THE MISSING PORTRAITS FROM THE AUGUSTEUM AT NARONA
MARINA PRUSAC
University of Oslo
N - Oslo, Frederiks gate 2
UDK: 904 : 730 (497.5 Vid) “03”
94 (576) “03”
Izvorni znanstveni članak
Primljeno: 21. X. 2010.
The discovery of the Imperial statues in the Roman temple of the deified
Emperor Augustus at Narona included sculptures and marble fragments which
together compose 21 statues, all of which were without heads. Only a few portrait fragments were found, and the relationship between these and the statues is
uncertain. The problem of the lost portraits at Narona can only be explained hypothetically. They may have been destroyed or removed for a variety of reasons.
One possibility is that more portraits than that of Nero-Vespasian were recarved.
The fragmented portraits of the probable Germanicus and the one of the period
of Agrippina the Elder constitute the strongest evidence in this discussion, since
they might point towards “iconoclastic” attacks and deliberate destruction.
The discovery of the Imperial statues in the Roman temple of the
deified Emperor Augustus at Narona in 1995-6 is one of Emilio Marin’s
great achievements, and was also a noteworthy occurrence within the
field of Roman Imperial archaeology.1 Thanks to his investigations of
the Augusteum and its contents, the public and civic life of Narona, the
most important colony at the beginning of Roman rule in the province
of Dalmatia, has been brought back to life. The Augusteum included
sculptures and marble fragments which together compose 21 statues, all of
which were without heads. Only a few portrait fragments were found, and
the relationship between these and the statues is uncertain. The size of the
Narona group is remarkable and the absence of portraits requires attention:
what happened to the heads of the statues in the Augusteum at Narona?2
1. MARIN and VICKERS 2004. See also MARIN 2001.
2. I am grateful to Siri Sande for advice and comments on this text, and to Kristin
Bornholdt Collins for English language revision and proofreading.
509
Kačić, Split, 2009.-2011., 41-43
I. THE IMPERIAL STATUARY IN THE AUGUSTEUM
The 21 statues from the Augusteum represented Imperial individuals
from the Julio-Claudian dynasty (27 BC-AD 68) and the first succeeding
emperor, Vespasian (69-79), the founder of the Flavian dynasty (69-96).
Inscriptions on statue bases indicate that at least three more statues were
added to the Augusteum at the time of Trajan (98-117).3 These are lost, but
their bases indicate that it became common for benefactors to erect statues
in the shrine at the end of the first century.
The Julio-Claudian statue group includes two draped females which are
attributed to Livia; one of these is oversized (i.e. larger than life-sized).4
Two others probably represented Agrippina the Elder and Agrippina the
Younger. The remaining female statues may represent Octavia, Antonia the
Younger and Julia. One of these is a draped female statue of the kore type,
another is a draped female statue broken in two parts, and the third is a stola
clad female statue.
One of the statues is an outstanding oversized cuirassed version
of Augustus, which is regarded as the cult image.5 Based on a pedestal
inscription from the Augusteum,6 Marin suggested that a second statue of
Augustus was erected by the governor Dolabella, who had been appointed
chief magistrate and military commander by Augustus. Inscriptions on
bases in the Augusteum indicate that this second statue was flanked by
silver statues of two prominent women of the city, Septimia Lupula and
Vibia Procula, who were represented in the guise of Venus. These statues
were added later, in the middle and late second century, probably by
benefactors from the families of the two women. This group was added
rather late compared with the other sculptures in the Augusteum, at the time
when the prosperity of Narona was declining.
It has been suggested that one togatus portrayed Agrippa, one oversized,
semi-draped male is probably Claudius and one is Vespasian. Fragments of
another oversized statue have been attributed to Tiberius. A group of four
nude and semi-draped males have not been identified. Adding to these, a
togate child statue was found in the drain outside the temple, also without
its head. The cuirassed torso and the fragment of another torso, which were
found at the site of the Augusteum in the nineteenth century and moved
3. MARIN and VICKERS 2004, 71-166.
4. These attributions are suggested in the exhibition at the Archaeological Museum of
Narona at Vid.
5. Marin presented a detailed paper on the decoration of the cuirass at the AIAC Congress in Rome in 2008.
6. MARIN et al. 1999, 66; MARIN 2000b, 317-318.
510
M. Prusac, Portreti koji nedostaju iz Augusteuma u Naroni
to nearby Opuzen, are also understood to have belonged to this extensive
group of Imperial sculpture.
Fourteen of the statues with preserved shoulders have carefully carved
sockets for the insertion of heads with tenons. Among these are the
presumed cult statue as well as the statues which are identified as Livia,
Tiberius, Agrippina the Elder, Agrippina the Younger, the putative Julia,
Antonia the Younger, Agrippa and one of the princes. The second statue of
Augustus has a socket in the shape of a square indentation. The remaining
statues, which may have represented princes, simply have necks that were
cut horizontally, and these have drilled holes for iron attachments on which
the heads could be firmly attached.
II. THE PORTRAITS FROM NARONA
For comparison, only nine portrait heads and portrait fragments are
known to have been found elsewhere in Narona (the head of Mercury, the
herm of Bacchus and the alabaster bust of Isis are idealised images and not
portraits).7
One of the best known portraits from Narona, which was found right
outside the area of the Augusteum in the 1970s, represents the emperor
Vespasian (Fig. 1 a-c).8 This is the only portrait from the area which can be
combined with a statue body in the shrine, albeit with some uncertainty.9
Fig. 1a-c The portrait of Vespasian from Narona. Vid, The Archaeological
Museum. Photograph from the museum. Edited by Lill-Ann Chepstow-Lusty.
7. For Mercury and Isis see, e.g. CAMBI 1980, 153 and CAMBI 1963-1965, 85-112;
MARIN 1980, 207-212; for Bacchus see PRUSAC 2006, 312-315.
8. MARIN and VICKERS 2004; ROSSO 2009; PRUSAC 2011, no. 77.
9. CLARIDGE, KOLEGA, MARIN and RODÀ in MARIN and VICKERS 2004, 94-99.
511
Kačić, Split, 2009.-2011., 41-43
Two of the portraits of Livia from Narona are reportedly from the site
of the shrine.10 The famous one was brought to the Ashmolean Museum in
Oxford by Sir Arthur Evans at the end of the nineteenth century.11 When
the statue body supposedly belonging to Livia was uncovered in 1995 an
attempt was made at fitting the head and the body together, but this was
unsuccessful. It seems that there must have been at least three statues of
Livia at Narona since neither of the portraits fits into the statue.
A fragmented portrait of a Julio-Claudian prince, which most probably
depicts Germanicus, was found within the shrine (Fig. 2 a-c). It is cut in three
parts of which the upper recalls the capite desecta heads, but the fractures
seem to have been caused by the fall. The attribution to Germanicus is
convincing because the portrait shows an adult prince, and he was the only
one among the Julio-Claudian princes that reached full age. The comparative
material is limited, but there is a convincing example in the Ny Carlsberg
Glyptotek in Copenhagen.12 The Narona head bears some likeness to it.
Fig. 2a-c A fragmented portrait putatively attributed to Germanicus. Vid,
Archaeological Museum. Photograph taken by the author.
A fragment of a female from the early period of Agrippina the Elder
(Fig. 3) was also found inside the shrine. The presence of the statue of
Agrippina the Younger could suggest that the fragment from the same
period belonged to it, but that cannot be proved. The portrait is too
fragmented to function as evidence, and it is difficult to say if it represents
her or one of her contemporaries. If benefactors had already started
10. CLARIDGE, MARIN AND RODÀ in MARIN and VICKERS 2004, 77-84.
11. MARIN and VICKERS 2004, 76; CAMBI 1999, 85.
12. JOHANSEN 1994, cat. 53. See also, cats. 51-52.
512
M. Prusac, Portreti koji nedostaju iz Augusteuma u Naroni
Fig. 3 A portrait from the period
of Agrippina the Elder. Vid,
the Archaeological Museum.
Photograph taken by the author.
Fig. 4 A portrait fragment at Narona.
Probably a late antique female. Vid,
the Archaeological Museum.
Photograph taken by the author.
having their statues erected in the Julio-Claudian period, the portrait may
portray a female from the Roman elite at Narona. This could explain why
it recalls Agrippina the Elder, yet does not entirely correspond with the
few known portraits of her.13
The last portrait fragment which was found in the Augusteum is
oversized and displays an individual of a rather unusual appearance (Fig.
4). The forehead is remarkably long and could belong to a male, but the
long strands of hair making up the hairstyle are more consistent with what
one might expect of a female coiffure. This fragment is difficult to date, but
a late date seems most convincing.
A portrait fragment from an unknown location at Narona is probably
from the period of Gallienus (253-68) (Fig. 5 a-b).14 The dating is suggested
by the finely wrought hair strands in the beard, which are carefully drawn
with a pointed chisel, and by the larger hair locks in the coiffure, which
bear some resemblance to the hairstyle of Gallienus.
13. TRILLMICH 1984.
14. MANENICA 2007, 28; PRUSAC 2011, no. 285.
513
Kačić, Split, 2009.-2011., 41-43
Fig. 5a-b A fragmented portrait of a Gallienic portrait. Vid, The Archaeological
Museum. Photograph from the museum. Edited by Lill-Ann Chepstow-Lusty.
An oversized portrait is from
the Tetrarchic period (284-324)
(Fig. 6). The exact find spot of this
fragment is also unknown. The
surface is damaged, coarse and worn,
but the short hairstyle of the period
is unmistakable. The size of the
head implies that it belonged to an
emperor, but the Tetrarchs are always
difficult to distinguish and it could
have portrayed any of them.
The portraits of Livia, and the
possible Germanicus, Vespasian
Fig. 6 A fragmented portrait of a Teand Gallienic portraits, are made
trarch, larger than life-sized, Narona.
of marble, whereas the oversized
Vid, the Archaeological Museum.
fragments of the Tetrarch and the
Photograph taken by the author.
female are of local limestone. A
fragment of a grave relief in limestone, with a portrait in three-quarter
profile, has also been found in Narona, indicating a local workshop
in the area. Roman workshops existed in the vicinity of Salona, and a
colony such as Narona would most probably have had one which could
meet the demands for a constant supply of sculpture.
514
M. Prusac, Portreti koji nedostaju iz Augusteuma u Naroni
The portrait material from Narona is surprisingly scarce when compared
with the other finds from the site. Portraits formed an essential part of
the urban decoration in every Roman city, colony and municipality, and
honorary statues were actively used by the members of the upper social
classes who wanted to mark their ground.15
There are few indications of what happened to the portraits of the Narona
groups. Marin has argued that the statues in the Augusteum were pulled
down and damaged by Christians after AD 391 when the traditional GraecoRoman pantheon was prohibited by the Theodosian decree.16 Elsewhere, I
have suggested that another possible explanation could be that citizens with
antiquarian interests removed the imperial portraits in order to rescue them
from destruction by the Christians.17 The absence of any hard archaeological
evidence allows for the possibility of both hypotheses, but there is also a third
possibility, which takes into consideration the Roman habit of recycling. All
three possibilities – “iconoclastic” destruction, removal in order to rescue
from destruction, and recycling – are dependent on the Roman perception of
Imperial portraiture and on the duration of the Imperial cult.
III. THE IMPERIAL CULT AT NARONA
Livy informs us that the cult of Augustus was initiated on 1 August in
12 BC when Drusus consecrated the altar in Lugdunum.18 The Imperial
cult became strong in the provinces, nurtured by the Roman elite, which
used it in order to display its superior identity. In Dalmatia, the Imperial
cult was represented in all major cities, both in the colonies and in the
municipalities, and a number of portraits have been found on the cult sites.19
15. See FEJFER 2008; STEWART 2003.
16. MARIN and VICKERS 2004, 18.
17. PRUSAC 2011.
18. Liv. Epit. 139; ZANINOVIĆ 1997, 18-20, 61-62.
19. In particular, a Julio-Claudian Imperial head from the island of Lopud has been
noted, see CAMBI 1997, 64; CAMBI 1997, 63-64 treats a portrait of Nerva recarved from
Domitian found at Aenona, present Nin; a statue-group from the time of Tiberius once existed in Salona, a head of Nero and one of Drusus as princes might have belonged to this
group; a Plautilla head from Salona may have belonged to a Severian group; a Trajanportrait from Issa recarved from that of Domitian; three headless statues from the Tiberian
period at Oneum, present Omiš; two portraits of Octavian were found at Apsorus, present
Osor on the island of Cres, plus one of Augustus, one of Tiberius; see FABER 1997, 69, for
a forum which has been excavated with remnants of temples from the early Roman period
indicating the presence of the Imperial cult in Fulfinum on the island of Krk. See also KOLEGA 1997, 72-73 for the Imperial sculptures in Aenona; GIRARDI-JURKIĆ 1997 discusses the presence of an Imperial cult at Pula, where there is a well preserved temple, and at
Nesactium, according to an inscription, and the indigenous male deity Melosokus Augustus.
515
Kačić, Split, 2009.-2011., 41-43
Portraits of the emperor showed his presence on all occasions and ensured
that his image was familiar to people who could recognise his power and
thus be counted on to be loyal subjects.
The governor Dolabella played a central role in spreading the cult in
Dalmatia and, according to an inscription from Epidaurum, was the first
pro praetore Divi Augusti et Ti. Caesaris Augusti of Dalmatia.20 According
to an inscription found in the Augusteum at Narona in 1996, Dolabella
played also there an essential role.21
The presence of an Imperial shrine at Narona testifies to a flourishing
economy at the site, since only prosperous centres could be honoured with
a temple for the emperor. Wine was the main commodity and source of
wealth at Narona, and therefore probably formed the economic basis for the
establishment of the Imperial cult there. The wine exported from Narona and
the central Dalmatian coast reached all corners of the Mediterranean,22 and
numerous inscriptions and iconographical indications attest to the importance
of the wine and fertility god, Liber Pater/Bacchus.23 More than anything else,
the lavishly furnished Augusteum expresses the prosperity of the site during
the first century, and also the administrative function of Narona, the capital
of the southernmost conventus of Dalmatia, the Conventus Naronitanus. The
wealth at Narona was probably the reason for the considerable popularity
of the Imperial cult in Narona, where freedmen and the middle class were
particularly devoted to it, at least during the Julio-Claudian dynasty.24
The strategic importance of Narona disappeared after AD 9 when the
Delmatae, in the area stretching from the northern bank of the Neretva and
to the north and west, had been pacified. In addition, the wine trade ceased
around the middle of the first century AD. Instead, the colony of Salona
became the undisputed centre of the province, with an excellent harbour
directly by the Adriatic Sea. Narona, which had formerly gained importance
due to its strategic position somewhat withdrawn from the coast, could not
sustain this blow to its foundation, and the numerous aristocratic families
residing there most probably moved to Salona.
After the Civil war in AD 68-69, Vespasian had to make an effort to
secure loyalty to both state and emperor, which could be effected through
20. CIL 3.1741 from Obod near Cavtat; ZANINOVIĆ 1997, 18-20, 61-62.
21. MARIN 1999b, 266: Divo Augusto sacrum / P Dolabella cos / Caesaris August /
Leg pro pr.
22. LINDHAGEN 2009; 2010.
23. CIL III.1784-1787, 1790, 6362, 8430 and 8484. See, MARIN 1998, 51; MEDINI
1980, 200; PATSCH 1922, 71; SUIĆ 1976, 116.
24. WILKES 1997, 196; see also, TOUTAIN 1967, 57.
516
M. Prusac, Portreti koji nedostaju iz Augusteuma u Naroni
the strengthening of the Imperial cult in the provinces. 25 This might be
reflected at Narona, where the portrait of Vespasian was displayed in
the Augusteum. The large expenses incurred to erect the silver statues
which flanked Dolabella’s statue of Augustus may, however, indicate that
private individuals were responsible for the maintenance of the temple
in the second half of the second century AD.26 From the Antonine period
onwards, private dedications in sculpture were rather common in the
Roman Empire.27 After the reign of Septimius Severus the Imperial cult
seems to have declined all over the Roman Empire,28 and since Narona
had been a city in decline for more than a century by this period it seems
probable that it had lost its importance there as well.
IV. ICONOCLASTIC ATTACKS ON IMPERIAL PORTRAITURE
Towards the end of the fourth century, a large number of ancient,
pagan sculptures were destroyed because of their symbolic value as
carriers of non-Christian attitudes, as well as because of the pagan
spiritual powers which were believed to reside in them. Like temples,
statues of pagan deities could be exorcised, but the ancient sources
reveal that the perceptions of the power of images were many, and were
often contradictory. The portraits were the most elaborately executed
part of Roman statues. They were carved with great care, not only to
create an accurate depiction of the model, or one that corresponded
with the aesthetics of the time, but because they were also thought to
contain an abstract part of the sitter, the anima of the imago. This was
a kind of power which demanded that the same reverence be given to
the portrait as towards the individual represented.29 The Imperial anima
was of an elevated character and had to be approached with worship and
respect, and the material and religious value of Imperial portraits often
superseded that of the statue bodies. The “pagan force” which could
inhabit sculptures was also real and frightening to many Christians.
The Biblical warnings against the worshipping of idols are many,30 and
25. MELLOR 1992, 390.
26. MARIN 2000, 320.
27. WREDE 1981, 131-139.
28. FISHWICK 2002, 210.
29. Dio Chrysostomus, Orationes 12; STEWART 2008, 131. SANDE 1993, 82. For
an extensive explanation, see Prusac 2011.
30. 2 Kings 19,18 “and have cast their gods into the fire, for they were not gods but the
work of men’s hands, wood and stone. So they have destroyed them;” Psalm 135,15 “The
idols of the nations are but silver and gold, The work of man’s hands;” Isaiah 44,10 “Who
has fashioned a god or cast an idol to no profit?”
517
Kačić, Split, 2009.-2011., 41-43
there are several examples of pagan sculptures which were mutilated by
Christians throughout the Roman world.31
However, there was also a shift towards a more practical use of
sculpture in Late Antiquity, and many sculptures were relocated and
displayed in new contexts. Large numbers of sculptures were moved to
the public baths, which were even called art museums.32 Whether the
baths and other secular buildings neutralised the power of the images
placed there was an issue of debate. The sources tell for example of a
praetor urbanus Valerius Publicola, who asked Augustine if Christians
could continue to use the public baths which had pagan images displayed
in them.33 The hot and damp baths were regarded as a place of demons.34
As a consequence, several sculptures in the baths were mutilated by
Christians, but it seems that the aggressive attacks were mainly directed
towards their vital organs, in particular their genitalia. Even as early as
the beginning of the second century Clemens Alexandrinus wrote that
one should avoid temptations from art and not let oneself be seduced by
art.35 Artificial production had to do with dead materials and therefore
art could never measure up to the religious reality or the power of God.
Many examples have been found in the east, whereas in the west there are
fewer sculptures testifying to this practice. Three sculpture groups and
eight individual statues have been found at the Imperial baths at Agnano
in Campania. Among these are mutilated representations of Venus and
Ganymedes.36 In the east, the mutilation of the sculptures in Ephesus and
Pamphylia are among the best known.37
The many examples of sculptures destroyed by Christians support the
hypothesis that those in the Augusteum at Narona may also have been
31. SAUER 2003; SCHMID 2001.
32. MARVIN 1983, 353-377, 380-381; see also CURRAN 1994, 51. For the discussion in general, see BRANDENBURG 1987, 235-246; CURRAN 1994, 46-58 in particular pages 50-52; MANDERSCHEID 1981, 20, 73-76. It seems as though the majority
of Christians were relaxed about the sculptures in the baths, see HANNESTAD 2001c;
SARARDI-MENDELOVIĆ 1991, 49. HANNESTAD 2001b argues that only a more extreme minority of Christians found the traditional statues problematic, and in those cases it
was mainly due to the nakedness of the statues, in particular the male ones. For further discussions about traditional sculpture and the Christians, see HANNESTAD 1999; 2001a;
2001b. HA Sev. 26.3; KINNEY 1997, 141; CURRAN 1994, 54.
33. Aug. Letters 46.15-16.
34. DUNBABIN 1989, 6, 46; HANNESTAD 2001a, 71.
35. Clemens Alex., Protreptikos 4, 57, 3-58,2 (GCS 12, 44-45); FELD 1990, 3.
36. HANNESTAD 2001a, 73.
37. SAUER 2003.
518
M. Prusac, Portreti koji nedostaju iz Augusteuma u Naroni
attacked and pulled down. It is noteworthy, however, that few smashed
portraits were identified among the finds in the Augusteum, and that the
fragments which have been recovered cannot be proved to have been
maimed. The cuts and bruises that have been noted may have occurred
as isolated and random events. Likewise, the genitals of the semidraped statues show no traces of mutilation. This could be interpreted
as an argument against Christian “iconoclastic” attacks on the Imperial
statuary at Narona.
It is necessary here to digress for a moment in order to consider the
significance of Imperial portraits compared with the idealised images
of gods in the examples above. There was a close relationship between
Augustus and Venus, and between later emperors such as Constantine and
Helios-Sol Invictus. Constantine himself reused large quantities of public
sculpture in order to manifest his relationship with the divine line of past
emperors, such as, most famously, on the Arch of Constantine in Rome.38
His rival for the throne, Maxentius, had also nurtured his own identification
with the Roman gods and had probably started the building programme in
Rome which promoted a god-like emperor; this programme was completed
and adapted to the Constantinian propaganda.39 The art from the period of
Constantine displays an intricate blend of symbols of the ancient ruler cult
and of Christianity, often employed in an ambiguous manner. The fusion of
pagan ruler cult and Christianity thus makes interpretations of iconoclastic
destructions of Imperial shrines somewhat complicated, and this situation
continues in the decades after Constantine. Would not mutilation of
Imperial portraits, no matter how pagan the ruler cult was, have been an
insult against the ruling emperors? For example, the seriousness with which
portraits were regarded is apparent from the Roman practice of damnatio
memoriae, and the subsequent destruction of depictions of individuals who
were banished from society.
To have an Imperial portrait recarved into the image of another emperor
became accepted practice, and even common, from the middle of the
third century onwards. At the same time, the Imperial cult had lost its
significance. In this period, the economic situation of the Empire declined,
the infrastructure collapsed. When new marble could not be transported
from the quarries, marble which was already present and available was
38. Contra LIVERANI 2004. The literature about the Arch of Constantine is extensive. See e.g. L’ORANGE and VAN GERKAN 1939; PENSABENE and PANELLA 1999;
CONFORTO et al. 2001; MELUCCO VACCARO 2001. Also, ELSNER 1998, 187-189,
with a helpful bibliography.
39. BERGMANN 2006; MARLOWE 2006.
519
Kačić, Split, 2009.-2011., 41-43
reused. Portraits were no longer recut only because of damnatio memoriae,
which had become rare, but because of the material itself. In late antiquity,
a vast number of statues were even cut up and used as fill in garden soil or
wherever else it was needed, simply because they had become unfashionable
and the material was required for more practical purposes.40 For the same
reasons, much sculpture was forever lost in the lime kilns. Clearly, the
portraits from the Augusteum at Narona were not destroyed because of
new trends or because of the need of lime, since the larger parts of the
sculptures were left unused, but it is important to understand this context
and development in the use of sculpture when the problem of the missing
portraits from Narona is investigated.
If the Narona-group was attacked by Christians, traces should be
sought on the existing material. For example, a Hellenistic frieze with
dancing females from the forum of Narona has been put forth as an
example of a systematically mutilated sculpture.41 An attack on the
frieze could have been undertaken at the same time as the possible
decapitation of the statues in the Augusteum. The Hellenistic frieze
may even have adorned the Augusteum or another public building
which was closed and perhaps pulled down in the late fourth century
AD after the edict of Theodosius I. However, since the dancers’ heads
were carved in a higher relief than the remaining part of the figures in
the frieze and were protruding, it is also possible that they broke when
the frieze fell to the ground, the thin neck always being a weak joint in
marble sculpture.
If it could be proved that the dancers’ frieze and the portraits in the
Augusteum were attacked by the same individuals, this would be a
convincing case of “iconoclastic” destruction at Narona. The statues in
the Augusteum have no certain indications of mutilation though, as the
frieze might have, although the way in which they were found suggests,
as Marin convincingly argues, that they fell or were pulled down at one
and the same event.42
V. RESCUED AND RELOCATED SCULPTURE
It is possible that the threatening danger of attacks by Christians may
have led people in Narona to remove the portraits from the Augusteum
in order to rescue them while the statues were still standing. They could
40. COATES-STEPHENS 2001, 230-231; idem 2007.
41. MARCADÉ in MARIN et al. 1999, 9.
42. MARIN and VICKERS 2004, 18.
520
M. Prusac, Portreti koji nedostaju iz Augusteuma u Naroni
for example have been moved to Salona, or may even have been buried
at Narona. There are many examples of valuables which were buried
for protection.
It is well known that the Ostrogoths settled at Narona in the late fifth
- early sixth centuries, but if the portraits were removed for protection
it probably would have happened earlier, since Ostrogothic tombs were
found above the thick destruction layer of the Augusteum. By the arrival
of the Ostrogoths, the urban character of Narona would have long since
disappeared. The Ostrogothic graves testify to this, as they are situated
within the walls of central Roman buildings, such as the temple of
Augustus, the three known basilicas and the areas of Njive and Podstrana
to the northeast of the temple.
Although the urban character of the settlement had vanished, a
settlement continued to exist in the ruins of the former colony. The fact
that the bishop Marcellus from Narona is mentioned as a participant in
the church councils at Salona in 530 and 533 AD, in a rare reference to
the settlement in late antiquity, shows that it was still of some importance
in the sixth century.43 The limits of this bishopric might have extended
from Muccurum to Epidaurum which today would comprise the area
from Makarska to Cavtat, including the islands of Mljet, Lastovo and
Korčula.44 The double tower, the symbol referring to Narona on the
thirteenth-century Tabula Peutingeriana, which is acknowledged as a
copy of a Roman map from the third century AD,45 also indicates that it
was still a city of significance in late antiquity.46
The coins from the Augusteum also provide hints of a decrease
in civic activities. The majority of the coins date before AD 383, and
this date might be regarded as a terminus ante quem for urban life. A
settlement existed at least until the beginning of the seventh century,
as indicated by a hoard comprising female jewels and more than two
hundred Byzantine coins.47 It has been suggested that rich families still
inhabited the buildings nearest to the forum,48 and it seems reasonable
to conclude that members of this social group were the owners of the
buried treasure, and that they deposited their valuable objects in order
43. WILKES 1969, 432 note 3 referring to the synods at Salona in AD 530 and 533.
See also MARIN 1999, 10.
44. See VUČIĆ 2005 for a thorough discussion.
45. VON HAGEN 1967, 10.
46. LEVI and LEVI 1967, 67, 73, 76, 79-80, 82, 92, 99, 124-125, 160, 230.
47. BULIĆ in MARIN et al. 1999, 179; MAROVIĆ in MARIN et al. 1999, 195.
48. MAROVIĆ in MARIN et al. 1999, 197, 210-211.
521
Kačić, Split, 2009.-2011., 41-43
to protect them from the Avars who were probably the cause of the
abandonment of Narona.
The portraits from the Augusteum must have been removed and deposited
somewhere between the late fourth and the fifth centuries. Sculptures which
were deposited for protection or because they had become unfashionable, and
which were never retrieved by their owners, have for example been found in
Antioch and at Side.49 At Chiragan, in southern France, sculptures dating to
193-211 were amassed in a late-antique context.50 In Rome, the late-antique
Esquiline statue group was assembled from several earlier works.51 Various
cult statues were also collected in a secondary context in an Iseum on the
Esquiline Hill in Rome,52 and numerous second- and third-century sculptures
were found together in the late-antique Jupiter Dolichenus sanctuary in the
same area.53 There are even examples which show that Christians collected
pagan sculptures for antiquarian interests. In other instances, there is evidence
for statues that were reworked in order to fit into a new, late-antique context,
such as the statue of Diana from the Villa Fortuna Annonaria at Ostia, dating to
the second century AD, which was moved to another context in late antiquity,
restored, and then attached to a new lower body.54 Similar relocation might
have been the case with the portraits at Narona.
VI. THE ROMAN HABIT OF RECYCLING SCULPTURE
There are many examples of recarved sculpture, deriving from all parts
of the Roman Empire, and some portraits were even recarved more than
one time.55 Two of the portraits from Narona seem to have been recarved:
that of Vespasian and the Gallienic head.
The opposite is true of the probable portrait of Germanicus, the
fragmented portrait from the time of Agrippina the Elder and the portraits
of Livia, which have no traces of recarving, nor does the oversized fragment
of a possible late antique female portrait. In general it is more unusual to
find female portraits that were recarved than males ones, since most images
of women were idealised and had fewer individual features than portraits
49. BRINKERHOFF 1970; INAN and ROSENBAUM 1979, 127-130, no. 76, pl. 67,
no. 2, pl. 68; KAPOSSY 1969, 65.
50. BERGMANN 1997; 1999; HANNESTAD 1994, 131-132, figs. 83-84.
51. HANNESTAD 1994, 110-117, figs. 73-75; MOLTESEN 2000.
52. ENSOLI 1997, 576-589; ENSOLI and LA ROCCA 2000, 280-281, 518-524, nos.
146-160.
53. ENSOLI and LA ROCCA 2000, 287-294, 526-530, nos. 166-172.
54. HANNESTAD 1994, 102, figs. 65-66.
55. JUCKER 1981, 318-319; VARNER 2004, 117, figs. 118a-b; PRUSAC 2011, no. 114.
522
M. Prusac, Portreti koji nedostaju iz Augusteuma u Naroni
of males. This reflects the Roman view of women compared with that of
men. The hairstyles were the only part of the female portraits which seem
to have been recarved with some frequency. This may not have been for
updating the coiffures,56 as some have suggested, but rather would have
been a simple way of changing the identity of female portraits. Generally,
the alterations of female portraiture were not connected with damnatio
memoriae, but in a few cases that could be the reason.
What strikes the observer about the statuary of the Augusteum is that
Caligula and Nero, who received damnatio memoriae, seem to be missing
from the group. The other Julio-Claudian emperors have been identified
on the basis of the statue bodies. Caligula may be represented in one of
the unidentified statues or his statue may have been entirely removed or
exchanged with another. Vespasian is the only member of the group who is
not from the Julio-Claudian period. But did the head originally belong to the
statue? Or is it possible that the statue of Vespasian originally represented
Nero? In the publication of the Narona group, the authors question the
combination of the head and the body.57 The rich style of the voluminous
toga with heavy sinus and long umbo corresponds to the late Julio-Claudian
types, which could have been worn by Nero.58 It is cut out of a large block
of Thasian marble, which is rare at Narona. It seems reasonable to conclude
that this statue was commissioned later, which would be equally possible
for a statue of Nero as for one of Vespasian, since the latter succeeded the
first. The footwear, calcei senatorii, which differs from that of the others,
who are wearing calceii patricii, could also belong to Nero, who wore calcei
senatorii in a statue in the Vatican, later reused as a statue of Titus. Thus,
the statue of Vespasian could originally have belonged to Nero, including
the portrait, which might have been recarved into the image of Vespasian
after the death and ensuing condemnation of Nero.
The present position of the statue of Vespasian together with the JulioClaudians is hypothetical, and it may originally have been displayed in
a different relationship to them, but the find context of the group, on the
mosaic pavement in the cella, suggests that the statue belongs to the same
group. If the statue originally portrayed Nero, who received damnatio
memoriae, the original portrait might have been mutilated and discharged,
or recarved into the image of another emperor, as was the case with many
(but in no way all) portraits of Nero.
56. HERRMANN 1991.
57. CLARIDGE in MARIN and VICKERS 2004, 96.
58. CLARIDGE, KOLEGA, MARIN and RODÀ in MARIN and VICKERS 2004,
94-99; page 99 in particular. See also, ROSSO 2009.
523
Kačić, Split, 2009.-2011., 41-43
At the time of Vespasian, it had become more common, and even
standard practice, for the next emperor in line to order the recarving of
the portraits of his damnatio memoriae-condemned predecessor. In the
portraiture of Vespasian, this practice is particularly clear. He ruled after
Nero, and his portraits were consequently recarved from him. Vespasian
evidently availed himself of the plentiful supply of portraits of Nero, as
there are numerous recarved portraits of him; at least twenty are known.59
In fact, portraits of Vespasian which have not been recarved from other
portraits seem to have been rare.60 The economic crisis which was
59. 1) In Florence, Galleria degli Uffizi, inv. 1914.127; see BERGMANN and ZANKER
1981, 335-337, fig.12; VARNER 2004, 246-247. 2) Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, inv. 53; see LA REGINA 1998, 9; VARNER 2004, 243, cat. 2.24,
figs. 53a-e. 3) Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, inv. 38795;
see VARNER 2004, 243, cat. 2.23, figs. 52a-d. 4) Musei Vaticani, Museo Chiaramonti, inv.
1291; see BERGMANN and ZANKER 1981, 337, figs. 15a-d; VARNER 2004, 244, cat.
2.25, figs. 51a-e. 5) Rome, Musei Capitolini, Palazzo dei Conservatori; formerly in the Villa
Borghese; see VARNER 2004, 244, cat. 2.26, fig. 48. 6) Roselle, Museo Archeologico, see
BERGMANN and ZANKER 1981, 332, n. 8. 7) Lucus Feroniae, Museum of Archaeology,
magazzini, see WEGNER 1966, 11, 80, no. 7a; VARNER 2004, 243, cat. 2.22. 8) From Pergamon, in Baltimore, Walters Art Gallery, inv. 23.119; see POLLINI 1984, 553-555, pl. 73,
nos. 10-12; VARNER 2004, 240-241, cat. 2.15. 9) Copenhagen, Nationalmuseet, inv. 3425;
see BERGMANN and ZANKER 1981, 337, no. 4, figs. 16a-b; VARNER 2004, 242, cat.
2.18. 10) Turin, Museo di Antichità, inv. 244, see BERGMANN and ZANKER 1981, 341,
figs. 17a-c; VARNER 2004, 245, cat. 2.30, figs. 55a-b. 11) Tunis, Musée National du Bardo,
inv. C1025, see BERGMANN and ZANKER 1981, 343, no. 7, fig. 19; VARNER 2004, 245,
cat. 2.29, fig. 54. 12) Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, inv. 1979; see JUCKER 1981,
341-343, no. 6, figs. 18-19; VARNER 2004, 242, cat. 2.19, figs. 47a-d. 13) Cleveland, Art
Museum, inv. 29.439.2; see VARNER and BUNDRICK 2000: 136-139, cat. 27; VARNER
2004, 241, cat. 2.17. 14) Seville, Museo Arqueologico, inv. 1060, see VARNER 2004, 245,
cat. 2.28. 15) From Carthage, in London, British Museum, inv. 1890; see JUCKER 1981,
344, no. 8, fig. 20; VARNER 2004, 243, cat. 2.21, figs. 50a-b. 16) Coimbra, Museu Nacional
de Mahado de Castro; see DE SOUZA 1990, 22-23, no. 39.17) Grosseto, Museo Archeologico e d’Arte della Maremma; see VARNER 2004, 242, cat. 2.20. 18) Verria (Macedonia),
Museum, inv. 373; see VARNER 2004, 245-246, cat. 2.31. 19) Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg
Glyptotek, inv. 1843; see VARNER 2004, 246, cat. 2.34, figs. 56a-d. 20) Possibly recarved
from a portrait of Nero. Norway, private collection; see SANDE 1991, 50-51, no. 36, pl. 36.
60. In the Cancelleria reliefs in Rome, Vespasian is recarved from Domitian, see
MAGI 1945; this is also the only example in which the original is proved to have represented Domitian. At least three portraits of Vespasian are recarved from Vitellius: 1) Thessaloniki, Archaeological Museum, inv. 1055; see BERGMANN and ZANKER 1981, 347,
no. 22.1c; VARNER 2004, 259, cat. 4.3, figs. 106a-c. 2) Trier, Reinische Landesmuseum,
inv. ST5223; see BERGMANN and ZANKER 1981, 349, figs. 23a-b; VARNER 2004,
259, cat. 4.4, figs. 107a-b. 3) Hannover, Kestner Museum, inv. I28; see VARNER 2004,
259, cat. 4.2, figs. 105a-b. A portrait of Vespasian in Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano,
inv. 143, is recarved from an unidentified original; see FELLETTI MAJ 1953, 80, no. 143.
524
M. Prusac, Portreti koji nedostaju iz Augusteuma u Naroni
another legacy of Nero’s extravagant lifestyle must also have encouraged
this reuse.61 Recarving would always have been the best option for the
production of a portrait if there was a shortage of marble. The request
for Imperial portraits was great: not only were portraits important as
substitutions for the emperors, but sculpture, and in particular Imperial
portraits, was an important tool in Roman propaganda. After the reign
of Nero, it was necessary to strengthen the throne and display the new
emperor and his political values, which were closer to the Republican
ideals. This is expressed in Vespasian’s portrait style.
When a portrait is recarved the volume is diminished, as the features of
the original sitter have to be cut away. It has been argued that the portrait
of Vespasian in the Narona-group looks too large for the statue body, even
for a Flavian (a family with characteristically broad chins and sculls). If the
original portrait showed the fleshy face of Nero with a more voluminous
coiffure than the other Julio-Claudians, the secondary portrait could also be
proportionally large. In the recarving of the damnatio memoriae heads from
the first century, as little volume as possible was removed. The technique
used can be compared to the peeling of an onion where only the outer
layer was removed. The features of the new portrait were placed as close as
possible to those of the original sitter and as far as the individual features
of the new face permitted.62 These transformations are clearly visible in the
other portraits of Vespasian which are recarved from Nero. This makes it
possible to attribute the original portrait of the Vespasian statue at Narona
to Nero. Since the other portraits from the Narona group are lost, it is not
possible to compare the proportions of the Vespasian head to them. A statue
with the dimensions of the Vespasian statue should be 193 cm high, head
included (6.5 Roman feet, one foot being 19.5 cm), but it is 14-15 cm taller
(7 Roman feet).63 This could be explained by the observer’s perspective
from below.64 In the present combination of the statue and the portrait, the
neck is perhaps the most questionable part, as it seems too long and weak.
This could be a consequence of the cutting back of Nero’s ample chin.
If the chin was cut down and narrowed, which may be why it appears so
elongated,65 the head might have been tipped slightly forwards in order
to maintain a natural angle. This could explain why the tenon does not fit
exactly into the socket of the statue. It has been noted that in spite of the
61. Suetonius, De Vita Caesarum - Vespasian 16.
62. PRUSAC 2006b.
63. CLARIDGE and KOLEGA in MARIN and VICKERS 2004, 95-96.
64. CLARIDGE in MARIN and VICKERS 2004, 96.
65. KOLEGA in MARIN and VICKERS 2004, 95.
525
Kačić, Split, 2009.-2011., 41-43
slight mismatch in the rear area, the tenon fits very tightly into the socket.
That the sculptors did not take the opportunity to adjust the tenon during
recarving may have been out of fear of damaging the head. Like the statue
body, the portrait with its tenon was carved with great care and with no risk
of challenging the marble, thus revealing the effort made to economise the
Thasian marble, which was rare at Narona.
The turn of the head is somewhat unnatural as it is directed towards
the left, whereas the body suggests a head which is turned towards the
right. This awkward twist, which might have influenced the angle of the
head, may also be a result of the recarving. If the original portrait showed
Nero with the Alexandrian turn of the head, which is rather typical in
portraits of Nero, it would have been necessary to straighten up the head
without altering the position of the ears, eyes, nose and mouth, which set
the limits for the recarving. As a result, the secondary portrait would have
been cut closer to the scull in a way which allowed for a more direct line
of the neck, whereas the ears and eyes would be asymmetrically placed
with the right ear and eye higher than the left. Since the right profile
would become more visible than the left in the secondary portrait, the
details there are more carefully executed. The ears seem unnaturally large
and were probably left untouched. The ears, which set the dimensions
of the head, were generally the most complicated parts of a portrait to
recarve. The three horizontal wrinkles across the forehead might also be
traces from the recarving, and the drill holes at the corners of the eyes
and the mouth are probably remnants from the original features, which
were more plastically modelled in deeper relief. The heavy and deeply
cut eyelids might conceal the size of the original eyeballs. The flat and
summarily rendered hair locks along the hairline might simply be the rest
of the original locks, which were cut down and left coarse and untrimmed.
Only around the ears and above the forehead can small, half-moon shaped
chiselled strands to be distinguished. Similarly, the back of the head was
not worked but left with numerous pointed chisel marks. It is convincing
that the portrait was meant to be observed from below.66 The surface of
the portrait is worn, and the lips are no more accentuated than the hardly
perceptible lines running down from the outer nostrils.
The portrait of Vespasian and the statue to which it is attached may
not belong together, but it is equally possible that they do, and if the
portrait was recarved, as in my opinion it is, that might explain the slight
inconsistency of the tenon and the unusual turn of the head. If the original
66. CLARIDGE and KOLEGA in MARIN and VICKERS 2004, 95-96.
526
M. Prusac, Portreti koji nedostaju iz Augusteuma u Naroni
portrayed Nero, the Augusteum of Narona would once have displayed a
row of Julio-Claudian emperors. This is highly probable, considering the
prosperity of the colony at that time.
It is interesting to note that the row of emperors in the Augusteum at
Narona ends with Nero, who ruled in the same period that the wine trade in
Narona petered out.67 As a consequence of economic decline, the portraits
of the other statues in the Augusteum may have been recarved over time.
The Gallienic portrait fragment shows that recycling was practiced
at Narona in the middle of the third century, when recarving of portraits
for reasons other than damnatio memoriae had become common all over
the Roman Empire. The Gallienic portrait fragment was found outside
the temenos, but that does not exclude the possibility that it originally
came from the Augusteum. The portrait of Vespasian was also found
separately from the rest of the sculpture inventory of the Augusteum.
The Gallienic portrait fragment is of Greek island marble, it is slightly
larger than life-sized and may have been recut from an earlier emperor in
the shrine, or from a benefactor. If it originally portrayed an emperor, it
is most likely that it represented an emperor also in its secondary phase,
but it is not possible to identify it as Gallienus. His portrait style is often
recognizable from a kind of classicism which distinguished his images
from those of the other emperors of the third century, and it is therefore
difficult to find another Imperial candidate. Recarved portraits of the
same individual can, however, often differ and the portraits of Gallienus,
which are all recarved, differ quite a lot.68 The fragment in Narona has
67. LINDHAGEN 2009.
68. All known portraits of Gallienus are recarved: 1) From Egypt. Recarved from
a portrait of Nero. Columbia, University of Missouri Museum of Art and Archaeology,
inv. 62.46, see VARNER 2004, 255, cat. 2.62, figs. 77a-d. 2) From Rome, Villa Dora.
Recarved from a portrait of Hadrian. Paris, Louvre, inv. Ma 1223, see DE KERSAUSON
1996, 484-485, no. 288. 3) Provenance unknown. Recarved from an unidentified portrait.
Antikensammlung, Staatliches Museen, inv. R114, see e.g. BERGMANN 1977, 127, pl.
12, nos. 5-6. 4) Provenance unknown. Rome, Museo Torlonia, inv. 603, see L’ORANGE
1933, figs. 9-10. 5) Possible Gallienus. From Alexandria. Recarved from an unidentified
portrait. Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum, inv. 3701, see L’ORANGE 1933, 112, cat.
16, figs. 46, 48. 6) Provenance unknown. Recarved from an unidentified portrait. Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale, inv. 6183, see WEGNER 1979, 114. 7) Provenance
unknown. Recarved from a Julio-Claudian portrait. Brussels, Musées Royaux d’Art et
d’Histoire, inv. A3558, see WEGNER 1979, 111. 8) Provenance unknown, probably from
Rome. Recarved from an unidentified original. The recarving of the ear was botched, and
the profile shortened. Rome, Palazzo Quirinale, inv. 5171, see FITTSCHEN and ZANKER 1985, Beilage 91c-d. 9) Gallienus. Provenance unknown. Recarved from a slightly
earlier portrait. Musei Vaticani, magazzini, see KASCHNITZ-WEINBERG 1936, 294,
527
Kačić, Split, 2009.-2011., 41-43
no facial features in common with any of the known examples. It is most
likely the image of a benefactor.
The Gallienic fragment shows the right side of the portrait. It is broken right
above the eyeball and below the upper lip. The ear has been cut down in a way
which removed the channels of the outer shell. The nose is broken, but seems
to have been rather flat. The eye is small and carelessly carved. A deep wrinkle
from the nose indicates that originally the mouth was larger. The plastically
modeled hair locks have been reduced. There is a stylistic discrepancy between
the locks of hair and the beard, which was marked out in stab-marks using a
small, pointed chisel. The angle of the head is tipped backwards, as is common
for the recarved portraits from the early fourth century. The facial features
are cut close to the scull and protrude only slightly, as is typical in the many
other examples of recarved portraits from the later half of the third century.
The original sitters in most of these portraits are difficult to identify, as more
of the volume has been removed than for example in the damnatio memoriae
portraits of the first century. In addition, the secondary sitters are in most cases
uncertain. This is also valid for the oversized portrait fragment of a Tetrarch
at Narona in limestone. This portrait is interesting since it has typical traces
of recarving, despite the fact that the landscape around Narona and along the
Dalmatian coast was a rich source of limestone. The presence of this portrait
fragment may suggest that recarving had become so common at Narona that
even portraits of limestone were reused.
VII. THE ABSENCE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE
The problem of the lost portraits at Narona can only be explained
hypothetically. They may have been destroyed or removed for a variety of
reasons. One possibility is that more portraits than that of Nero-Vespasian
were recarved. It is possible that even portraits as prominent as those in the
Augusteum at Narona were reused in late antiquity, when the recycling of
marble sculpture had become common. However, this does not explain why
the heads, original or secondary, were not found together with the statue bodies,
but if they were reused they may also have been moved to other locations.
Another possibility is that at some point the portraits either fell down
or were pulled down and broken into indiscernible fragments. As in many
no. 722, pl. 107. 10) Provenance unknown. Recarved from an unidentified portrait, possibly of Hadrian. Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, inv. 832, see BERGMANN 1977,
54, pl. 14, no. 4. 11) Gallienus. Probably from Sicily. Recarved from an unidentified portrait. Palermo, Museo Nazionale, inv. 18592, see BONACASA 1964, 113-114, no. 147, pl.
67, nos. 3-4. 12) Provenance unknown. Recarved from an unidentified portrait, possibly of
Hadrian. York, Castle Howard, antique passage, see BORG et al. 2005, 115 no. 61, pl. 62.
528
M. Prusac, Portreti koji nedostaju iz Augusteuma u Naroni
other examples throughout the Roman world, the heads were the first part
of the statue to be lost. The heads were carved separately as single pieces
of marble which were inserted into the body, but not always fixed in place.
The protruding facial features were fragile and if they were not broken
off by accident, time and acids in the soil are also known to have been the
cause of much damage. The soil at Vid (Narona) has not been particularly
hard on the marble, and it is somewhat intriguing that there were not more
marble fragments among the finds in the Augusteum.
The fragmented portraits of the probable Germanicus and the one of
the period of Agrippina the Elder constitute the strongest evidence in this
discussion, since they might point towards “iconoclastic” attacks and
deliberate destruction, which has previously been put forward by Marin.
The western examples of early Christian “iconoclasm” are fewer than
the eastern ones, and if there were attacks on the Narona group in the
time following the Theodosian edict this would be a rare and important
example. Lacking other evidence, the fragments of the probable portrait
of Germanicus and the one of the period of Agrippina the Elder could thus
be a solid case in favour of “iconoclasm” as the explanation for the lost
portraits, since they obviously belonged to the group and are damaged.
However, the damage could also have been caused in other ways.
A last possible option would be that even if the statues in the Augusteum were
destroyed on one occasion, the portraits could have been removed gradually,
at different times for different reasons, during the almost four hundred years
of continuous activity in the shrine. If they were not removed or destroyed
together, they may have disappeared one by one, and faded into oblivion.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BERGMANN, M. Studien zum römischen Porträt des 3. Jahrhunderts n.
Chr., Bonn 1977.
BERGMANN, M. Zu den Porträts des Trajan und Hadrian. Itàlica MMCC.
Actas de los jornadas del 2200 Aniversario de la Fundaciòn de Itàlica, eds. A.
Caballos and P. León, Seville 1997, 137-153.
BERGMANN, M. Konstantin und der Sonnengott. Die Aussagen der
Bildzeugnisse. Konstantin der Grosse. Geschichte – Archäologie – Rezeption,
eds. A. Demandt and J. Engemann, Trier 2006, 143-161.
BERGMANN, M. and ZANKER, P. Damnatio Memoriae - Umgearbeitete
Nero- und Domitiansporträts, JdI 96, 1981, 317-412.
BONACASA, N. Ritratti greci e romani della Sicilia, Palermo 1964.
BORG, B., VON HESBERG, H. and A. LINFERT, Die antiken Skulpturen in
Castle Howard, Monumenta artis romanae 31, Wiesbaden 2005.
529
Kačić, Split, 2009.-2011., 41-43
BRANDENBURG, H. Die Umsetzung von Statuen in der Spätantike. Migratio
et Commutatio, Festschrift Th.Pekary, eds. H.J. Drexhage and J. Sünskes, St.
Katharinen 1987, 235-246.
BRINKERHOFF, D. M. A collection of sculpture in Classical and Early
Christian Antioch, New York 1970.
BULIĆ, F. Ripostiglio dell’ornato muliebre di Urbica e di suo marito trovato
a Narona, Vid di Metković, in MARIN et al. 1999, 179-194.
CAMBI, N. Nove potvrde egipatskih kultova u antičkoj provinciji Dalmaciji,
VAHD 65-67, 1963-65, 85-112.
CAMBI, N. Antička Narona – urbanistička topografija i kulturni profil grada,
Dolina rijeke Neretve od prethistorije do ranog srednjeg vijeka, Split 1980, 128-153.
CAMBI, N. Groups of Imperial statues in the Roman province of Dalmatia,
Materijali 9, Carski kult na istočnom Jadranu (Imperial cult in the eastern
Adriatic), Pula 1997, 63-64.
CAMBI, N. Zwei Vespasian-Porträts aus Dalmatien, in MARIN et al. 1999,
85-95.
COATES-STEPHENS, R. The reuse of statuary in the walls on the Esquiline
and Celian, JRA 14, 2001, 228-230.
COATES-STEPHENS, R. The reuse of ancient statuary in Late Antique Rome
and the End of the Statue habit, F.A. Bauer and C. Witschel, eds., Statuen in der
Spätantike, 2007, 171-188.
CONFORTO, M. L., MELUCCO VACCARO, A. and CICERCHIA, P. (eds.),
Adriano e Costantino. Le due fasi dell’arco nella valle del Colosseo, Rome 2001.
CURRAN, J. Moving Statues in Late antique Rome, problems of perspective,
Art History 17, 1994, 46-58.
DE KERSAUSON, K. Catalogue des Portraits Romains 2. De l’année de la
guerre civile (68-69 après J.-C.) à la fin de l’Empire (Musée du Louvre), Paris 1996.
DUNBABIN, K.M.B. Baiarum grata voluptas. Pleasures and dangers of the
baths, PBSR 57, 1989, 6-46.
ELSNER, J. Imperial Rome and Christian triumph, Oxford 1998.
ENSOLI, S. Culti Isaici in età tardoantica tra sfera privata e sfera pubblica,
Iside, il mito, il mistero, la magia, ed. E. A. Arslan, Milan 1997, 576-589.
ENSOLI, S. and LA ROCCA, E. Aurea Roma. Dalla città pagana alla città
cristiana, Rome 2000.
FABER, A. Forum temples in Roman Fulvium, Materijali 9, Carski kult na
istočnom Jadranu (Imperial cult in the eastern Adriatic), Pula 1997, 69.
FEJFER, J. Roman portraits in context, Berlin 2008.
FELD, H. Der Ikonoklasmus des Westens, Studies in the history of Christian
thought, Leiden 1990.
FELLETTI-MAJ, B. M. Museo Nazionale Romano. I ritratti, Rome 1953.
FISHWICK, D. The imperial cult in the Latin west. Studies in the ruler cult of
the western provinces of the Roman empire, Leiden and Boston 2005.
530
M. Prusac, Portreti koji nedostaju iz Augusteuma u Naroni
FITTSCHEN, K. and ZANKER, P. Katalog der römische Porträt des
Kapitolinisches Museums 3, Rome 1983.
GIRARDI-JURKIĆ, V. Two centres of the Imperial cult in Roman Istria,
Materijali 9, Carski kult na istočnom Jadranu (Imperial cult in the eastern
Adriatic), Pula 1997, 59-61.
HANNESTAD, N. Tradition in late antique sculpture, Århus 1994.
HANNESTAD, N. How did raising Christianity cope with pagan sculpture,
East and west: modes of communication. Proceedings of the first plenary
conference at Merida, eds. E. Chyros and I. Wood, Leiden 1999, 173-203.
HANNESTAD, N. Castration in the baths, Macellum, Culinaria archaeologica,
Robert Fleischer zum 60. Geburtstag, eds. N. Birkle, I. Domes and S. Fähndrich,
Mainz 2001a, 67-77.
HANNESTAD, N. Sculptural genres in Late Antiquity – continuity or
discontinuity, Griechenland in der Kaiserzeit, Neue Funde und Forschungen zu
Skulptur, Architektur und Topographie, ed. C. Reusser, Bern 2001b, 137-145.
HANNESTAD, N. The marble group of Daidalos, Hellenism in late antique
Amman, Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 7, 2001c, 513-519.
HAYWOOD, J. Dark age naval power: a reassessment of Frankish and
Anglo-Saxon Seafaring Activity, London 1991.
HERRMANN, J. J. Rearranged hair, a portrait of a Roman woman in Boston
and some recarved portraits of earlier imperial times, Journal of the Museums of
Fine Arts, 1991, 35-50.
INAN, J. and ROSENBAUM, E. Römische und Frühbyzantinische
Porträtplastik aus der Türkei, Mainz 1979.
JOHANSEN, F. Romerske portræter I, Copenhagen 1994.
JUCKER, H. Iulisch-Claudische Kaiser- und Prinzenporträts als Palimpseste,
JdI 96, 1981, 236-316.
KAPOSSY, B. Brunnenfiguren der hellenistischen und Römischen Zeit,
Zürich 1969.
KASCHNITZ-WEINBERG, G. Sculture del magazzino del Museo Vaticano,
Monumenti Vaticani di archeologia e d’arte 4, Rome 1936-1937.
KINNEY, D. Spolia. Damnatio and renovatio memoria, MemAmAc 42, 1997,
117-148.
KOLEGA, M. Imperial statues of the Julian and Claudian dynasties in
Aenona, Materijali 9, Carski kult na istočnom Jadranu (Imperial cult in the
eastern Adriatic), Pula 1997, 72-73.
LA REGINA, A. Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, Rome 1998.
LEVI, A. and LEVI, M. Itineraria picta, contributo allo studio della Tabula
Peutingeriana, Rome 1967.
LINDHAGEN, A. Lamboglia 2 and Dressel 6A. A Central Dalmatian origin?,
JRA 22, 2009, 83-105.
L’ORANGE, H. P., Studien zur Geschichte des spätantiken Poträts, Oslo 1933.
531
Kačić, Split, 2009.-2011., 41-43
L’ORANGE, H.P. and VON GERKAN, A. Der Spätantike Bildschmuck des
Konstantinsbogen, Berlin 1939.
LIVERANI, P. Reimpiego senza ideologia. La lettura antica degli spolia
dall’arco di Costantino all’età carolingia, RM 111, 2004, 383-436.
MANDERSCHEID, H. Die Skulpturenausstattung der Kaiserzeitlichen
Thermenanlägen, Berlin 1981.
MANENICA, H. Arheološki muzej Narona. Guide to the exhibition, Zagreb 2007.
MARCADÉ, J. Le relief aux danseuses de Narona au Museé de Split, in
MARIN et al. 1999, 7-20.
MARIN, E. O antičkim kultovima u Naroni. Dolina rijeke Neretve od
prethistorije do ranog srednjeg vijeka, Split 1980, 207-212.
MARIN, E. La publication des inscriptions romaines de Salone et de Narone.
La nécropole dite de l’Hortus Metrodori à Salone et les cultes païens à Narone:
la nouvelle inscription de l’Augusteum, Epigraphia Romana in area Adriatica,
Actes de la IXe rencontre franco-italienne sur l’épigraphie du monde romain, ed.
G. Paci, Macerata 1998, 51-60.
MARIN, E. Sveti Vid, Narona I, Split 1999.
MARIN, E. L’introduction du culte imperial dans la Dalmatie, Narona,
Aenona, Issa, L’Illyrie méridionale et l’Épire dans l’Antiquité, ed. P. Cabanes,
Paris 1999, 265-269.
MARIN, E. Consecratio in formam Veneris dans l’Augusteum de Narona,
Imago antiquitatis. Mélanges offerts à Robert Turcan, Paris 2000, 317-326.
MARIN, E. The temple of the imperial cult (Augusteum) at Narona and its
statues, interim report, JRA 14, 2001, 80-112.
MARIN, E. et al., Narona, Zagreb - Opuzen 1999.
MARIN, E., MAYER, M., PACI, G. and RODÀ, I. Corpus inscriptionum
Naronitarum 1. Erešova kula, Vid, Macerata-Split 1999.
MARIN, E. and VICKERS, M. eds. The rise and fall of an Imperial shrine,
Roman sculpture from the Augusteum at Narona, Split 2004.
MARLOWE, E. Framing the sun: the Arch of Constantine and the late antique
cityscape, Art Bulletin 88:2, 2006, 223-242.
MAROVIĆ, I. Novi i neobjavljeni nalazi iz Narone (Trouvailles nouvelles ou
inédites de Narona), in MARIN et al. 1999, 39-59.
MARVIN, M. Freestanding sculptures from the Baths of Caracalla, AJA 87,
1983, 347-384.
MEDINI, J. Uloga oslobođenika u životu Narone (The role of freedmen in the
life of Narona) in Dolina rijeke Neretve od prethistorije do ranog srednjeg vijeka,
Split 1980, 195-206 = in Marin et al. 1999, 206-217.
MELLOR, R. The local character of Roman Imperial religion, Athenaeum 80,
1992, 385-400.
MELUCCO VACCARO, A. L’arco di Adriano e il riuso di Costantino, Adriano
e Costantino. Le due fasi dell’arco nella valle del Colosseo, eds. M. L. Conforto
et al., Rome 2001, 22-57.
532
M. Prusac, Portreti koji nedostaju iz Augusteuma u Naroni
MOLTESEN, M. The Esquiline group: Aphrodisian statues in the Ny Carlsberg
Glyptotek, Antike Plastik 27, 2000, 111-131.
PATSCH, K. Historische Wanderungen im Karst und an der Adria I. Die
Herzegowina erst und jetzt. Osten und Orient I, Vienna 1922.
PENSABENE, P. and PANELLA, C. Arco di Costantino tra archeologia e
archeometria, Rome 1999.
POLLINI, J. Damnatio memoriae in stone. Two portraits of Nero recut to
Vespasian in American Museums, AJA 80, 1984, 547-555.
PRUSAC, M. South of the Naro, North of the Drilo, from the Karst to the Sea.
Cultural identities in South Dalmatia 500 BC – AD 500, Acta Humaniora 312
(doctoral thesis), Oslo 2006.
PRUSAC, M. Re-carving Roman portraits: background and methods,
ActaAAHistPert 20, 2006b, 105-130.
PRUSAC, M. From face to face. Recarving of Roman portraits and the late
antique portrait arts, Monumenta Graeca et Romana 18, Leiden and Boston 2011.
ROSSO, E. Statua di Vespasiano, Divus Vespasianus, exhibition catalogue,
ed. F. Coarelli, Rome 2009.
SANDE, S. Greek and Roman portraits in private collections in Norway,
ActaAAHistPert 10, 1991.
SANDE, S. The icon and its origin in Graeco-Roman portraiture, Aspects of
late Antiquity and early Byzantium, eds. L. Rydén and J.O. Rosenqvist, Stockholm
1993, 75-84.
SARARDI-MENDELOVICI, H. Christian attitudes towards Pagan monuments in late antiquity, DOP 45, 1991, 47-61.
SAUER, E. The archaeology of religious hatred in the Roman and early
medieval world, Gloucestershire 2003.
SCHMID, S. G. Worshipping the emperor(s): a new temple of the Imperial
cult at Eretria and the ancient destruction of its statues, JRA 14:1, 2001, 113-142.
STEWART, P.C.N. Statues in Roman society. Representation and response,
Oxford 2003.
STEWART, P.C.N. The social history of Roman art, Cambridge 2008.
SUIĆ, M. Antički grad na istočnom Jadranu, Zagreb 1976.
TOUTAIN, J. F. Les cultes païens dans l’empire romaine 1, Rome 1967, 260-273.
TRILLMICH, W. Beobachtungen am Bildnis der Agrippina Maior oder:
Probleme und Grenzen der Typologie, MM 25, 1984, 135-158.
VARNER, E. Mutilation and transformation. Damnatio memoriae and Roman
imperial portraiture, Leiden and Boston 2004.
VON HAGEN, V. W. Roads that led to Rome, Cleveland 1967.
VUČIĆ, J. Ecclesia Naronitana - Prostor i granice, VAHD 98, 2005, 159-170.
WEGNER, M. Gordianus III bis Carinus (Das römische Herrscherbild),
Berlin 1939.
WEGNER, M. Die Flavier (Das römische Herrscherbild), Berlin 1966.
533
Kačić, Split, 2009.-2011., 41-43
WILKES, J.J. Dalmatia, Cambridge, Mass. 1969.
WILKES, J.J. The Illyrians, Oxford 1995.
WREDE, H. Consecratio in formam deorum, Mainz 1981.
ZANINOVIĆ, M. On some relations between Anatolia and Dalmatia, Tenth
International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Ankara and Izmir 1973, 81-93.
ZANINOVIĆ, M. Neki aspekti Augustova kulta u Dalmaciji, Materijali 9,
Pula 1997, 18-20, 61-62.
SAŽETAK - SUMMARIUM
PORTRETI KOJI NEDOSTAJU IZ AUGUSTEUMA U NARONI
Kad je u drugoj polovici 1990-tih iskopan Augusteum u Naroni, pronađeno
je sklupturnih fragmenata koji zajedno čine dvadeset i jedan kip, ali nedostaju
glave. Samo mali broj portreta je pronađen u Naroni i odnos među njima je
upitan. Nedostatak glava je problematičan. Jedno moguće objašnjenje je da je
Narona-grupa bila izložena “ikonoklazmu” krajem IV. stoljeća poslije Krista,
kao što je Emilio Marin pisao u publikaciji nalazišta. U ovom članku se
raspravlja o mogućem tijeku događaja. Primjeri iz drugih dijelova Rimskog
Carstva pokazuju da se je nekolicina važnih kipova zakopavala u zemlju kako bi
se zaštitili od oštećenja. Drugi primjeri pokazuju da su se kipovi također mogli
prenositi i u druga mjesta. Ponekad su se skulpture doklesavale i prilagođavale
se odnosima koji su vladali, ili su jednostavno uklonjene, budući da nisu
odgovarale vremenu, nisu bile moderne. Kipovi Narona-grupe su specifični,
budući da predstavljaju prominentne članove julijevsko-klaudijevske carske
kuće. Teško je pretpostaviti da bi ti portreti, osim onih koji su prikazivali
nepopularne pojedince, kao primjerice Nerona, bili uklonjeni prije nego je
kršćanstvo dobilo premoć nad carskim kultom. Sačuvan i doklesan portret
Vespazijana možda je izvorno bio Neronov. Način na koji su bili nađeni kipovi
tijekom iskopavanja indicira da su bili nasilno srušeni s postolja. Neki oblik
“ikonoklazma” ostaje kao najuvjerljivije objašnjenje za nedostatak portreta,
ukoliko ih se u budućnosti ne otkrije negdje zakopane u Naroni.
534