No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The bronze portrait statue NM 23321 from Sparta1
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 September 2013
Abstract
In 1964, in the agora at Sparta, Ch. Christou excavated part of a monumental building which is identified as the Persian Stoa. The most important find was a bronze female portrait statue, Roman in date, which is on display in the National Archaeological Museum in Athens (NM 23321). The identification of the statue as Julia Mamaea, suggested by Ch. Christou, is still prevalent, although several scholars see in the Sparta statue iconographical elements that link it with Caracalla's wife Plautilla or with Annia Faustina, Elagabalus' third wife. However, the rendering of the hairstyle provides evidence for the identification of the woman whom the statue depicts as the empress Julia Aquilia Severa, Elagabalus' second and fourth wife. The erection of a statue of Julia Aquilia Severa in the Persian Stoa is most likely connected with the imperial cult of Elagabalus and his empress in Sparta.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 2001
References
2 For the identification of the site of the Agora and the Persian Stoa, see Kourinou, E., Σπάρτη Συμβολὴ στὴ μηνμειακὴ τοπογραφία τησ (Athens, 2000), 99–114Google Scholar.
3 In 1964, the statue was transferred to the National Archaeological Museum, where it was treated by the conservators Ch. Hatziliou and G. Damigos.
4 The hand gesture is that of imperial blessing. For the hand gesture at the time of the excavation, see Christou (1964 a), n. 2, 113, 115 α, 116, 118. The present wrong restoration is going to be corrected soon.
5 See Christou (1964 a), 117; id. (1964 b), 110.
6 See id. (1964 a), 116; id. (1964 b), 111.
7 A. Delt 24 (1969), 135–7Google Scholar.
8 Koumanoudis, S., ‘Ιουλία Μαμαια ἐκ Σπάρτησ’, AAA 3 (1970), 260–1Google Scholar; Spawforth, A., ‘A Severan statue-group and an Olympic festival at Sparta’, BSA 81 (1986), 313–27Google Scholar; Gofas, D., Μελέτες Ιστορίας τοῦ Ελληνικοῦ Δικαίου τῶν Ευναλλαγῶν ἀρχαἰου βυζαντινοῦ μεταβυζαντινοῦ (Archaiologike Etaireia, 133; Athens, 1993), 143–51Google Scholar; SEG 44 (1994), 351Google Scholar.
9 Vermeule, C., Roman Imperial Art in Greece and Asia Minor (Boston, Mass., 1968), 310, 402CrossRefGoogle Scholar, expressed his reservations from the beginning and noted that ‘the restoration of the face may reveal one of the wives or other female connections of Elagabalus, or merely an important private lady of the late Severan period’.
10 S. Koumanoudis (n. 8), 260–1, bases his opinion on the epigraphic data. See also Wegner, M., Macrinus bis Balbinus (Berlin, 1971), 217Google Scholar; Stavridi, A., ‘Damnatio memoriae’, AAA 9 (1976), 224–8Google Scholar; Romiopoulou, K., Ελληνορωμαϊκά γλυπτά του Εθνικού Αρχαιολογικοῦ Μουσείου (Athens, 1997), 116Google Scholar.
11 A. Spawforth (n. 8), 313–32; his interpretation is based on the interpretation of the inscription on the orthostat and not on the iconographical elements of the statue. See also Oliver, A., ‘Honor to Romans: bronze portaits’, in Mattusch, C. (ed.), The Fire of Hephaistos. Large Classical Bronzes from North American Collections (Boston, Mass., 1996), 153Google Scholar; H. Lie and C. Mattusch, ‘Catalogue’, ibid. 314; Palagia, O., ‘Seven pilasters of Herakles from Sparta’, in Walker, S. and Cameron, A. (eds), The Greek Renaissance in the Roman Empire: Papers from the 10th British Museum Classical Colloquium (BICS suppl. 55; London, 1989), 125Google Scholar n. 23.
12 Gofas (n. 8), 150–1; his interpretation is based on the interpretation of the inscription.
13 The serious damage of the face of ihe statue makes difficult, but not impossible, the tracing of distinctive, individual facial features of the portrayed woman: round face, low forehead, big eyes with heavy upper eyelids, mouth rather small and fleshy, protruding chin.
14 For the hairstyle see K. Wessel, ‘Römische Frauenfrisuren von der severischen bis zur konstantinischen Zeit’, AA (1946–7), 62–5. Weber, H., ‘Zu einem Bildnis der Kaiserin Julia Paula’, Jdl 68 (1953), 127Google Scholar, makes a clear distinction between the hairstyles of Julia Domna, Plautilla and subsequent variations.
15 PIR ii. 225, no. 428: Julia Aquilia Severa. Elagabalus married the Vestal Julia Aquilia Inwards the end of AD 220. In the summer of 221 his short-lived wedding to Annia Faustina was performed. During the period September November of 221 he remarried Aquilia Severa, to whom he remained married until his assassination on 11 March 222, see Whittaker, C., Herodian, ii (Loeb, 1970), 47Google Scholar n. 4. For Aquilia Severn's portraiture see Bernoulli, J., Römische Ikonographie, ii 3 (Leipzig, 1894), 91–2Google Scholar; Buchholz, K., Die Bildnisse der Kaiserinnen der severischen Zeit nach ihren Frisuren (193 235 n. chr.) (Berlin, 1963), 53Google Scholar; Meischner, J., Das Frauenporträt der Severerzeil (Berlin, 1967), 22Google Scholar; Thirion, M., Le Monnayage d' Élagabale (Amsterdam, 1968)Google Scholar; Wegner (n. 10), 169–0, 173 4; see also Kourinou (n. 2), 112.
16 BMC v. 184–8, 432–8. Robertson, A., Roman Imperial Coins in the Hunter Coin Cabinet, Univ. of Glasgow, iii. Pertinax to Aemilian (London, 1977), pp. lxviii, 134–5Google Scholar, pl. 41. 2–6.
17 Touratsoglou, I., Die Münzstätte von Thessaloniki in der römischen Kaiserzeit (Berlin, 1988), 62Google Scholar.
18 BMC v. 335 7
19 Geissen, A., Katalog alexandrinischer Kaisermünzen der Sammlung des Instituts für Altertumskunde der Universität Köln, ii (1978), 2368–81Google Scholar.
20 See e.g. BMC v. 184, 187, 188, 335; RIC iv/2 (London, 1972 2), 225, 394Google Scholar.
21 Wegner (n. 10), 170, 174–6.
22 Ibid. 200–17.
23 In his description of the statue from Sparta, Wegner, ibid. 217, notes the presence of this specific iconographical element, commenting that it is not attested in Julia Mamaea's portraiture. Wessel (n. 14), 63–5, defines this hairstyle of Aquilia Severa as ‘Nestfrisur’. It corresponds to types 12 a and 12 b of Meischner's classification (n. 15), 22.
24 See e.g. BMC v. 433, 437; RIC iv/2, 394; Kent, J., Overbeck, B., and Stylow, A., Die römische Münze (München, 1973), 424Google Scholar; Robertson (n. 16). 135 no. 3; Touratsoglou (n. 17), pl. 33. For a description of the head ornament, see Bastien, P., Le Buste monétaire des empereurs romains, ii (Wetteren, 1993), 600Google Scholar.
25 Wegner (n. 10), 173–4.
26 Christou (n. 2), 117.
27 Ibid. 114, 116.
28 Ibid. 116.
29 Kourinou (n. 2).
30 A. Delt. 24 (1969) [1970] 135–7Google Scholar; Koumanoudis (n. 8), 260–1; Spawforth (n. 8), 313–27; Gofas (n. 8), 143–51; SEG 44 (1994), 351Google Scholar.
31 Spawforth, A., ‘Notes on the third century AD in Spartan epigraphy’, BSA 79 (1984), 279, 282Google Scholar.
32 A typical example of the ‘survival’ of imperial cult statues regardless of the fate of the portrayed emperor, is the case of Domitian's statue in his temple at Ephesos. There is evidence that this statue, after the emperor's punishment and the dedication of the temple to Vespasian, was thought to be a statue of the latter and remained at its place until late Antiquity; see Price, S., Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial cult in Asia Minor (New York, 1984), 177–8Google Scholar. The destruction of the Persian Stoa is most probably associated with the destruction of Sparta by the Herulians in AD 262.
33 For places of imperial cults see Price (n. 32), 109–12, 140, 151.
34 Spawforth (n. 31), 282.
35 See e.g. Papaefthimiou, W., Grabreliefs späthellenistischer und römischer Zeit aus Sparta und Lakonien (Munich, 1992), 63–9Google Scholar; id., ‘Λακωνικές στῆλες πολεμιοτῶν τὴν ἐποχὴ τῆσ ρωμαιοκρατίασ’, Peloponnesiaca, 21 (1995), 383–93; Buraselis, K., ‘The Roman world of Polyainos: aspects of a Macedonian career between Classical past and provincial present’, Archaiognosia, 8 (1993–1994), 127–8Google Scholar.
36 For various political aspects of Caracalla's expedition to the eastern part of the Empire see Harl, K., Civic Coins and Civic Politics in the Roman East, AD 180–275 (California, 1988), 39, 40, 41, 46, 56Google Scholar.