Wegner, Die Musensarkophage. Berlin 1966 no 24. Rom Inst. Neg. 1963, 677 and Münster Sem. Neg. F. Matz 1975, ASR V 4 (Berlin 1973) no. 286. N. Hannestad. Dumbarton Oaks, colour plate: courtesy Björn Ewald Figs. D-DAI-ROM-35.293 – 35.294 – 35.325. credit of photographs

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

97

Figs 19a-b: Fig. 20b: Fig. 21a: Fig. 21b: Fig. 21c: Fig. 21d: Fig. 21e: Fig. 22: Fig. 23: Fig. 24a-b: Fig. 24c: Fig. 24d: Figs. 25a-e: Fig. 26a: Fig. 26b: Fig. 27a: Fig. 27b: Fig. 28: Fig. 29: Figs. 30a-d:

after I. I. Saverkina, Römische Sarkophage in der Ermitage (Berlin 1979). Fig. 20a: N. Hannestad. D-DAI-ROM-30.375. D-DAI-ROM-62.789 D-DAI-ROM-72.665. D-DAI-ROM-72.663. D-DAI-ROM-72.668. N. Hannestad. N. Hannestad. N. Hannestad. Arachne Köln (H. Oehler). Meleager, Museo Archeologico di Milano, copy right Giovanni Dall’Orto. N. Hannestad. Arachne Köln (Ph. Groβ). from Kollwitz-Herdejürgen, ASR VII 2 Taf. 24,2. B. Baratella. Photo: Hans R. Goette. N. Hannestad. Paris Biblioteque National de France. Cabinet des Medailles, courtesy Kenneth Lapatin. D-DAI-ROM-70.15.1506. N. Hannestad.

For encouragement in presenting sarcophagi in this form, I wish to warmly thank Prof. Dr. Hans Rupprecht Goette DAI Berlin.

98

W HAT D I D T H E S A R C O P HAG U S O F S Y M M AC H U S L O O K L I K E ?

CONTENTS This page is protected by copyright and may not be redistributed

NIELS HANNESTAD is professor

This book concerns the chronology of Roman mythological

emeritus of Classical Archaeology at

sarcophagi. The traditional chronology assumes a peak in

Aarhus University. His publications

production during the reign of Gallienus (AD 259-268) that fades

cover a variety of Roman topics, with his main focus being portraiture. He is the author of Roman Art and Imperial Policy (Aarhus University Press 1984, paperback 1988). A new area of research was opened up by Tradition in Late Antique Sculpture. Conservation – Modernization – Production. (Aarhus University Press 1994).

away in the reign of Constantine. This chronology has some obvious flaws. The supposed peak under the reign of Gallienus, when the empire was falling apart, can only be described as a mirage. Some very fine sarcophagi were indeed produced in this period, but the number is very limited. With the reign of Constantine (AD 306-337) came wealth, and the so-called ‘villa boom’ that also revived sculpture in the round. At that time, it is believed that production of pagan sarcophagi had ceased, to be replaced by Christian sarcophagi. However, this raises a very simple question: how were pagans buried? No doubt production of pagan sarcophagi continued beyond the turn of the century and Symmachus, who died in AD 402, was buried in such a sarcophagus.

What did the Sarcophagus of Symmachus look like?

What did the Sarcophagus of Symmachus look like?

What did the Sarcophagus of Symmachus look like? Late Antique Pagan Sarcophagi

  AARHUS UNIVERSITY PRESS

111117_cover_Sarcophagus_r2.indd 1

a

By Niels Hannestad · Aarhus University Press

27/09/2019 07.40