WMPtext

The Santa Maria Antiqua Sarkophagus A Study in Method and an Analysis
WENCHE M. PIERCE
This article, written in 1996, is based on a cand. philol. thesis, Santa Maria Antiqua Sarkofagen; en analyse, submitted in Norwegian in 1987 at the Department of Art History, University of Bergen, Norway. For various reasons, the work was put aside after Part I was written. I have now decided to make the article available on the net. A few changes have been made, and some recent literature has been included in the footnotes. My plan is to start work on Part II some time this year. Part I will be revised whenever I see the need as work continues and more literature is studied and reflected on.
Introduction Early Christian art had its origin in pagan art, and it should, therefore, be studied in the light of the art it was modeled on. So far, we have no evidence of Christian art from the first two centuries AD. Because of the uncertainty of the chronology of early Christian art, it has not been possible to establish with any exactitude how and when the process of developing a tradition of Christian art started; but Christian art was produced during the third century and it is clear that at the outset Christians made use of the same workshops and craftsmen as the pagans. The most important Christian centers in the pre-Constantinian period were Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. We do not know whether Christian art had its beginning in any one of these cities, but most likely, its emergence was a process that started at about the same time in all the major centers of the Empire, and to judge from the material that is preserved, Rome was an active center for the production of early Christian art; today, in Rome, there are preserved decorations in catacombs, on sarcophagi and on minor arts, such as terracotta lamps, gold glasses, gems and signet rings. It has been repeatedly asked why it took the Christians so long to begin to develop their own art tradition. This question was, and still is, generally answered by referring to the hostile attitude towards pictures of both Jews and Christians due to their obedience
1
13.06.01 W.M. Pierce
to the Second of the Ten Commandments.1 In 1977 Sister Charles Murray looked into this hostility theory which she points out, had its roots in French and German scholarship from the end of last century. Since then it has been universally held that the early Church was hostile to art. This hypothesis has been repeated so often that it has become an accepted fact. The explanation the supporters of the theory give for the appearance of Christian art in the third century is that laymen made use of art in spite of the negative attitude of the Church. Sister Charles shows that these scholars all exploit the same citations from the Patristic literature, and she stresses that some of the most important citations are only to be found in Byzantine iconoclastic florilegia which were put together for Church Councils during the eighth and ninth centuries. These citations, she says, no longer exist in their original context. Her investigation into the literature that forms the basis for the hostility theory leads her to conclude that, there is very little indication indeed that the Fathers of the early Church were in any way opposed to art, there never was a dichotomy between the art and the literature of the early Church (p. 342). She emphasizes that early Christian art was an art of a universal character, a completely non-idolatrous art. Much of this early art consists of fresco paintings in the catacombs, the official burialgrounds of the Roman church, which implies that the Church accepted these decorations.2 R. Lane Fox finds Murrays argumentation unconvincing,3 while Finney says plainly that the theory that early Christianity was hostile to art has little or no basis in the primary sources that have come down to us; it is a creation of Byzantine and Reformation polemicists carried into the modern period by Ritschlian Liberals. He maintains that it no longer serves any useful purpose and should be laid to rest.4 It is interesting to note that already as far back as 1896, Kraus discussed the question of the attitude of the early Church to art and argued against the prevailing hostility theory. Hat man uns nicht bis vor dreissig Jahren in fast allen Handbchern der Kirchen- und Kunstgeschichte gelehrt, die Christen der ltesten Jahrhunderte seien ein kunst- und culturfeindliches Geschlecht gewesen? Nun, diese
Lehre vom Kunsthass der ersten Christen ist die erste und schlimmste Fabel, welche die moderne Kritik aus der Geschichte der christlichen Kunst zu entfernen hatte. He, too, looked into the statements which had been put forward to demonstrate the hostile attitude of the Church to art and observed, Aber die Abneigung dieser Schriftsteller erklrt sich aus ganz persnlichen Grnden (p. 61). After having discussed some of the statements quoted, he remarked, Diesen von den Vertheidigern des Kunsthasses der alten Christen beigebrachten vereinzelten und aus subjektiven Grnden oder speciellen Veranlassungen zu erklrenden Aeusserungen steht eine Wolke von patristischen Zeugnissen gegenber, welche den Gebrauch und auch den Cultus der Bilder bezeugen (p. 63).5 Scholarship does not seem to have paid heed to his assertion. As for the hostile attitude of the Jews to art, it has been shown that their attitude was not uniform, but varied from place to place.6 Schubert refers to texts that show that there were active Jewish artists in the second and third centuries. One text about the rabbi Jochanan who died at a great age in AD 279, says, In den Tagen des Rabbi Jochanan fing man die Wnde zu bemalen an und hinderte es nicht (p. 8). It is clear, says Schubert, that the prohibition was directed against cult images.7 Schreckenberg and Schubert review what the written sources say about the attitudes to art among Jews and show how the upper class became strongly Hellenized during the period of Seleucid rule and had a positive attitude towards images. They do not, however, think it is likely that Jewish figurative painting had its beginning before the second century AD when there was a more general liberal Jewish attitude towards images and when cultically neutral images were tolerated. Jewish figurative painting is first attested in the synagogue at Dura-Europos in Syria which was filled with sand and thereby escaped destruction when the Sassanian army advanced against this Roman outpost in AD 256. The wallpaintings in the synagogue were completed around AD 250.8
As for Jewish sarcophagi, few are preserved and, according to Konikoff, only one whole sarcophagus, which later disappeared, and some fragments were found in the Jewish catacombs. About the decorations on these sarcophagi, she says, The sarcophagi found run the full gamut from those decorated solely with Jewish symbols to those embellished with untraditional figurative designs. they provide no indication as to when the Jews of Rome started to depart from ancestral custom and to adopt the mores of their Gentile environment (p. 65).9 In his recent book on the Jews in late ancient Rome, Rutgers observes that before 1940 P. Styger was the only scholar who considered the possibility that the use of catacombs was a generally late ancient phenomenon. By the 1950s, Rutgers says, evidence from excavations indicated that in late antiquity the second commandment had not at all prevented Jewish iconic artistic production.10 We may sum up by stating that well documented points of view have been put forward to show that the hostility-theory should be abandoned. This means that we have to search for other explanations for why, as far as we know, it took the Christian community about two hundred years to start its own tradition of pictures. There were probably several reasons for the delay, e.g. the fact that the Christian religion was a religio illicita in the Roman Empire. The Romans did not draw a line between politics and religion. Their gods were entitled to their cults, and the Romans were very careful about performing the necessary religious ceremonies. Anyone refusing to participate in the cults of the gods was looked upon as godless and a danger to the security of the State.11 The Christians as a group refused to observe the official religious ceremonies and in particular refused to worship Caesar as a god, and this was considered a serious offense.12 The Christians knew they were in a precarious position and had to act accordingly. It is difficult to imagine that a small religious group that had to be very circumspect and was busy trying to gain an understanding for its faith should have had any interest in or incentive for developing its own pictorial tradition. Moreover, as several writers have observed, at least during the first century, the Christians believed that the end of the world was at hand. They eagerly anticipated the Parousia and looked upon themselves as pilgrims and aliens in this world.13 Eventually, however, they did
accept that the Second Coming and the end of time most likely would not take place in the near future, and they consequently participated more fully in Roman society but without recognizing the Roman gods. It was held against them that they withdrew from participating in festivals and such activities as attending theaters and circuses. The pagan writer Celsus (around 180) attacked the Christians for their disloyalty to the empire and lack of civic sense; he wanted them to modify their views and become useful members of society.14 During the reigns of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius the Christians were tolerated but unpopular, and this unpopularity climaxed under Marcus Aurelius (161180). Then followed a fifty-year period of peace for the Church during which it gained strength.15 It was in this period that the Church was in a position to acquire burial grounds and enlarge and adapt its house churches in order to make them more functional as social and religious meeting-places; it is this type of adapted building White refers to as domus ecclesiae.16 The evidence we have preserved today indicates that it was at that stage the Christians began to decorate the walls of the places both where they met and where they buried their dead. Earlier they had probably made use of motifs on their signet rings, lamps and other minor art objects to which they could easily assign a Christian meaning, so-called neutral motifs, such as dove, dolphin, fish, fisherman, ship, anker, and shepherd.17 Based on what we know today about Christian iconography, it seems to have developed from such neutral motifs towards motifs that are recognizably Christian. The artisans worked within a pagan pictorial tradition, and it is improbable that many of them were Christians. Tertullian in Idol. 5 says, Kunsthandwerker, die Christen geworden sind und denen folglich die Herstellung von Gtterbildern verboten wurde, wissen nicht, wovon sie leben sollen (p. 179).18 Five skillful masons working in the Pannonian quarries under the Emperor Diocletian were martyred for refusing to work on a statue of Asclepius and for denying the supremacy of the sun god.19 This shows the difficult and dangerous situation Christian artisans found themselves in if they did try to combine being faithful Christians with plying their trade. There is, however, a preserved grave plaque (loculus) from Rome with
an inscription and a decoration showing the Christian sculptor Eutropos working on a strigillated sarcophagus decorated with two lions heads, that is, a motif which would not have been objectionable to a Christian sculptor.20 Regardless of whether it was Eutropos himself who made this decoration or a relative who had it made after his death, it shows that there was a desire to portray him as a sculptor, and it is difficult to see that making sarcophagus reliefs should be objectionable to a Christian sculptor. Many pagan sarcophagus reliefs are composed of neutral and popular motifs which the Christians used for their own sarcophagus decorations. Whether such motifs in a particular context were given a symbolic meaning, we do not know and is a question scholars debate.21 The preserved pre-Constantinian Christian art is mainly funerary in character, i.e. it consists of decorated catacomb walls and decorated sarcophagi. The only preserved house church is the one in Dura-Europos. The paintings in the baptistry of this church are of great importance since there we have motifs from the Old and New Testaments in a non-funerary context, and these paintings are the only pre-Constantinian Christian paintings that are securely dated. The excavations show that the church was established in a dwelling house in AD 232 and was abandoned in 256 when the small Roman garrison town was captured by the Sassanians.22 Accordingly, the church was in use for less than twenty-five years. There are no paintings in the Roman catacombs which are securely dated. As for the chronology of Christian burial places, we know from the Liber Pontificalis that the Roman congregation acquired its first burial ground on the Via Appia in AD 217 under pope Zefyrinus. Fink is of the opinion that there must have been Christian burial places around the year 200 because Tertullian mentions in Apologeticum 37 that during the persecutions under Septimius Severus (193211) the mob directed its fury against the Christian burial places.23 In the necropolis under St. Peters there are Christian graves from the beginning of the third century, and this may also be the case in the Piazzuola under the church of St. Sebastian on the Via Appia.24 As for the catacombs, we know, Fink says, that,
Papst Zephyrinus (198217) den Diakon Kallistus, den spteren Papst (Nachfolger des Zephyrinus), mit der Verwaltung eines Coemeteriums beauftragte, offenbar desjenigen, das schon beim Chronographen von 354 mit Kallistus Namen Bezeichnet wird. In this catacomb we find the Crypt of the Popes which, according to written sources, was in use from 235 to 314. We also know that Pope Xystus II was arrested and executed in the Callistus catacomb on August 6, 258.25 These are the few absolute dates we have for the Christian catacombs. According to Reekmans, the problem of chronology is even greater for the catacombs than for the sarcophagus decorations. He is of the opinion that it will be very difficult to establish a reasonably secure absolute chronology because we lack sufficient criteria. Although many inscriptions have been found, there are few dated ones from the pre-Constantinian period, and these are not found in situ. A well-founded relative chronology has been worked out for only a few of the catacombs because it is only in later years that scholars have started to carry out more thorough and accurate analyses. As for the frescoes, it has become clear that stylistic and iconographic observations are inadequate as chronological criteria. Such observations, Reekmans says, only enable us to distinguish between a very early or very late period. How to establish a more secure dating of the majority of the pictures, which presumably fall within the period 225350, remains an unresolved problem. Reekmans evaluates the methods which have been employed for work on the chronology of the catacomb decorations and calls attention to their weaknesses. He refers, e.g., to Wirths work which has had a great influence on this field of research. Wirth developed a style-critical method based on Wundts la psychologie de lart, Riegls theory of Kunstwollen and Wlfflins kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe, and carried out a form-analysis in which he examined the forms as expressions of the spirit of the times. By this method he placed Roman painting into dated periods. Wirth also made use of stylistic changes in portraits on Roman coins as a basis for dating painting. Reekmans points out that the coin material is not necessarily representative of art in general and cannot unreservedly
provide a dating criterion for other branches of art. He exemplifies how analyses based on different criteria give different chronological results and says, Sil faut donner, en principe, la prfrence une argumentation base sur de critres externes, on peut se demander quelles conditions les critres stylistique et iconographiques possdent encore quelque valeur dans ltude de la peinture romaine et palochrtienne. Tel est, notre sens, le centre du problme (p. 285). About the use of stylistic dating criteria, he says, Trop souvent les arguments stylistiques employs comme critre de datation paraissent trop subtils, trop superficiels, trop accidentels et trop subjectifs, de facon que la conclusion qui en est tire ne semble pas assez fonde (p. 289).26 The problem of chronology is above all a problem of method, Reekmans maintains. Work has concentrated too much on the figures and scenes to the exclusion of the decorative system which he thinks should have been much more thoroughly investigated. He also points to the lack of certain basic conditions for research, such as reliable plans of the catacombs and good photographic documentation of the pictures.27 In 1989 Fvrier discussed the chronological problem of the catacomb paintings in an article where he examined the publications of several scholars and observed that the dates they arrive at differ by as much as fifty years. His review of the current state of research into dating reveals very clearly how difficult the chronology question is and how necessary it is for researchers to begin to cooperate and work out methods that may lead to more reliable results.28 Catacombs have been found outside Rome as well. In the Cimitile mausoleum at Nola in Campania there are decorations with Christian motifs. According to Brandenburg these may be quite early, from the beginning of the third century.29 Another interesting find is a hypogeum in Alexandria in Egypt decorated with pagan, neutral and Christian motifs. Brandenburg believes these date from the period 200250.30 The situation for the Jewish catacombs is the same as for the Christian. In his study of these catacombs Rutgers concludes that dating them is a problem; it is only
possible to say that the Jewish catacombs were in use from the third to the fifth centuries.31 We can conclude that the catacomb decorations can be dated roughly only and cannot be of much assistance in dating the decorations on pre-Constantinian sarcophagi. The research literature shows that most scholars believe that the oldest Christian decorations in the catacombs are about fifty years older than those on the sarcophagi. Already back in 1941 Weigand questioned this assumption. He thought Christian sarcophagus decorations most likely go as far back in time as the catacomb decorations, and so did Fink.32 It seems reasonable to ask whether it makes sense that the oldest catacomb paintings should be older than any of the sarcophagus decorations since, considering that both are in funerary contexts, once the Christians had started to develop their own iconography, they would presumably have made use of Christian motifs on any surface it was natural for them to decorate. The reason for this divergence in chronology seems to be a lack of coordination of the two fields of research and a tendency for scholars not to worry about questions of chronology. That the catacomb decorations are presumed to be older than the sarcophagus decorations is one more example of accepted facts and of an unwillingness to question them. But even if improved dating methods were to warrant the conclusion that the preserved material shows the catacomb paintings to date further back in time than the sarcophagus decorations, we would still have to reckon with the fact that a large number of sarcophagi have disappeared, which means that we shall never know how representative the material we have preserved is of what once existed. As Rutgers points out, many graves were destroyed during the Middle Ages when individuals looking for marble fragments to burn in kilns to prepare plaster roamed the ancient burial grounds, breaking marble sarcophagi into smaller pieces so that they could be more easily transported.33 Repertorium lists 1042 Roman sarcophagi and fragments presumed to be Christian. Only 51 sarcophagi and 83 fragments are tentatively dated to the third century and of these only two have absolute dates. These are:
1) Repertorium no. 929 which is decorated with neutral motifs and has an inscription with the name of the deceased, Prosenetus, and the year of his death, AD 217. The inscription has the phrase Receptus ad Deum which is considered to be Christian.34 2) Repertorium no. 117, a fragment of a lid with an inscription which gives the date AD 238. From the fourth century we have the well-known Junius Bassus sarcophagus dated to 359 in addition to four dated sarcophagi and eight fragments from sarcophagus lids.35 If we look at the chronology of the more than six thousand preserved Roman sarcophagi, we can at once establish that not a single sarcophagus can be dated through its archaeological context. Many sarcophagi were reused; and even if they were found in situ, the information about the context is insufficient and of no help. Even sarcophagi found in the 1930s are summarily described.36 There are about five times as many pagan Roman sarcophagi as Christian, but only one of these, the Balbinus sarcophagus, can be given a secure date, and that only if it is correct that the portrait represents the emperor Balbinus who was murdered in AD 238, which seems doubtful. There is also a Roman sarcophagus in Baltimore which contained a worn coin of Antoninus Pius (AD 138161) when it was found in a tomb in 1885 as one of a group of ten Dionysiac sarcophagi. The tomb had been plundered in antiquity and all the lids of these sarcophagi were destroyed.37 What do scholars say about the problem of chronology? In 1968 Matz declared that die heutige Sarkophagchronologie ist in einer alarmierende Weise fliessend.38 Andreae and Jung, on the other hand, claim that the chronology which has been worked out must on the whole be considered reliable.39 Jung put it this way in 1978, Das Vorhandensein einer folgerichtigen Stilentwicklung in der stadtrmischen Sarkophagplastik des dritten Jahrhunderts darf inzwischen als einigermassen gesichert gelten (p. 328).40 Koch and Sichterman sum up the state of research into pagan sarcophagi in their book Rmische Sarkophage of 1982. About the chronology they say,
10
Besonders durch die Forschungen der letzten Jahre sind so viele Anhaltspunkte erarbeitet worden, dass die Grundzge der Chronologie annhernd geklrt worden ist.41 They make the reservation that viele Einzelheiten sind allerdings noch umstritten, but are clearly of the opinion that on the whole, the chronology problem is solved. In 1993 Koch writes that we have verhltnismssig viele anhaltspunkte fr eine Datierung. He does, however, continue by saying, Es ist allerdings kaum mglich, jeden Sarkophag auf ein Jahrfnft oder auch Jahrzehnt genau festzulegen, und man sollte sich derartige Vorschlge immer kritisch ansehen.42 The research literature shows quite clearly that most of the scholars working on the sarcophagus material accept the present dating methods. The large number of decorated Roman sarcophagi offers a unique opportunity to study various aspects of Roman art over a period of about four centuries, from the late first to the fifth century AD. This material presents a challenge to art historians and not least to someone who is also interested in the problems of chronology and questions of method. Substantial work has been done in classifying and studying this material, but scholars are faced with many unanswered questions. The failure to work out satisfactory methods for dealing with this particular body of material has resulted in a chronology which cannot be considered reliable. A whole new approach to this question is required in order to improve the methods. Most scholars working in this field are occupied with the many questions of iconography. It is understandable that these scholars rely on the chronology worked out by others who have been working on questions of style and development of style (Stilentwicklung). A scholar with years of experience and familiarity with a material will intuitively place a particular work of art in a roughly credible art historical setting. But this intuition should, as is common in other fields of research, form the basis for working out reliable methods for testing results arrived at through long experience with the material, for it is inevitable that scholars will arrive at different results when chronology is worked out according to the individual scholars judgment. Some scholars have made attempts to use methods based on more objective
11
criteria; but on the whole, the questions of chronology and of method have been ignored in the many publications on Roman sarcophagi. As for the question of method, WardPerkins declared in 1975, We are still dependent on conventional models, that is to say working hypotheses which are widely accepted but which have to be clearly recognized for what they are ... the wider the credibility of such models and the greater the precision of their application, the more likely they are to acquire a spuriously independent validity.43 The literature abounds in examples of the out of hand dating of Roman sarcophagi. Many scholars simply ignore the problem and fall back on their intuition. Lawrence, e.g., writes in 1962, It is hard to judge style from an inadequate photograph, but this example, although more carefully executed, would seem to be about the same date as the sarcophagus from the Isola Sacra and therefore ca. 250 (p. 291). Her description of a fragment in the Vatican goes as follows, The workmanship on the whole is good, but with coarser drill work for the hair and waves and for the ornament of the central ship. It seems somewhat earlier than our last example (p. 291). About the Lateran sarcophagus no. 119 (Repertorium no. 35) she declares, The execution is so excellent that Wilpert dated this sarcophagus in the second century. Subsequent scholars have assigned it to the third, and I would place it shortly after 250 (p. 292).44 What we see here is a rule of thumb dating method; and although it is not said explicitly, the theory of decline seems to underlie such an approach to dating. Quite a few scholars make use of stylistic comparisons and are also constantly referring to absolute dates arrived at through comparisons between portraits on sarcophagi and portraits of emperors or members of their families without ever questioning the soundness of such a dating procedure. It should be sufficient to point to the fact that all the Roman sculptured imperial portraits have been identified and dated by means of comparison with portraits on coins, and that the private portraits have been dated by comparison with the imperial portraits. Frequently the portrait comparisons are carried out by comparing hairstyles, in particular by comparing the hairstyle of a female
12
portrait on a sarcophagus with that of an empress; but as Turcan stresses, this is a most unreliable dating method, since women might have made use of the same coiffure their whole life, and further, a popular hairstyle might disappear for some years, but reappear at a later time.45 And Koch points to two difficulties in dating sarcophagi by means of portrait comparison, Die Portrts sind auf Sarkophagen manchmal klein und flchtig gearbeitet, sie mssen aber mit lebensgrossen Kpfen verglichen werden; Portrts auf Sarkophagen knnen spter aus Bossen ausgearbeitet sein; es gibt Flle, in denen zwischen Anfertigung des Sarkophags und Ausarbeitung des Portrts ein grsserer Zeitraum liegt, das Portrt also fr die Datierung des Sarkophags nur wenig hilft.46 In addition, there is the problem that the making of portraits declined after the Severan period, and that after the 230s and 240s, there are fewer coin portraits of the empresses.47 We shall exemplify these accepted dating methods: In 1963 Andreae opposed the dating of the Velletri sarcophagus which was found by Bartoccini in 1955 and dated to the time of Commodus (180192). Andreae was of the opinion that the sarcophagus was made before 150, that is before der Stilwandel in the time of the Antonines. Es fehlen ihm alle fr die sptantoninische Kunst charakteristischen Merkmale (p. 16), Andreae says, and specifies what these are. His own dating is based on three criteria: the clothing, the facial types and the architectural ornaments. He compares the sarcophagus with some reliefs he thinks are correctly dated to the time of Hadrian (117138), but decides that in style it is closer to an altar from Ostia, the inscription on which dates it to AD 124. He proceeds to a comparison with Ara Casall and concludes that what Toynbee says about that altar fits well with the Velletri sarcophagus, Many of the figures are somewhat stumpy and illproportioned, the excessively large size of hands being particularly noticeable (p. 18). As we see, this description has no relevance to the dating criteria Andreae said he made use of. When he compares the facial types on the sarcophagus with the portraits from the second century, he arrives at the following conclusion, Hier findet man
13
vergleichbare Gesichtstypen nur in hadrianischer und frhantoninischer Zeit (p. 21). He decides that the Hadrianic portraits show similarities with the Velletri classicism. When he turns to the architectural ornaments, he has no difficulties finding parallels on Hadrianic buildings, so he concludes that the sarcophagus should be dated before 150, vielleicht noch in spthadrianischen Zeit(p. 25).48 Andreaes method is not based on objectively determined criteria. He falls back on his knowledge of Roman art and ends up with a subjective evaluation. Here we have an example of what Ward-Perkins referred to as a conventional method which is widely accepted. In 1966 Wegner published a monograph on the Muse sarcophagi in which he saw an historical development. For the chronology, he had to make use of portrait dating and analyses of style and composition. He arrived at his dates by reasoning as follows, Im Sinne kunstgeschichtlicher Entwicklung spricht dies alles fr eine sptere Entstehungszeit als die der Hainsarkophag. Die Haartrachten der Musen erinnern lebhaft an diejenige der jngeren Faustian, der Frau des Marcus Aurelius, so dass man dieser Sarkophag wohl in die 160er Jahre datieren muss; er steht des Apotheose des Antoninus Pius an der Basis seiner Ehrensule entschieden nher als den Reliefs des Ehrenbogens des Marcus Aurelius von 175 n. Chr. About another sarcophagus he says, Das Auffallendste an den Musen des Wiener Sarkophags ist die ungemeine berlngerung ihres Krperbaus. Eine solche manieristische berlngerung ist ein Anzeichen fr eine Sptphase innerhalb eines geschlossenen Entwicklungsablaufs. The same phenomenom, he says, can be seen on the M. Aurelius column. He therefore dates this sarcophagus to the 190s.49 Again we have an example of subjective dating based on experience and knowledge of Roman art combined with an art historians propensity to fall back on general theories of stylistic development and phases within such a development. These accepted dating methods are particularly well illustrated in Fittschens review of Wegners book Die Musensarkophagen mentioned above. Fittschen disagrees with Wegners dating of the sarcophagi and sets about correcting the dates of dozens of
14
sarcophagi in a manner which shows that he is very confident in his own conclusions about the chronology, all of which are based on his evaluation of style and portraits on the sarcophagi, Die letztgenannten vier Stcke haben alle den sptantoninischen Stilwandel schon hinter sich; der Faltenstil und die Proportionen zeigen die im Severischen sich anbahnende Verfestigung der Formen ... Nach dem Portrt der Frau scheint eine Datierung in die erste Hlfte des 3. Jh. einleuchtender ... Der Flammenstil des Haares der beiden Mnner ist so seit dem 4. viertel des 3. Jh. nicht mehr zu belegen. ... Die Frisur der Frau links entspricht, wenn denn berhaupt eine Porttfrisur gemeint ist, der der Tranquillina, ... Der Sarkophag ist also 75 Jahre frher entstanden als W. glaubt. Towards the end of his article Fittschen briefly outlines his own view of the development of style for the years between 200 and 280 and concludes by saying, Treffen die hier dargelegten Datierungen zu, so erweist sich, dass die Stilentwicklung im 3. Jh. n. Chr. im Grunde einfach ist und im Nachhinein als folgerichtig erscheint. Diese Sicht der Denkmler macht darber hinaus deutlich, dass auch die rmische Kunst, genau wie die griechische, eine Entwicklung durchluft, die geistig nachvollziehbar ist auch wenn ihr Verlauf komplizierter ist als der der griechischen Kunst.50 Wegner and Fittschen make use of similar dating methods, but arrive, as is to be expected, at different results. Instead of questioning the methods they use, Fittschen claims that his dates are the correct ones. In an article by Jung about the style of the reliefs on early third century sarcophagi, the most obvious methodological weakness is that in spite of the fact that it includes a large number of sarcophagi, Jung concentrates his analysis on three to four sarcophagi from each of four groups and arrives at the conclusion that it is possible to observe a development in the relation between the figures and the relief background. Considering the large number of sarcophagi he could choose his samples from, it would not be particularly difficult to find decorations that would fit his theory. This he partly admits when he states, Es darf nun nicht erwartet werden, dass eine in gleicher Weise markante Ausprgung der Stiltendenz auch bei anderen Sarkophage wiederkehrt,
15
for, he explains, at this time (the beginning of the third century) the group of Roman sarcophagi is, einen viel zu lebendigen, facettenreichen Komplex, als dass hier eine besondere Einheitlichkeit auch nur mglich erschiene. Even so, he is of the opinion that this cannot change the fact that, in der einen oder anderen Weise wohl alle Sarkophage des frhen 3. Jhs. von den genannten Entwicklung erfasst wurden und dies bei nheren Zusehen auch erkennen lassen (p. 355).51 A couple of scholars have presented works that show that they are interested in finding new approaches to the dating problem. In a 1966 publication Reschke argues that at no time during the period between Gallienus (253268) and Constantine (306337) is there any uniformity of style. He is therefore of the opinion that it is only by means of investigations of details of style that it will be possible to group sarcophagi in time.52 In 1970 Andreae published a sharp response to Reschkes work, claiming that when Reschke works back in time from Constantine to Gallienus, he is turning den einzig richtigen Methode (my italics) das sptere aus dem frheren erklrt wird upside-down. The criterion of detail is just one of many, Wenn es zu einer Verkehrung folgerichtiger Entwicklungsstufen fhrt, sollte man asserst misstrauisch werden, ob man sich nicht in Kreise bewegt. Reschke ist dieser Gefahr nicht entgangen, als er den metodischen Weg verliess, den Rodenwaldt vorgezeichnet hatte, den man zwar ausbauen und im einzelnen htte korrigieren, aber nicht aufgeben sollen (p. 8485). It becomes clear that Andreae believes that the dates he and other scholars have arrived at by means of portrait comparison, are to be reckoned as absolute dates. When Reschkes dates diverge from theirs, the conclusion is that Reschkes method is not very tragfhig. Andreaes work is based on Entwicklungsstufe and Entwicklungsreihe. He vigorously opposes Reschke, who maintains that stylistic differences can be explained by kreuzenden und wechselnd mischenden Formstrmungen. Such an explanation, says Andreae wrde dem Subjektivismus Tor und Tr ffnen (p. 86). Reschke wants to show that through a study of details
16
surprisingly different sarcophagi can be placed within the same timespan. Andreae contends that there are enough dated sarcophagi for every decade and that research work now should concentrate on, die Entwicklung der Sarkophagkunst als einen kontinuirlichen Prozess besser verstehen zu lernen, einen kontinuirlichen geistesgeschichtlichen Prozess. ... Es kann nicht unwidersprochen hingenommen werden, wenn durch Denkmodellen, die der wesentlich vielschichtigeren neueren Kunstgeschichte entstammen, ein Scheinverstndnis fr vermeintlich chaotische Zustnde im Kunstwollen der sptantike angeboten wird. Reschke, says Andreae, has not managed to free himself from Rodenwaldts thesis of 1935 about Dualism in the Roman art. Es hat aber den Anschein, dass dieser Dualismus im Stilwandel in der sptantoninischen Kunst sein Ende erreicht und die rmische Kunst endgltig zu sich selbst gefunden hat. Die Stilstufen des dritten Jahrhunderts lassen sich nicht mehr als ein Wechsel von klassizistischen und barocken Strmungen verstehen, von den bald die eine, bald die andere die Oberhand gewinnt (p. 87).53 In fact, Reschke is not talking about such a Wechsel. What he and other art historians recognize is that Roman art is not uniform, but is, at any particular time, characterized by a variety of styles. To quote Fullerton, Scholars have come to appreciate more fully in recent decades that the imposition of an organic system of formal development onto the great body of Roman sculpture is unrealistic and inaccurate. We know what characterizes the art of the late Republic and early Empire, and likewise the very different style of the late Empire is familiar to us, but how the one evolved from the other is a complex process we are only beginning to understand.54 This is also what makes this art so fascinating and interesting and why it is necessary to be openminded about what methods to employ when studying various aspects of Roman art. Being unwilling both to abandon methods that are no longer viable and to develop and try out new ones can only result in stagnation within a field of research. Stutzinger is one of the few scholars who has paid attention to what she thinks is wrong with the methods which have been employed in sarcophagus research. In her thesis of 1982 she concentrates on an analysis of form on Christian sarcophagi of the
17
fourth century. She explains that the basis for her chronology is portraits of emperors on medallions and coins of high quality in gold and silver. These she compares with portraits on the sarcophagi. She is aware that it is gewagt to compare coins and sarcophagi, but makes it clear that in the first instance she is only looking for tendencies of change. Only when the same tendency can be observed in both media will she concentrate on more direct comparisons. To clarify these changes in form, she presents a list of figure types which shows the changes she is discussing.55 It should not be difficult for other scholars to check Stutzingers work and build on it for further studies. It is a mark of a good method that it enables other researchers to make use of it and test its results, which means that it has to be based on an objective approach to the material in order to eliminate as far as possible the individual researchers subjective evaluation. This is the only way to avoid that a scholar consciously or unconsciously will fit the material to a theory and thereby arrive at a foregone conclusion. In working with the relative chronology of a large body of objects, it is important to derive criteria from an explicit, controllable examination of all the available material. When problems requiring methods based on objectively determined criteria have been worked out, the individual scholar is free to interpret the decorations and can fully exploit his own knowledge and experience in the field. As Taylor puts it, the empirical or purely observational has only a mediate function, forming merely the basis, not the goal, of the studies. He continues by saying that the archaeologist should deal with all categories of data as explicitly (objectively) as possible, eschewing the emotional and implicit (subjective) approach, and that he should bring into the open the procedures and premises upon which his results are based.56 Art historians are not trained to think and work like archaeologists; but when they are studying a body of material like the Roman sarcophagi, they are facing many of the same questions and problems the archaeologists are up against and should be willing to adopt or work out methods which will enable them to classify and study their material in such a way that other scholars can test, modify, improve or reject the results.
18
Researchers working on pre-Constantinian Christian sarcophagi are working in an area which is closely connected with the research being carried out on pagan sarcophagi. It is, therefore, essential that they are well informed about the pagan material and incorporate their own material into the overall sarcophagus research. The questions and problems of chronology and of methods are common research questions which concern all the researchers in this field. In the light of these introductory remarks we shall, through a closer study of the supposedly oldest preserved Early Christian sarcophagus, Santa Maria Antiqua, try to achieve a clearer understanding of what we know about the beginning of Christian art. We shall look at what methods scholars have made use of, in particular methods for handling the question of chronology, and discuss whether it might be possible to make further progress by trying out new or different methods. The decision to limit the study to one key sarcophagus was based on the working hypothesis that investigating one important sarcophagus thoroughly would both answer and raise more questions than a more superficial investigation of a larger number of sarcophagi. A study of the Santa Maria Antiqua sarcophagus will require placing it in an art historical setting and viewing it in relation to other pagan and Christian sarcophagi. Our purpose is to gain a better insight into this field of research by finding out what we actually know about this sarcophagus. The study will be presented in two parts: Part I will be concerned with the questions of material, trade, workshop, technique, style, composition and prototypes/models, while Part II will concentrate on the iconography and iconology of the sarcophagus decoration.
19
The Santa Maria Antiqua sarcophagus Part I

The Santa Maria Antiqua sarcophagus was found in 1901 under the floor of the church of Santa Maria Antiqua in the Forum Romanum by the archaeologist O. Marucchi who published the find in 1901 and 190357 (figs. 1 and 2)58 . In these publications he does not mention the context in which it was found, but it seems clear that this sarcophagus, as so many others, was found without a lid. Down below at the right end, there is a round hole with a diameter of 56 cm which should indicate that the sarcophagus had been reused, perhaps as a water container. Marucchi does not mention the lid or the hole, but says in 1903, transportato probabilmente da uno dei cimeteri suburbani e adoperato poi per uso di una nuova sepoltura nella chiesa del Foro (p. 272). Further on he makes the statement, E assai probabile che il papa Giovanni VII (705707) per adornare la Chiesa del foro prendesse i marmi da pi antichi monumenti come era luso del tempo. ..., per servire forse di sepoltura ad un nobile personaggio addetto allepiscopio sovrastante alla chiesa (p. 278). We can only speculate as to when the lid disappeared, when the hole was made, and why the sarcophagus was placed under the floor of the church. Schoenebeck observes that no Christian mausolea with their sarcophagi have been preserved in Rome. As for the reused Santa Maria Antiqua sarcophagus, he reasons that it most likely came from an early Christian mausoleum since the catacombs were well secured against robbery during the period when they were in use;59 and we may add that in the first half of the fifth century interment in the catacombs came to an end and only the catacombs that contained martyrs tombs were cared for, while the galleries without martyrs tombs fell into oblivion.60 In 1901 Marucchi dated the sarcophagus to around 300350, but in 1903 he was of the opinion that it could have been made shortly after the Constantinian peace in 313 at the latest. Since his publications, several scholars have tried to place the sarcophagus
20
chronologically with dates varying from 230 to 270. In the light of the dating methods which have been used, we can only say that the sarcophagus most likely was made some time during the third century. Santa Maria Antiqua is an a vasca sarcophagus which means that it has a tub-like shape which apparently had its origin in the Greek lenoi. Such sarcophagi were very popular during the third century and were often decorated with Dionysiac motifs, Dionysus being not only the winegod, but also a mystery god who conquered death and promised the initiated a blessed life in the next world.61 The other type of Roman sarcophagus is called a casa and has a rectangular chestlike shape. Both types of sarcophagus are grouped according to their decorative patterns and are referred to as garland, strigillated (i.e. decorated with flutings formed like strigils), columnar, or frieze sarcophagi, the latter being the largest group. Santa Maria Antiqua is a frieze sarcophagus on which several scenes and motifs are distributed evenly over the surface. The Roman sarcophagi were only decorated on three sides, the fourth being placed against a wall or in a niche. The front was the most important. The Santa Maria Antiqua sarcophagus is 2.15 m long, 0.64 m wide and 0.59 m high. The height between the upper and lower mouldings is 0.53 m. The lower moulding forms the base line for the figures and is about 3 cm deep.62 Here we shall give only a short description of the motifs since they will be discussed in detail in Part II. It is important already at the outset to stress that the motif designations used here are those current in the literature, and that our use of them does not imply an acceptance in advance of the interpretation they express. It is the context that is decisive for how a motif will be interpreted. The decoration consists of the following motifs, from the left rounded end towards the right when viewing the decoration: At the very left end there is a male figure summarily carved in low relief. He faces right, is seen in a three quarters view, and is dressed in a pallium exomis (i.e. with one shoulder bare). He appears to be both sitting and resting his right arm on an overturned hydria from which the water flows that forms the ocean beneath a ship. In his left hand
21
he holds a trident, the attribute of Neptune, the God of the Ocean. The figure is therefore referred to as the Neptune figure (fig. 3). A merchant-ship, sailing left, fills the whole rounded left end and part of the front side. The ship has a main mast with furled sail and a bowsail, an artemon, which is a small square sail set on a short mast that slants over the bow. It served to aid maneuvering and to give lift to the bow and keep it from ploughing into the water. The sternpost is of the type which Casson describes as a goose-headed sternpost and which, for added effect, was often gilded.63 The end of the sternpost is broken. The ships hull has a moulding which divides the surface in half horizontally, both parts of which are decorated with a tendril ornamentation. On-board the ship are two male figures that look like children. The one to the left, toward the stem, is seen frontally with his head turned towards the right and with both arms raised. The oar in front of him is broken off. The other sailor, at the stern, sits in a position which indicates that he is handling the steering-oar beside him. Greek and Roman ships carried a pair of linked paddles at the stern in place of a rudder, and that may be what we see here.64 The lower part of the left arm of this sailor is missing. Both figures are dressed in a short tunic. Their faces show signs of wear (fig. 4). To the right of the ship lies a large seamonster which is referred to in the literature by its Greek designation ketos; it seems to be moving out of the ocean onto dry land. This figure is heavily undercut, especially its head and tail, the latter being attached to the background by two pegs (figs. 5 and 6). In front of and facing the ketos is a naked male figure that reclines on the ground in the sleeping position which is so characteristic of Roman art, with his legs crossed, his left arm stretched out, and his right arm resting on his head. The figure is carved in high relief and is referred to as the Jonah figure. Behind and above the ketos and the reclining Jonah there is a landscape ledge which is covered with large gourd leaves. To the right on this ledge lie two rams with their bodies turned left and their heads facing right. To the left of the rams is a goat which stands facing them, but with his head turned left. On either side of this ledge there
22
is a tree with a long bare trunk and a full crown of oblong leaves, probably olive trees. The trunk of the tree to the left is barely indicated and just behind the center of the ledge there is another tree without a crown; this is clearly done intentionally so as not to obstruct ones view of the ship, ketos and the animals. Under the ledge there are large, hanging gourd leaves. Originally there were also hanging gourds attached to the background with pegs, but all these have disappeared, and only parts of the pegs are left. The figures and scenes so far described, make up the large Jonah motif. It can already here be pointed out that this was a very popular motif in early Christian art, but this particular representation of the motif seems to be the only one preserved that includes a Neptune figure and where the roof of Jonahs shelter is also a landscape ledge with animals on it. The vertical central axis of the decoration goes between a female figure to the left and a seated male figure to the right. This center group is framed by trees, like the ones described above, and a third tree is placed discretely in the middle behind the group. The two figures have unfinished portraits which is quite common on sarcophagus decorations for figures that are supposed to represent the deceased (figs. 59). Why the portraits were left unfinished will be discussed under Technique (p. 46f.). The female figure standing in a frontal position with both arms raised and her palms open is referred to as the orant. She is dressed in a long tunic over which she wears a palla which also covers her head. She is carved in high relief and stands in a contrapposto position. Her right foot is concealed behind Jonahs hand and her left foot is smooth, which should indicate that she is wearing shoes. On the palms of her hands there are horizontal grooves. Next to her left leg a bird, probably a dove, stands looking up at her. The seated male figure to the right of the orant is seen in a three quarters view and faces left. He is seated on a folding chair, a sella curulis, is dressed in a pallium exomis and is barefoot; he is looking at a book roll which is strongly undercut. The figure is carved in high relief except for what is seen of the right thigh and upper arm which are in a lower relief. This figure is referred to as the philosopher.
23
To the right of the philosopher follows a scene which is known as the Good Shepherd motif. In this decoration we see it as it is regularly portrayed, a male figure dressed in a tunica exomis, carrying a sheep on his shoulder and having a sheep on each side of him. The animals turn their heads to look up at him. His feet are smooth, so he is apparently wearing shoes, and he also seems to be wearing trousers which is most unusual. He is carved in high relief and is seen frontally in a three quarters view with his head turned left. His weight rests on his left foot which is seen frontally, while his right is turned in the same direction as his head. His right knee is slightly bent, and he gives the impression of being about to move. The scene is framed by two trees which the sculptor has carefully positioned so that they tilt, one to the left of the scene and the other to the right (figs. 710). Next follows the scene which is referred to as the Baptism motif; and this, too, covers the space between two trees. This motif consists of a male figure with disheveled hair and beard, dressed in a pallium exomis. He is seen frontally, with his head facing left in a three quarters view; he stands barefoot on a landscape ledge with his right hand resting on the head of a naked boy seen frontally and standing in water to above the ankles. The boys left arm is broken off above the elbow. His right hand seems to touch the head of the sheep next to the Good Shepherd, and the boy has his head turned towards the animal. A large bird is on its way down into the scene; the bird, a dove, is strongly undercut, and the two figures are carved in high relief. Such scenes are identified as the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan (figs. 710). The last scene in the decoration fills the right, rounded end of the sarcophagus. The scene consists of two male figures holding a large basket or fish-trap and is, like the other scenes, framed by two trees, while a third tree is placed behind the fish-trap. This scene is not found in other preserved reliefs. Since it is most likely a fishing scene, we shall refer to it as the fishermen motif. The two men are carved in high relief and are both dressed in a loincloth, a subligaculum, which may indicate that they are fishermen, though others are also pictured dressed in loincloths while working, and subligaculum was also worn by actors.65 The figure to the left wears a hat made of braided hemp. His
24
nose is broken off. He sits on what may be a stone or irregular ground and is seen in a three quarters view with his head turned towards the scene to the left of him. He holds onto the fish-trap with both hands but without looking at what he does. The same is the case with the standing figure to the very right in the decoration; he stands in an awkward, twisted position, apparently in order to give his chest and shoulders a frontal view. He grips the fish-trap with his right hand, while his left is placed across the lower part of his chest. His head is turned left, and he seems to be looking straight ahead; traces of colour can be seen on his pupils. His left thigh and leg are seen in a sideview; his right leg is carved in very low relief. He is balancing his weight on both feet. The hole mentioned above is placed between the legs of this figure (fig. 1112). There are no other sarcophagi preserved with a decoration like the one on Santa Maria Antiqua. This is not unusual, however, for in spite of the large number of decorated sarcophagi that exists, it is not possible to find two that are identical. The same can be said of the individual motifs. One searches in vain for identical figures, as will become clear when we proceed to an examination of the individual motifs. Dtschke was the first to point out that Santa Maria Antiqua and three other sarcophagi form a distinct group. The three are the Kinder sarcophagus in Ravenna66 , the La Gayolle sarcophagus in Brignolles 67 , and the Via Salaria in Rome68 , the latter being quite heavily restored. The decorations on these four sarcophagi have in common that they all show the philosopher, the orant and the Good Shepherd motifs. Dtschke was of the opinion that this group stands at the very beginning of the development of Christian art.69 Other scholars agree that this group is important. Gerke wanted to add the Jonah sarcophagus in Berlin and the Lateran no. 128. He observed that no progress had been made in working out a chronology for the group and suggested it might be better to start with the Berlin sarcophagus and work back in time.70 The Santa Maria Antiqua sarcophagus is mentioned quite regularly in the research literature, mostly in connection with iconographic questions, but since Marucchis
25
publications, it has not been given a thorough analysis, which is surprising considering its importance. The Roman sarcophagi were made of marble, and we shall start our study by looking at this material and shall try to establish whether there is anything to be gained from knowing more about the material and the whole process of acquiring marble for sarcophagi.
MarbleTradeWorkshop Nowhere in the literature about the Santa Maria Antiqua sarcophagus do we get any information about what sort of marble it was made from. The general lack of interest in material is reflected in what Koch and Sichtermann have to say on this topic, Man benutzte vornehmlich die aus den Steinbrchen Kleinasiens (Prokonnesos, Dokimeion, Aphrodisias), Griechenland (vor allem Pentelikon) und Italien (lunensischer Marmor) stammenden Arten. Da es fr den NichtGeologen, aber oft auch fr den Fachmann, nicht leicht ist, die Marmorart einwandfrei zu bestimmen, ausserdem Marmorblcke als Rohlinge oder Halbfabrikate von weithin importiert wurden, um erst an Ort und Stelle fertiggestellt zu werden, hat die Feststellung der Marmorart nun selten eine fr die Lokalisierung oder Datierung der Sarkophage als knstlerisch zu bewertender Fertigprodukte nennenswerte Bedeutung, weshalb sie in der Literatur mehr und mehr weggelassen wird. Dennoch sollte die Bestimmung des Marmor nicht ganz vernachlssigt werden; dass sie zu beachtlichen Ergebnissen fhren kann, haben Untersuchungen von J. B. Ward-Perkins gezeigt.71 Today, interdisciplinary work is of indispensable value in a discipline like archaeology, and art historians working within an area bordering on archaeology would benefit from making use of interdisciplinary work. It is important to monitor what goes on in fields related to owns own area of study in order to make sure that ones current techniques and methods are the best available. As mentioned above, iconographical research has been the main occupation of scholars working in this field, but researchers should keep in mind that it is essential to work out a reliable relative chronology for the more than six thousand preserved Roman
26
sarcophagi in order to learn more about both the pagan and early Christian decorations. For this body of objects it will be necessary to classify according to material, shape, decoration etc. and to start by grouping sarcophagi made from the same material. Material is a criterion which is quantifiable and it is important to know what type of marble a sarcophagus is made from. Ward-Perkins said twenty-five years ago about the importance of identifying the marble, Deterred by the difficulties of identifying with certainty the sources of many white marbles, all too many classical art historians have chosen to close their eyes to the demonstrable fact that each marble has its own clearly defined characteristic as a sculptural material. Any working sculptor knows that it would be courting disaster to apply to, say, Pentelic marble several of the techniques which are most effective in handling the marble of Carrara. He points out that Carrara marble is compact and fine-crystalled and well suited for detailed carving on sarcophagus lids, whereas Proconnesian marble which has medium crystals, is better suited for less detailed decorations.72 This probably explains the lack of lids on sarcophagi found in shipwrecks; the lids were apparently added in Rome and were made of Carrara marble.73 Once we know what type of material a sarcophagus is made from, we shall be able to tell what kind of carving the marble was suited for, which again may explain why a certain decorative pattern was chosen for a sarcophagus. Step by step information will be gathered, information which will also throw light on the workshop situation. This information should be registered in data bases which can handle the large number of details which will accumulate as the work progresses. Is it possible to distinguish between the white marbles from the different quarries that supplied the Roman workshops? To judge from the increasing number of publications on provenance determination during the last decade, this is possible, but difficult, and requires the use of a multi-method approach that applies different techniques to the same material. Research has shown that reliable results are achieved when combining data from petrographic, chemical and isotopic analysis and making use of cluster analysis. Progress has been made in this area of research, and several
27
preliminary reports show that different techniques are being tried out. We can only hope that it will be possible in the near future to work out techniques for determining the provenance of marble that are simpler and less costly than is the case today.74 We shall look more closely at a publication about determining quarry origin for a group of 49 Gorgon sarcophagi, where 44 of the samples were taken from sarcophagi found in Italy, many of them in or near Rome. The results showed that, the Roman workshops offered their clients a variety of marble. Those who could afford it selected the exotic and therefore more expensive marble quarried in the more inaccessible locations, like Denizli or Afyon. Other customers selected the more common and less expensive marble from quarries with an easy access to the sea, like Thasos or Proconnesus. The authors identified ten quarries, but the majority of the sarcophagi were made of marble from four of them, 8 from Aliki on Thasos, 22 from Proconnesus (an island in the Sea of Marmara), 4 from Ephesos, and 4 from Afyon (a name that refers to the quarries of ancient Dokimeion in Phrygia).75 Two publications by Ward-Perkins show that he thinks it is possible to determine marble provenance by examination with the naked eye. He scrutinized seven Dionysiac sarcophagi in Baltimore and concluded that with one exception it was, with some reservations, possible to identify the marble as coming from Luni (Carrara), Proconnesus, and Dokimeion.76 He also carried out a preliminary study of the sarcophagi displayed in the Museo Pio Cristiano in Rome and said that almost without exception these came from two sources, Luni and Proconnesos.77 It would be very instructive to compare his results with the results from a scientific multi-method analysis of the same material, for an analysis which was carried out in 1989 on 18 artifacts from a museum in Amsterdam resulted in the following interesting conclusion: The results of the analyses confirmed the presumed provenance for several sculptures for which museum records or art historical considerations allowed a fairly accurate assessment of the origin of the artifact and of the marble used for carving it. When only a preliminary appreciation based on the naked eye observation was available, the presumed provenance often turned out to be incorrect (p. 271).78
28
We can conclude that it is possible to determine marble provenance for sarcophagi and that to do so would give us much valuable information and would facilitate the task of classification. Important sarcophagi could be analyzed both scientifically and art historically. These can then form a reference basis for other sarcophagi. As work progresses, researchers will gain experience in evaluating what additional sarcophagi need to be given a scientific analysis in order to place them correctly within the groups that have been formed. Additional knowledge about what types of marbles were used for sarcophagi can be gained by studying the marble trade. During the last couple of decades there has been an increasing interest in ancient quarrying techniques and the connections between quarries and workshops. We know that during the Republic quarries were worked by private contractors and that during the first century the emperors took control of the important quarries in Italy, Greece, Egypt, and Asia Minor and built up a commercial organization which by the time of Hadrian was strongly market oriented. Marble blocks found in the old Emporium in Rome have inscriptions which give the names of the emperors and sometimes the names of the imperial procurators in charge of the quarries.79 Decrees in the Codex Theodosianus (X 19,1, 2 and 11) dating from AD 320, 363 and 384 show that during the fourth century the State encouraged private persons to engage in quarrying. The emperor Julian gives the following reason in the decree of 363, Since the desire for marble has enormously increased the price of such stone, in order that this expensive wish may be alleviated by an abundant supply, We permit that all men who wish to quarry shall have the license granted to them. For We consider that the result will be that very many veins of glistening stone will also come to light and into use.80 Asgari has examined the sarcophagus trade carried on from Proconnesos. Excavations of a necropolis on the island show that sarcophagi were in use there from around AD 150 to late in the third century. On the island there was a production of both precut and half-finished sarcophagi, with garland-designs sketched on them. These
29
sarcophagi were sent by ship to destinations in the Eastern Mediterranean and further on to others.81 Transporting the sarcophagi must have been a costly and risky enterprise, and many of the merchant ships never reached their destination. Several such shipwrecks have been located, two of them in the Gulf of Taranto, and both had a marble cargo consisting of architectural blocks and undecorated precut sarcophagi, 24 sarcophagi on the one ship and 39 on the other. Potsherds and a coin-find date them to the end of the second century. The ships apparently came from the coast of Asia Minor.82 A shipment of unfinished sculpture from the Proconnesian quarries was discovered in a wreck in the Black Sea. It contained half-finished sarcophagi, Ionic capitals, a blocked-out colossal statue of a Roman emperor wearing a military uniform, and a portrait bust which was dated late first century AD.83 A scientific provenance analysis of these sarcophagi and marble blocks would tell us whether the ships carried marble from only one quarry or from several and where these were located. This could then be compared with the study carried out by Stowell Pearson and Herz which led them to conclude that, we can say with assurance that the marble trade in antiquity was even more complex than previously thought, and that it is unlikely that any one quarry had a monopoly on trade to any given geographical location (p. 285).84 The marble trade was clearly highly organized and market oriented, but we have no information about how the workshops acquired marble blocks. It seems likely that the workshops in Rome would have had an arrangement with the emperors agents at the large warehouse area in the Emporium, and that these agents would order and import sarcophagi and marble as needed.85 It has been suggested that the finds from the shipwrecks indicate that only a large workshop in Rome could afford such an import.86 But a shipload of sarcophagi could, in theory, be intended for several workshops. We do not know whether there were workshops specializing in carving sarcophagi and, if so, whether they only worked on certain types of marble. There are many unanswered questions about the workshop situation and only new finds and further studies aimed at
30
clarifying how the workshops were organized offer any hope of answering some of them. Craftsmen working with marble were referred to as marmorarii. Names of guilds (collegia) have been preserved, and there was a guild of marmorarii as well.87 According to Strong and Claridge, the term marmorarius covered both the stoneworker, the mason, the sculptor, and the craftsman who cut the inscriptions88 , while Schroff writes, Gleich wie man den lapis im technischen Ausdruck bestimmt von dem marmor unterscheidet, so den lapidarius vom marmorarius. Anderseits entsprechen sich beide Worte darin, dass sie sowohl den Bauhandwerker bezeichnen, insofern er Marmor bezw. andere Steinarten bei seiner Arbeit verwendet, als auch den Hersteller und Verkufer von Marmor- bzw. Steinwaren. Nicht verstanden wird in der Regel unter m. im Gegensatz zu griechischen Entsprechungen ... der als Knstler wirkende Marmorbildhauer, sculptor marmoris. Schroff distinguishes between two types of marmorarii: 1) the craftsmen (Handwerker) who work in their clients houses and whose main task was to cover the floors and walls with marble plates (Inkrustierung). These marmorarii were also responsible for die Herstellung von Marmorfriesen und sonstigen Marmorornamenten. 2) the marmorarii who worked in their own workshops producing and selling marble products. It is within this latter group we find the marmormarii that produced sarcophagi, but Schroff says about the two groups that in Wirklichkeit sind die Grenzen gewiss fliessend gewesen.89 Fant mentions in connection with the find of a fragmentary inscribed column, that it was found in the basement of a house in Rome in the quarter where the marmorarii were concentrated.90 Marmorarius is clearly a very broad term and may indicate that the marmorarii all had a similar basic training, and that even if some of them were later further trained to become skilled sculptors, they were still referred to as marmorarii, with the possible exception of the artisans Schroff refers to as sculptor marmoris. This is not surprising
31
since a good marmorarius was a versatile craftsman who could work both as a mason and a sculptor. He took pride in his craftsmanship, his mastery of techne, which is also what his patrons looked for. Artistic ability was neither asked for nor considered important.91 This comes to expression in an imperial decree, issued in 337, where artists are ranked with stone-masons and blacksmiths.92 In general, Roman workshops were small, consisting mostly of a master and some assistants. Many such workshops would produce to order rather than for stock.93 A recent study by Goodlett of the epigraphical testimonia for the production of sculpture on Rhodes from ca. 400 BC to AD 7 has yielded important information about sculptors workshops. She has studied more than 120 names of sculptors from 240 signed bases for bronze statues. The study shows that, the core of each workshop was a family of sculptors. All of the identifiable workshops are characterized by collaborations between members of the family. Sculptors unrelated to the family were brought in to work on specific projects (p. 673). She observes that throughout most of the islands history, the production of bronze sculpture was dominated by a small number of family workshops, and that this trend increased towards the end of the Hellenistic period. At any given time there were between one and four established workshops active on Rhodes. Each of these had from one to five sculptors signing statue bases. She thinks it is a reasonable assumption that the average sculpture workshop had between two and fifteen workers. Some of these family workshops could be traced over a longer period, from three generations for one workshop to 150 years for another. The Rhodian sculptors were versatile, she says, and several of them worked outside Rhodes and in a variety of media. In her opinion, the principal result of this study is that any restrictive definition of a workshop is likely to be wrong. She points to the literary sources, writers like Pausanias, who attributed works of widely varied material and type to a single sculptor. Even so, some scholars have tried to limit a sculptors production by medium or type. She concludes by saying that,
32
the Rhodian material demonstrates that evidence for workshop connections outside of stylistic similarities is not only desirable but essential to our understanding of sculptural practices (p. 681).94 Burford, too, is of the opinion that the workshop unit generally was small and that the secrets of the craft were handed down within the family from generation to generation.95 During the Roman Empire there was a great demand for carved sculpture. Pfanner exemplifies the situation by looking at the number of portraits of Augustus that were carved and distributed to the more than one thousand cities in the Empire during Augustus reign of 44 years. He estimates that there must have been somewhere between 25,000 and 50,000 portraits made. Of these we have ca. 250 preserved, and many are so much alike that he thinks they must have come from the same workshop or area of workshops. These workshops specialized in making more or less accurate copies of prototypes, and Pfanner is of the opinion that the great demand for copies must have resulted in the workshops developing more efficient methods.96 A workshop producing copies of imperial portraits would have had a different working routine from a workshop producing sarcophagus decorations, and this could mean that at least some of the workshops specialized in producing certain types of sculpture. There could also have been workshops which were responsible for sculpture commissioned by the State, while others delivered works to private customers. Studies that could reveal whether official and private art were made in the same or separate workshops would clarify this question. Dinkler, e.g., said in 1939 that he thought the so-called dogmatic sarcophagus (Repertorium, no. 43), was made in the same workshop that was responsible for the West frieze on the Arch of Constantine. Vergleicht man die Gewandbearbeitung, die Faltenmeisselung, besonders bei den Schulterkragen der Soldaten, und stellt man die Soldatenkpfe der Gefangenfhrungsszene Petri denen der linken Hlfte des Konstantinsfrieses gegenber, so erkennt man, dass beide Arbeiten in einer Werkstatt und in nahezu derselben Zeit angefertigt sein mssen. Die Kpfe der Soldaten sind blockmssig herausgearbeitet, der Bart durch kurz gepickte Lcher mehr angedeutet als ausgefhrt, die Augen mit der doppelt gezogenen Braue haben den gleichen stumpfen Blick, die Haare sind nach vorne gekmmt und schauen unter der Mtze hervor (p. 5758).97
33
Today researchers could test and continue his work using data analytical methods, and if their studies confirm Dinklers observations, then we would have an example of a workshop which made both sarcophagus decorations, presumably for private persons, as well as official art. Several scholars have tried to group sarcophagus decorations they think originated in the same workshop. Matz made a list of 23 workshops he thought were active during the period ca. AD 150250, but says explicitly that more research is required before anything definite can be said about the workshop situation. He is of the opinion that the stylistic classification (Ordnung) must concentrate on the question of workshop connection.98 Fittschen thinks there must have been a large workshop in Rome during the period ca. 250270, that is, during the reign of Gallienus. He has a group of 26 sarcophagi which he thinks come from this workshop, and Koch and Sichtermann extend the list.99 In an article from 1977 Andreae and Jung put forward a provisional table of suggested dates and workshops for 250 Roman Prunksarkophagen. They explain how they arrived at their tentative suggestions. As their basis for dating, they made use of four criteria: motif-history, synchronism with dated portraits, style, and workshop. Photographs of all the 250 sarcophagi were attached by magnets to a 5 x 2.5 m large Platal-Wand. On the opposite wall were placed more detailed photographs to aid their judgment. By moving the pictures around they grouped the sarcophagi according to topic and date. A symbol next to the name of the sarcophagus indicated the workshop the author thought the sarcophagus came from. In another article Jung discusses what this table tells us about the workshop situation. It seems that during the period AD 200250 several workshops were active, which corresponds to what we saw Matz had tentatively arrived at. During the time of Gallienus there is correspondence in details in the sarcophagi, but Jung does not, as did Fittschen, think it is possible to draw the conclusion that there might have been one large workshop that was dominant in Rome at that time.100
34
Stutzinger has the following quote from Eichners thesis of 1977, Die Ergebnisse der Untersuchungen zu Bearbeitungsspuren an konstantinischen Sarkophagreliefs unterschiedlichster Ausfhrungen weisen alle in eine einzige Richtung: eine Einheitstechnik, genutzt in industrieller Massenproduktion an einer einzigen Produktionssttte in der Haupstadt Rom (Eichner, p. 141). A little further on (p. 147) Eichner says, Aus all diesen berlegungen ergibt sich fast zwingend, dass es sich bei diesem gewinnbringenden Grossbetrieb schwerlich um ein privates Unternehmen handeln kann. Eher ist dabei an einen staatlichen Betrieb zu denken, zumal die Marmorbrche des Reiches schon seit Tiberius dem Kaiser direkt unterstehen. Es ist nicht damit zu rechnen, dass der Kaiser die eintrgliche Sarkophagproduktion an den rmischen Bischof abtritt.101 It is of course quite possible that, as Eichner concludes, there really was a large workshop in Rome that produced decorated sarcophagi in the fourth century, but considering that as a general rule the unit of ancient production was the shop rather than the factory, that the work was done manually and to a large degree to order, and that workshop traditions are conservative, it is difficult to conceive of an industrial massproduction of sarcophagi. If the State was involved in the production of sarcophagi, it might have been through auctioning the business to private contractors.102 This certainly seems conceivable for such enterprises as copying imperial portraits, but less likely for a business producing sarcophagus decorations for the private market where it is not a question of copying, but of making to order. Common for these scholars is their failure to define precisely the terms and criteria they make use of. What do they mean, e.g., by a large workshop? If, based on what has been said above, we start from an assumption that the average workshop was small, but worked efficiently, how many sarcophagus decorations a year is it then reasonable to suppose that it delivered, assuming that it specialized in making sarcophagus decorations? Eichner arrived at a hypothesis that five workgroups, each with their special skill, were needed in order to make the relief on a Constantinian frieze sarcophagus. He reckons that a workgroup on an average would consist of two men. According to Eichners calculations, a Constantinian frieze
35
decoration would be finished in seven to eight days103 which, as Koch also points out, does seem like a short time, but makes sense considering the pressure the workshop often would be under to get a sarcophagus ready for a funeral.104 Eichner thinks that in order to make efficient use of the workforce, several sarcophagi were worked on simultaneously. This means that a workshop with a ten to fifteen man workforce probably produced two or three decorated sarcophagi a week. On a conservative reckoning that would amount to about 100 to 125 decorations a year. If, hypothetically, there were about ten such workshops in Rome making sarcophagus decorations, they could have produced about 1000 decorated sarcophagi a year. We do not know how great the demand was, but we do know that marble was expensive and that there must have been a limited number of people in Rome, a city of about a million inhabitants around AD 200,105 and elsewhere, who could afford to order a decorated sarcophagus. We have about six thousand preserved Roman sarcophagi; and if we reckon that they were made over a period of about three hundred years, then we have preserved on an average about 20 sarcophagi from each year which would amount to 2 percent of what we conservatively reckoned would have been produced per year. This is all very hypothetical, but gives us some indication that we should be careful talking about mass production when it comes to sarcophagi. Small workshops could probably meet the demand for sarcophagi and make each decoration to order. The research literature shows quite clearly that no progress has been made on the problem of associating sarcophagi with workshops. This is not surprising as there have been no serious efforts to classify the sarcophagi according to what workshop produced them; and it might have been a very difficult undertaking, for the human mind is simply not capable of handling all the data that necessarily will accumulate when hundreds of sarcophagus decorations are carefully analyzed in order to classify the material in various combinations. During the last decades rapid progress has been made in data technology, and it is this technology present researchers should take advantage of. This entails being willing to work out new methods suited for data analytical research. However, taking full
36
advantage of data analytical methods requires very careful and disciplined recording of every variable that goes into the database. It is, e.g., not acceptable to record criteria based on a study of photographs alone. Photos should only serve as an aid to observations, measurements, drawings, and verbal descriptions made while studying the decorations themselves. It is important to eliminate the subjective element as far as possible and to arrive at criteria any researcher can make use of. If scholars want the database to tell them which sarcophagi have enough common variables to make it likely that they stem from the same workshop, they have to be prepared to spend the time necessary to work out and record criteria which are likely to give them this information. When that is done, each individual researcher can make use of these criteria and record his observations in the database. This will not prevent researchers from arriving at their own hypothesis about what workshop a sarcophagus belongs to, but it will serve as an objective long-term check on the results arrived at by the individual researchers, and most likely, when the database has a very large number of variables, it will be possible for analytical programs to recognize patterns in the data which the human mind unaided could not. As for the Santa Maria Antiqua sarcophagus, we can state that it has not been established what type of marble it was made from and that we have no knowledge about the workshop that made it; gaining such information, would enable us to place the sarcophagus with others made from the same type of marble and with sarcophagi that have so many criteria in common, that it is likely they originated in the same workshop. This is the kind of basic information which will facilitate the analysis of the sarcophagus. But since we have to reckon that a workshop probably was active over a long period of time without any detectable change in working methods, we cannot expect that a common workshop identity will be of much help in accurately dating either the Santa Maria Antiqua sarcophagus or other sarcophagi. What is important, however, is the information we might gain about what types of decorations and compositions the workshop produced. The Santa Maria Antiqua provides an example of an early
37
Christian decoration, and it is therefore of particular interest to see whether it belonged to a workshop that produced other preserved sarcophagus decorations. We shall proceed to an examination of the techniques involved in carving a sarcophagus decoration, for it is clear that technical criteria can tell us a great deal about the routines of workshops.
Technique From a technical point of view many sarcophagus decorations were left unfinished. This has enabled researchers to gain an insight into the process by which they were made and thereby to gain a greater understanding of the difference between technical and stylistic criteria. So far, art historians working on the sarcophagi have concentrated their efforts on a stylistic analysis of individual examples which, according to Eichner, means that they have overlooked the fact that several of the phenomena they characterize as differences in style, really are technically conditioned phenomena.106 We shall look more closely at what Eichner says about the work process and technical criteria. According to him, the decoration was sketched on the smooth surface of the sarcophagus, whereupon the drill was used to deepen the outline which was further marked with red colouring. Next follows what Eichner considers to be a difficult stage in the sculpting, producing the low relief modeling using points and chisels, but no drill. This stage was most certainly the responsibility of the master of the workshop or some experienced sculptor. The transition from low to high relief was achieved by drilling holes along the outline of the figures down to the desired depth and thereafter removing the marble bridges between the holes. This was a purely mechanical process and could be performed by an unskilled worker. Drill holes which appear in certain places Eichner thinks are indicators of particular technical operations and should not be perceived as stylistic criteria; they are phenomena of a technical nature. The next stage in the process was to round the sharp edges of the outline channel and to model the figures. This had to be done by experienced craftsmen. The drill was used on foliage, to make folds in clothes and, in combination with the chisel, to
38
emphasize facial features, fingers etc. Ideally all the drill holes should have been removed during the following finer chisel work, and this was actually done on sarcophagi of a high quality; but on others, many drill holes were not removed. The final stage in the sculpting process was to give the relief a fine surface polish. The term running drill is regularly used by art historians. But what kind of drill are they actually referring to? The impression is that there is a vague notion of some tool that drilled grooves and channels rapidly and efficiently and thereby saved the craftsmen difficult work with the chisel. According to Eichner, however, the so-called running drill did not exist in antiquity. The term is a fiction, used for the first time in 1941 by Blmel, but Blmel versteht unter laufend aber nur die Drehbewegung des Bohrers, verursacht durch die geigende Bewegung des Bogens (p. 106). Eichner explains that the drill is an old technical tool which was improved in the course of time. Verbessert wurden im Laufe der Zeit lediglich der Antrieb des Bohrers und der Bohrerkopf. War ursprnglich der Bohrer zwischen den Hnden gedreht worden, so wurde sehr bald der Antrieb mittels eines Bogens erfunden. Eine technisch perfekte Endstufe der Entwicklung in der Antike zeigt die Platte des Eutropos in Urbino (p. 105). and he continues, der Gehilfe versetzt einen Bohrer mit Hilfe eines um den Bohrerschaft geschlungenen Riemens durch Hin- und Herziehen in Drehbewegung. Der Vorteil dieses Antriebs gegenber dem Bogenantrieb ist einleuchtend. Der Arbeiter hat beide Hnde frei zur Handhabung des Bohrers (p. 106).107 In Roman crafts the definition goes as follows, When held at an angle so that the drill moves along the surface of the stone as well as cutting into it, so as to produce a continuous channel, it is called the running-drill, though the tool used is the same simple tool.108 Ridgway discusses the running drill without actually explaining what it looked like, but it seems clear from what she says, that she considers the running drill a different type of drill from the original simple one. According to Ridgway, the Greeks first used a simple type which bored a vertical hole. This, she says, was the only form of the instrument in use until the introduction of the running drill between 370 and 350 BC. The newer variety could bore a channel along a
39
horizontal surface, if held at the proper angle; previously, grooves were carved by drilling a series of holes at short intervals and then by eliminating the interconnecting membranes of stone. Despite the obvious advantages afforded by the running drill, and the fact that a similar tool is used by Greek and Italian masons today, some scholars deny that it ever existed in antiquity, a position partly supported by the observation that the older manner of cutting channels, with the simple drill, was never entirely discontinued.109 Pfanner observes that the term running drill is unglcklich gewhlt. He explains that the Bohrerziehen, as he calls it, was first and foremost used for shallower channels, while for the deep and more complicated drilling the slower method of drilling rows of holes was employed. He observes that two workers are required to operate the running drill.110 According to Bessac the different drilling methods are difficult to identify by simple examination of the traces they leave behind them. However, close observation of drill holes, he says, always gives precise details about the type of bit and the way in which the drill has been used. He goes on to describe the three types of bit that were used in the Greek and Roman world and continues by saying, The identification of different types of bit can be made by observing the shape of the bottom of the hole which shows the exact outline of the rotating end of the tool. A poor interpretation of marks of Greek and Roman drill holes has led several research workers to believe that there were only two types of drill: the simple drill and the running drill. It is in reality a matter of two different drilling methods and has nothing to do with the type of drill. The first of these methods consisted of a classical perpendicular drilling, while the second is carried out on the slant, almost parallel to the surface of the stone. The second method is the younger of the two, appearing towards the middle of the fifth century BC. The main characteristics to be observed in drilling, Bessac says, are the leading angle of the bit with respect to the surface of the stone, the axial position of the hole with regard to the surrounding volumes, the diameter and depth of the drill hole, and the direction of its scratches.111 Considering that the drill was regularly used in carving sarcophagus decorations, it is essential that art historians working on them acquire knowledge about
40
how it was used and what marks can be identified as drill marks. Here it should be possible to find criteria that can be used in the task of classification. All the unfinished sarcophagi show that the work was often interrupted and the sarcophagi sold before the decoration was finished which may indicate that the workshop did not manage to finish the work in time for the funeral. On sarcophagi from the fourth century Eichner observed that the work could also be deliberately broken off at a certain stage in order to achieve a particular visual effect. Das was vorher nur bei unfertigen Stcken begegnete, wird nun Ausdrucksmittel, da sich oft verbluffende Effekte erzielen lassen, zumal die Produktion vereinfacht und verbilligt wird. War frher ein stehengebliebenes Bohrloch ein Versehen, so wird es jetzt Methode. Der Funktionstrger wird zum Ausdrucksmittel.112 A similar investigation has not been carried out on sarcophagi from the third century, but in looking for classification criteria, such phenomena should be carefully recorded as this means that in distinguishing between technical and stylistic criteria, we are in what we may call a grey zone; it may not always be clear whether we are observing a technically conditioned phenomenon or a stylistic feature. Eichner discusses terms art historians have used to distinguish between different styles in Roman art, terms like bohrerlosen or ungebohrten Stil, graphischen Reliefstil, optische Stil, negativen Faltenstil, and negative Formandeutung. What all these terms actually describe, he says, are technical phenomena; but art historians perceived them as stylistic criteria, assuming that what they saw was the end result of a working process. In his opinion it will not be possible to work out what workshop the sarcophagi belonged to as long as art historians adhere to methods where technique is ignored and they hope to achieve results by studying only style and iconography. In dem Augenblick, in dem technische Phnomene unter dem Begriff Stil subsumiert werden, beraubt man sich der Mglichkeit, an derselben Produktionssttte gefertigte, gleichzeitige, aber in der Bearbeitungsstufe unterschiedene Reliefs sachgerecht zu wrdigen. Stil wre im Bereich der stadtrmischen Sarkophagfabrik eher als Zeitgeschmack zu fassen.113
41
Eichner is certainly right about the importance of being aware of technical phenomena, but he himself has, as mentioned above, observed how at certain stages work was stopped in order to achieve specific effects, and at that point we are moving away from technique and towards style. The art historians are free to describe stylistic phenomena by any term they choose as long as it is clear what they refer to when they use the term. What the art historians have failed to do is to distinguish between decorations which have been left unfinished for some unknown reason and decorations which show that the work has been deliberately stopped in order to achieve a certain effect. Pfanner has examined a double registered frieze sarcophagus in the Museo Pio Cristiano (Repertorium, no. 39, there dated 300330 AD). The relief on this sarcophagus was not finished; most of the drill work that should have been executed on the clothes has only been indicated by two closely placed incisions. These parallel incisions have been described as bohrloser Stil because the researchers have failed to observe that they were actually technical phenomena. Pfanner thinks the work on this sarcophagus started with modeling the figures in low relief, whereupon the work progressed differently on the two sides. On the right side the background was cut away, but there is no sign of the drill having been used on the clothes. On the left side the drill was used, and here the work on the upper register is complete, while only part of the lower one was finished. He concludes that this could indicate that two groups of craftsmen worked simultaneously on the decoration. The so-called Lot-sarcophagus (Repertorium, no. 188), offers another good example of an unfinished decoration. Here the upper register is completed and carefully painted, while the lower has been left unfinished at various stages of the work process. This must mean, he concludes, that only one group of craftsmen worked on the decoration and that they started at the top, but had to stop work before they had finished the lower register.114 Pfanners observations are important for the question of workshop association since the variations he noted in the work process probably indicate that the two sarcophagi were products of two workshops with different working routines. This
42
shows that a thorough technical examination of unfinished sarcophagi could yield valuable information about what workshop they came from. Both Eichner and Pfanner find it peculiar that so many Christian sarcophagus decorations were left unfinished. Pfanner gives several possible explanations, but these are not convincing.115 There just does not seem to be any other logical explanation than that the customer who ordered the sarcophagus had it delivered before it was finished, but why should this happen so often? We cannot answer that question today because we know too little about the relationship between workshop and client to be able to come up with a reasonable explanation. A complete sarcophagus relief was painted, and on some sarcophagi the painting is still well preserved as is the case with the Lot-sarcophagus described above, where the colours blue, red, violet, and yellow are preserved on the upper register. Repertorium gives a careful description of the use of colours in this decoration (Repertorium, no. 188). In his studies of painted sculpture in Greece and Rome Reuterswrd says that red was often used as a basis for gold, and that gold left a purple or purple-brown tone in the marble. Gold was an important colour since there is a symbolic affinity between gold and the divine. On sarcophagi from the second and third centuries it can be observed that the ridges in the folds of the clothes were emphasized by golden stripes. Gold was also used, e.g., on hair, the coats of animals and on the leaves of trees. As for the effect these painted sarcophagi were supposed to have Reuterswrd writes, Wie sie wirken sollten, diese Sarkophage, deren bemalte Reliefs mit goldenen Glanzlichtern erhht waren, zeigen eigentlich heute am besten die alten Mosaiken. So lsst sich der eben angefhrte Hirtensarkophag 150 im Lateran der, obwohl schon 1818 entdeckt, seine Farben in bemerkenswerter Frische bewahrt hat, sehr gut mancher Mosaikdarstellung des Guten Hirten vergleichen: hier wie dort sollte ber dem grnen Gras, den blauen Bumen, den weissen Schafen etc., ein Schleier von Gold liegen, der wahrscheinlich viel mehr als das gewhnliche Licht bedeuten sollte. ... Vielmehr ging es bei diesen gesteigerten Lichteffekten um die Vergegenwrtigung eines berwirklichen Lichtesdie goldenen Glanzlichter, die die Figuren sowohl der Sarkophage
43
als der Mosaiken umspielten, wirklich vielleicht wie Reflexe des himmlischen Lichtreiches.116 We cannot tell whether the gold was supposed to be perceived symbolically when used on sarcophagus reliefs, but it is something to keep in mind when analyzing these decorations. There are several questions to be asked in connection with how these reliefs were made. How did the fact that the relief was going to be painted influence the work of the sculptor? Today only some of the reliefs have retained their colours. A careful examination could perhaps reveal whether some of the technical and stylistic phenomena can be attributed to the missing colours. As for the question where the finished sarcophagi were placed, apparently most of them were originally placed in sub divo tombs.117 Was any consideration taken of how much light there was in the burial chamber? In a poorly illuminated chamber a decoration would surely show up better when it was painted, and in particular if gold was used to achieve an internal highlight effect. When family members gathered at the graves of their relatives, they must have brought oil lamps with them. The painted sarcophagus would then be experienced in a subdued light. The viewer would have seen the different motifs clearly enough, but would most likely not have reacted much to such details as drill holes not being removed. The preserved paint on other sarcophagi gives us an idea of how the Santa Maria Antiqua sarcophagus looked when it was finished: gold was probably used as described by Reuterswrd. The sea and the trees would have been painted blue, the ship red, and the sails yellow. The grass would have been green and the sheep white. The clothes could have been yellow with red to violet shades in the folds; the book roll was probably blue with a red edging. The faces would have been marked by red around the mouth, nostrils, and eyes; and the eyes would have been painted. On this sarcophagus the only trace of paint preserved is in the eyes of the standing fisherman. As mentioned above, we have no information about where the sarcophagus was originally placed, but it is reasonable to suppose that it was placed above ground in a
44
dimly lit mausoleum and that the decoration was experienced as described above. With its well carved figures in high relief, a Christian viewer would have had no difficulty reading the Christian message the decoration conveyed. Looking at this decoration must surely have been both a comforting and pleasing experience for the relatives visiting the grave. When we try to visualize the sarcophagus in its setting, we also have to remember that it had a lid which most likely was decorated and which probably had an inscription plaque similar to the one on the Lot-sarcophagus (Repertorium, no. 188). The impression on the viewer certainly would have been different from what it is today. No technical analysis has been performed on the Santa Maria Antiqua sarcophagus, but what can be said is that the decoration is polished and gives the impression of being finished except for the two portraits. The figures are carefully carved in high relief; only the Neptune figure and the standing fishermans right leg are in a low relief and more summarily executed, but then the Neptune figure would hardly have been seen when the sarcophagus was placed against a wall. This is certainly a decoration of high quality workmanship. Every motif is carefully and skillfully executed, and there is so much undercutting that pegs were used to fasten the tail of ketos and the gourds in Jonahs hut to the background. The left hand of the philosopher and the book-roll are heavily undercut; there are 5 cm between the background and the hand and book-roll. The dove above the baptism scene is also strongly undercut and really gives the impression of flight. There can be no doubt that this decoration was made in a workshop that had skilled sculptors. A closer study of the decoration, reveals several of the technical phenomena Eichner pointed to, namely, drill holes and bridges between such holes which have not been removed. Drill holes can be seen in the corners of the eyes and mouths, around the fishermans hat, and on the heads of the animals. On the foliage of the trees and in the water in the baptism scene there are bridges which have been left standing. Since the decoration has been polished and clearly was painted, the drill holes could have been left to achieve a visual effect; but it is only by comparing this decoration with others that it will be possible to say anything about how common it was to leave such details and how
45
they are to be understood. This is why it is so important to observe and record technical phenomena in such a way that through analytical methods we can hope to draw reliable conclusions based on the variables in the database. The fact that the decoration was polished and painted indicates that the two portraits were left unfinished deliberately. Why so many portraits are unfinished has occupied scholars, and the suggestions which have been put forward have been summarized by Koch and Sichtermann.118 The proposal that the client who ordered the sarcophagus did not want the portrait to be carved, could explain why so many heads of figures representing the deceased were merely blocked out. An unfinished portrait would, after all, signal just as effectively as a finished one that a particular figure represented the deceased. Koch and Sichtermann are of the opinion that we have to assume that the portraits were carved after the decorations were finished. For some decorations that may turn out to have been the case, especially if it can be demonstrated that portrait specialists carved the portraits; but it is unlikely that this was the general working procedure. It is enough to study the pictures of the unfinished decorations in the above mentioned sarcophagi, Repertorium nos. 39 and 188, to see that the portraits on those sarcophagi were left partly finished because the decorations as a whole were unfinished. When we observe the great variation in the portrayal of the various figures on those decorations, the impression is that the sculptors responsible for the decorations most likely carved the portraits as well. A careful analysis of sarcophagus decorations with portraits should reveal whether there is a relationship between unfinished decorations and unfinished portraits. If it becomes clear that portraits were left unfinished because work for some reason was stopped before the decorations were finished, then these portraits can be eliminated from the question of why the portrait was not finished. We are then left with portraits that are either just blocked out or left unfinished in otherwise finished decorations. On some sarcophagus decorations that are finished and have two figures that are supposed to have portraits as is the case, e.g., on the Santa Maria Antiqua and the pagan
46
Peregrinus sarcophagus119 , we see that the heads of the female figures have merely been blocked out, while the head of Peregrinus is fully carved and the head of the philosopher on the Santa Maria Antiqua has been modeled just enough to indicate hair, beard and facial features. How can this be explained? Again, we have to find out how common this phenomenon is and then through a careful analysis and interpretation of each decoration put forward what possible explanations there might be for the individual decorations. In Part II, in the analysis of the philosopher and orant motifs, we shall discuss whether the orant on the Santa Maria Antiqua actually does represent the deceaseds wife because in that decoration there is also the possibility that she symbolizes his soul. If that is the case, it would be quite natural not to carve a portrait. In summing up, we can say that researchers like Eichner and Pfanner have demonstrated how important it is for art historians to pay as much attention to technique as they do to style when they study sarcophagus decorations, especially when the purpose of their investigations is to associate sarcophagi and workshops and to work out a reliable relative chronology. Technical and stylistic analyses should be closely integrated in order to catch what we referred to above as grey zones where it will be necessary to determine whether a certain phenomenon should be considered technical or stylistic. We shall next turn to the question of style and will then be firmly on art historical ground.
Style It is not easy to give a good definition of what constitutes a style, but in general, we can say that what distinguishes one art style from another is the individual styles use of form and expression or, to use Shapiros definition, By style is meant the constant formand sometimes the constant elements, qualities, and expressionin the art of an individual or a group.120 If we take relief sculpture from Greece and Rome as an example, no one will have any difficulty observing that the figures on the Parthenon frieze in Athens from the fifth century BC have a different style from the frieze band along the Arch of Constantine in Rome which was made about 750 years later. The Parthenon frieze is an example of the
47
fully developed classical style, an impersonal, disciplined style which Gough observes was free from tension or illusionism and therefore effectively barred any emotional contact with the spectator.121 This classical style became the standard against which all Roman sculpture was measured. The frieze on the Arch of Constantine, is an example of a style that makes no attempt at being naturalistic and where there is not a trace of classical elements. Winckelmanns Geschichte der Kunst des Altertums from 1764 set the tone for the attitude towards Roman art which has been common until the last decades: Roman art, measured against the classical Greek canon, was in a steady decline during the Empire and the Constantinian frieze can safely be placed at the other end of the scale; the decline was complete. As late as in our own time, many art historians have looked upon this frieze and similar works as examples of art produced at a time when the craftsmen were no longer capable of making good art. There is no longer talk about style, but just poor craftsmanship. Style for these scholars is the style that characterizes classical Greek art, while Roman art was only a more or less poor imitation of the norm. Towards the end of the 1800s attempts were made to defend the distinctive quality of Roman art, and in 1901 Riegl published his Stadtrmischen Kunstindustrie where he came out against the theory of decline. Koch and Sichtermann write that it is not easy to overcome this theory. They show how even Rodenwaldt, who strove for a better understanding of Roman art, came out in 1936 against Riegls Kunstwollen theory and said of the Roman art of the second and third centuries, Es ist trotz aller neuen, fesselnden und bedeutenden knstlerischen Erscheinungen eine Zeit, die gemessen an den hchsten Werten der Antike, eine Periode des Verfalls ist. Es war fr seine Zeit heuristisch wertvoller, aber verhngnisvoller Irrtum A. Riegls, dass er mit der Theorie des Kunstwollens eine Relativitt aller kunst-geschichtlichen Werte proklamierte die bis heute noch Anhnger findet. Koch and Sichtermann make this comment on Rodenwaldts statement, So bestand da die alte Wertskala, wenn auch durch neue Erkenntnisse modifiziert, durchaus weiter, und bis in die Gegenwart hinein gab es
48
Archologen, die es ablehnten, sich mit rmischen Sarkophagen zu beschftigenihrer knstlerischen Qualitt gegen.122 Today we see that, on the whole, art historians accept Roman art on its own terms. There is a greater realization that the classical Greek style was a style which developed in a very special society, the Greek city-state with its political life, literature, culture, anthropomorphic deities, and ideal of the kals kaagaths, noble, good man. When the city states ceased to exist, the art form they had developed became associated with Greek culture and humanistic ideals which up through history continued to play a role in many societies. Roman society was quite different from that of the Greeks; and although the upperclass Romans were great admirers of Greek culture, it is hardly surprising that their own art reflects their own society, religion, and culture. But to what degree is art influenced by the society in which it is created? Kitzinger uses the terms other-directed and inner-directed. Subject matter and iconography which in antiquity would have been determined by someone other than the craftsman will then be other-directed. Style, on the other hand, will be considered other-directed in the cases where it deliberately copies or imitates an earlier style, and inner-directed when the artist consciously or unconsciously makes stylistic changes. He goes on to say that, there is, in effect, a whole spectrum of stylistic changes from totally conscious, totally associative, totally other-directed, to the totally, or almost totally unconscious, unassociative and inner-directed (p. 3).123 This is something that should always be kept in mind when discussing art. We are unable fully to explain how an historic style developed, partly because we know too little about how decisive inner-directed activity was in the process. Even though we have scant information about individual Roman craftsmen and artists, there is no reason to suppose that there was any lack of talented artisans in Rome and elsewhere in the Empire. These artisans and their workshops would surely have had an influence on how art developed. Much of this would have been an unconscious process in a society where the role of art was different from what it is in our time.
49
To understand the styles that can be observed in Roman art, it is necessary to clarify what is characteristic of it. There is a common agreement among art historians that Roman art was eclectic. Bandinelli sees this as the result of exposure to all the imported works of art from different periods and in different styles that poured into Rome from Athenian workshops during the time of the Republic and the first century AD. The Romans not only copied Greek and Hellenistic art, but made pastiches as well, that is, a new recombination of elements from different works. What Fullerton says about archaistic statuary, also holds true for Roman art in general; it is a combination of the derivative and the creative that is typical of the art produced in the Roman imperial workshops.124 All through the Roman period the craftsmen mixed different styles; they were influenced by and borrowed from local art traditions and from Etruscan and Hellenistic art. There is often an overlapping of the Mid-Italic art tradition and the Hellenistic. Elements from both traditions can be observed on the column of Trajan, and we can now begin to talk about an Imperial Roman art, Bandinelli says. The column of Marcus Aurelius is a work of art which shows very little Hellenistic influence and should be considered an autonomous Roman work. It is characteristic of this Roman art that it makes frequent use of the drill in order to create an optical illusion.125 Kitzinger, as well as other art historians, has observed that the classical and nonclassical styles appear side by side on the same monument, and Kitzinger emphasizes the modes phenomenon which is, the conventional use of different stylistic manners to denote different kinds of subject matter or different levels of existence. It is an extremely important factor which cuts across and to some extent negates the temporal succession of stylistic phases in Roman art. ... This phenomenon, more than any other, adds to the complexity of the process.126 Kitzingers modes are what Brendel refers to as generic styles.127 Examples of such modes or generic styles are sarcophagus decorations where portraits of the deceased, and in particular those placed in a clipeus or a shell, are carved in a style common for portrait sculpture, while the decoration itself may be carved in a mixture of styles.
50
From what has been said above, it becomes clear that Roman art is complex and not easy to work with from a stylistic point of view. This is why we have to question the traditional method of establishing stylistic development series for the sarcophagus decorations. As was discussed in the introduction, the majority of the scholars who have worked on the question of the relative chronology of the sarcophagus decorations have tried to establish a chronology by means of portrait dating and by establishing a stylistic development and/or an iconographic development. Andreaes work on the hunt sarcophagi is an example that illustrates these methods. According to him these sarcophagi, wie keine andere Sarkophaggattung dazu eignen, eine durchgehende Grundlage und ein Gerst der Sarkophag chronologie im 3. und 4. Jahrhundert abzugeben.128 Through an iconographic analysis of the compositions on these sarcophagi Andreae arrives at the conclusion that they show a development of the basic idea of heroization by conquering of death. The development of this basic idea can be observed, he says, because it is possible to follow step by step the stylistic form which was developed to express the new content on the decorations. Die Entwicklungsgeschichte der rmischen Jagdsarkophage verluft zwar konsequent, aber nicht in einem einzigen Strang. He separates seven phases of development and explains which decorations dominate the first period from AD. 220/230 to 238/240. In this phase, he says, we meet nur vereinzelte Jagdsarkophage mit abweichender, aber durchaus entwicklungsfhiger Typologie. But thereafter, beobachtet man die Rckkehr der Sarkophagkunst zu einem wieder niedrigen, langgestreckten Format. Das hngt sicher sowohl mit wirtschaftlichen Voraussetzungen als auch mit einer Erweiterung des Bestellerkreises zusammen.129 Andreaes conclusion about the development of the hunt sarcophagi is that, Die Stilentwicklung ist von einer erstaunlichen Folgerichtigkeit. ... Sie verluft vielmehr so konform mit der geschichtlichen und geistes-geschichtlichen und
51
religisen Entwicklung dieser Zeit, wie man dies bei unvoreingenommener Betrachtung von der Kunst zu allen Zeiten erwartet. He concludes by saying that the formal development in the seven phases should be seen in the light of, den Wandlungen des Inhalts gemss den Ansprchen der Gesellschaft an die Kunst der Sarkophagwerksttten.130 Andreae arrived at his conclusion about a steady stylistic development on the basis of his conviction that it is possible to observe a thematic development in the decorations of these sarcophagi. The result is that he lets the development of the style be determined by the development of the theme, and then finds an explanation whenever he observes a discrepancy. It is necessary to stress that his observations should have formed the basis for separate stylistic and iconographic studies where objectively determined criteria were worked out and the hypothesis tested with more reliable methods. It is not possible to determine whether there actually are signs of a development of style in these decorations with the methods he and other scholars make use of, and consequently, they cannot arrive at a reliable relative chronology by establishing stylistic development series using traditional methods. We shall now look at what has been said about the style of the Santa Maria Antiqua decoration. Marucchi who found the sarcophagus in 1901, judged its style according to the theory of decline and concluded that its style was not particularly good, but not as awkward as on the majority of the Christian sarcophagi. Some of the figures, like Jonah and the orant offrono una evidente reminiscenza delle buone tradizione dellarte classica. 131 In 1936 Simon compares the style of the Santa Maria Antiqua decoration with that on the La Gayolle and Via Salaria sarcophagi, il tmoigne dune dcadence relative. Lart en reste fort convenable encore, surtout si on le compare lensemble de la production ultrieure, quelques exceptions prs. Mais il na plus dj lharmonie et la plnitude encore classique des formes que lon admire sur les sarcophages de La Gayolle et de la Via Salaria.
52
Because of this decline in style when compared with the two other sarcophagi, Simon places our sarcophagus after them in time, towards the middle of the third century. However, when he then tried to place the Kindersarkophag in Ravenna in a chronological sequence with the three others, he encountered difficulties. In his opinion, the quality of the decoration on the Ravenna sarcophagus is inferior to that on the Santa Maria Antiqua and should therefore stylistically be placed after that sarcophagus, but iconographically he had placed it before the Santa Maria Antiqua. He gets out of this impasse by declaring, Mais on ne saurait concevoir lvolution de lart antique son dclin comme une courbe uniformment descendante, et le sarcophage de Ravenne est trop mal dgag des formes paennes pour quun puisse ainsi intervertir lordre de succession des deux exemplaires.132 Simon, like Andreae in his study of the hunt sarcophagi, operates with two separate lines of development, a stylistic and an iconographic. When the two lines diverge, he has to find an explanation and decides that the iconographical development he observes is more reliable than the stylistic. Both Marucchi and Simon adhered to the theory of decline. An analysis of style becomes a simple undertaking when it amounts to no more than declaring whether the style is good, bad or decadent compared to the classical canon. It is, however, understandable that scholars who adhered to the theory of decline did not examine the style of an artifact more thoroughly. Today, an analysis of style will consist of an analysis of both form and expression. It is not satisfactory to limit an analysis to form alone, nor is it acceptable to emphasize expression as much as Gerke did back in 1940 when he decided a chronological question or determined whether a work was pagan or Christian. He was of the opinion that the plastic art from the middle of the third century AD reflects the difficult times people then experienced. The spirit of the times comes to expresson in the Christian art as well, but there the faces are so different from the pagan that, man sie in den meisten Fllen auch da, wo ein christlicher Sarkophag kein usserlich erkennbares christliches Thema hat, bei nheren Zusehen als christlich erkennen kann.
53
He compared the Good Shepherd figure on the Santa Maria Antiqua sarcophagus with the representation of an older shepherd on a strigillated sarcophagus which he thinks was made in a crypto-Christian workshop. His description and reasoning goes as follows, Der Alte mit dem Lamm auf dem Rcken, mit seinen blossen Fssen, seiner kurzrmeligen Tunika, dem struppigen Bart, der hsslich-charaktervollen Physiognomie und dem kahlen Vorhaupt ist in seiner Realistik noch ganz lebendig und dem wirklichen Leben in der Campagna entnommen. Der jugendliche Schaftrger von S. Maria antica dagegen hat etwas anderes in seinem derben Hirtenanlitz. Typen wie den Alten sieht man in der zeitgenssischen Plastik fters; zu dem Guten Hirten von S. Maria antica lsst sich kein profanes Gegenstck finden, weder zu ihm noch zu den brigen Gestalten des Sarkophags. Then he explains what distinguishes this new Christian art form from the pagan, Es ist eine gewisse innere Geschlossenheit bei aller Zerrissenheit oder gar Anarchie der usseren Form; es sieht fast aus, als sei die von Todesstimmung gezeugte Physiognomie des Menschen von innen her von Frieden durchleutet. Es spiegelt sich in den frhchristlichen Kpfen offenbar ein anderes Verhltnis zur passio humana und zum Tode, als es in der sonstigen zeitgenssischen Todessymbolik der Fall ist.133 Gerke was of the opinion that in the physiognomy of the faces he saw a new art style which was Christian, a style that enabled him to recognize a Christian sarcophagus decoration even where there were no Christian motifs. We may reasonably ask whether that is likely to be the case considering that the preserved material indicates that the preConstantinian Christian decorations were made in the same workshops as the pagan. Brandenburg has looked into the question of a separate Christian art form. He asks whether such a thing as an ars humilis, an art form expressing a Christian view of life, can be observed on the Christian sarcophagi from the fourth century. His conclusion is that the style of these sarcophagi is a period style seen both in pagan and Christian art.134 Kitzinger does not think there is anything distinctive about Christian art in the third century, but says that early in the reign of Constantine,
54
we shall encounter Christian works of art with distinctive formal characteristics, unprecedented and unparalleled in pagan art and apparently bound up with their religious content and function. But although Christian art had a bearing on stylistic development in the fourth century, Kitzinger stresses that it was in the fifth century that Christian art assumed undisputed leadership.135 Reschke is the only researcher who, on the basis of an analysis of stylistic traits, has tried to place the Santa Maria Antiqua with other sarcophagi that are stylistically alike. He analyzed the head of a hunter on a sarcophagus in Copenhagen, compared it with the head of a Mars figure on another sarcophagus, and described the characteristic traits which cause the face to have einen feurig erregten Ausdruck. The nose he referred to as Stlpnase, and he points to several figures that have such a nose. The Good Shepherd on the Santa Maria Antiqua sarcophagus, he says, has the same facial shape as the hunter on the Copenhagen sarcophagus but with, fast noch gesteigerterem Ausdruck. Die linke Wange verzerrt mit Nasenflgeln und linker Oberlippe sein Gesicht zur Fratze. Die auch hier gegebene Gequollenheit geht bis zur aufgestlpten Nase und gezerrten Lippen in gleiche Richtung. Dazu stimmen Einzelformen weiterer Mnner: Neben deutlicher Durchbuckelung des Krpers geben Jonas S. Maria Ant. sowie der hintere Jger Copenhagen bogenhaft scharf abgesetzte Brustmuskeln.136 Reschke sees two basic currents in form during the period between Gallienus and Constantine, one that retains the classical form and another which shows a breakdown of the classical form. The head of the Good Shepherd on our sarcophagus is an example of the latter, (fig. 89). Reschke gives several examples of this unklassische Formenemanzipation.137 As we see, Reschke did find pagan figures with heads similar to that of the Good Shepherd on the Santa Maria Antiqua. In his analysis, form, line, and expression are elements in the style he describes and sees as a period style. He, too, observed the expression in the face of the Good Shepherd, but he made no attempt to interpret it at the descriptive stage of the analysis. It is not difficult to recognize both classical and non-classical elements in the Santa Maria Antiqua decoration. The influence from Greek and Hellenistic art is seen
55
particularly well in the finely sculptured naturalistic figure of Jonah, in the small figure of Christ in the baptism scene, and in the contrapposto position of the orant. Another classical feature is the way the draperies follow the shape of the bodies which can be discerned underneath the material. As for the two fishrmen, they have naturalistically formed bodies and look like Hellenistic genre figures. What then are the typical non-classical stylistic features of this decoration? These are particularly well demonstrated in the heads of the human figures. If we start with the Jonah figure, we can say that the figure has a Greek body, but a Roman head, the latter being characterized by a new expression and thick, rather long and unkempt hair which has been heavily worked over with the drill in order to achieve a chiaroscuro effect. The face has rather coarse features; the left side of the large nose has been hollowed out, forming a ridge line from the tip of the nose to the outer corner of the left eye which is half closed and has a large drill hole in the inner corner. It seems likely that this has been done deliberately in order to achieve a visual effect when the figure was painted. The lips are slightly parted, and there is a drill hole in the left corner of the mouth. Although it does not show in the pictures, we can mention that the right eye is closed. This is certainly not a classical Greek face, but it is a strong young face that seems to go well with the muscular naturalistic body. It is not an idealized figure, but one that conveys the impression of a person taking a relaxing rest from physical effort. The face of the Good Shepherd is, as described by Reschke, coarse and with a distorted nose and mouth. As in the Jonah face, the right eye is closed while the left is half open and has a drill hole in the inner corner. The hair is thick and unkempt. The whole figure conveys the impression of being robust and rustic, a figure in movement, his large, strong hands holding the sheep with a firm grip. In Repertorium there are no other Good Shepherd figures identical to the one on the Santa Maria Antiqua. Facial features similar to those described for Jonah and the Good Shepherd can be seen in the figures of the baptism scene and fishing scene. The Baptist, with his large beard and disheveled hair, is far removed from the classical ideal, but certainly bears a resemblance to various types of Hellenistic figures.
56
With this mixture of stylistic features we can only conclude that the decoration is a typical example of Roman art; and if we are to place it stylistically with other sarcophagi, it will be necessary to follow Reschkes suggestion and search for similar stylistic criteria. Our task will then be to find characteristic criteria, record them carefully and enter all the data into a database where eventually an analysis of the variables from this and other sarcophagi will reveal which sarcophagi have common stylistic traits. These can then be checked against common technical traits to see if the Santa Maria Antiqua sarcophagus forms a group with other sarcophagi both in technique and style and if these sarcophagi are made from more than one type of marble. If such analytical methods should reveal that it is possible to group our sarcophagus with others, then we can assume that they were made within the same period of time, but without an absolute date for one of the decorations, the group cannot be chronologically anchored. However, we never know when a dated decoration may be found that can be incorporated into one of the classification groups and anchor it. Such a classification will also be a way to control whether sarcophagi placed together according to the traditional art historical methods correspond to the groups arrived at through objectively determined criteria and computer-supported analytical methods. There can be no doubt that our conclusion must be that a careful recording both of technical and stylistic criteria in the sarcophagus decorations will be of major importance for the task of classification and for the workshop studies. We shall next proceed to an analysis of the composition of our sarcophagus.
Composition We can at once state that we have no information about how a composition such as the one on the Santa Maria Antiqua was planned and then transferred to the surface of the sarcophagus. Several researchers claim that most likely there was a mass production of sarcophagi and that the workshops had finished or partly finished sarcophagi in storage. Asmussen argues as follows,
57
It has been claimed that the choice and juxtaposition of the individual scenes in a sarcophagus decoration reflect the view of the Christian belief held by the deceased. But the fact that many of these sarcophagi had to be available, partly finished, in the workshopsleaving the central scene to be completed at the time of deathwould seem to indicate that this was rarely the case. The carving of a sarcophagus was both a costly and a time-consuming affair. However, the prefabricated Early Christian sarcophagi must unquestionably have reflected the contemporary Christian attitude.138 Since we have scant information about the workshopcustomer relationship, we have to fall back on hypotheses based on the material which is preserved and cannot make any definite statements about sales of sarcophagi.139 It certainly is conceivable that a workshop, which, e.g., specialized in strigillated sarcophagus decorations, would prepare the sarcophagus by dividing the surface into three or five fields and then finish the fluted fields. When an order was placed, the remaining fields could be carved as agreed with the customer. And there are other types of simple, neutral decorations that the workshop probably would have had no difficulties selling. It is, therefore, not unlikely that workshops had some sarcophagi in storage ready for the occasional customer who needed to have one delivered on short notice. Huskinson certainly has a point when she maintains that, Other than in the most exceptional circumstances there can scarcely have been a specially commissioned piece awaiting the death of a child, so customers must have had to choose from stock.140 But that the family of a dead child clearly had more than one option for requiring a sarcophagus is demonstrated by S. Walker who gives an interesting example of a childs portrait on a sarcophagus from Rome, today on display in the British Museum. The child died at the age of one year and was buried in a sarcophagus clearly intended for a woman. Her portrait was transformed into that of a male infant with close-cropped hair.141 The sarcophagus could perhaps have been made for one of the women in the family or it may be a case of reuse of an older sarcophagus. Koch argues that unfinished portraits indicate that the customers had bought decorated sarcophagi from stock but had not wanted the extra expense of having
58
portraits made. He further points to the many examples of portraits which were carved later than the decoration, and draws the conclusion that Das zeigt ebenfalls, dass diese Sarkophage auf Vorrat gearbeitet worden sind.142 Based on our present knowledge of the unfinished portraits, it is not possible to draw such a conclusion and especially not when we know that many sarcophagi were reused for burials. Andreae maintains that many frieze sarcophagi with unfinished portraits have compositions of a kind that makes it most unlikely that they could have been bought from stock. He concludes that all die grossen Sarkophage must have been made to order.143 The fact that there are no sarcophagi, pagan or Christian, with identical decorations, also points towards the assumption that each sarcophagus was made to order; for even though many of the decorations are similar, the individual differences in the motifs show that both workshop and customer have had their say in the final result. There is no sign of exact copying of models. The method used was more likely the one Pfanner refers to as the free method where the outline of a chosen figure was transferred to the marble surface by a combination of measurements and eyesight, and then formed according to the artisans ability and inclination.144 The customer was surely familiar with what quality of work a particular workshop produced and would have discussed in advance all the practicalities with its master. As for the Christian customers, particularly in the pre-Constantinian period, it is possible that they had their sarcophagus decorations made in workshops that had one or more Christian workers who would be familiar with the symbolism of the Christian faith and could assist in composing a decoration. We have some written sources that give us an idea of how wealthy people had their tombs prepared. In Petroniuss Satyricon there is a description of how a wealthy Roman freedman, Trimalchio, wished his tomb to appear. He discusses the project with Habimas, a mason with a reputation for making first-class tombstones. Trimalchio is concerned that his life after death shall be a pleasant one, so he wants to make certain that he is surrounded by people, animals and objects that he values. He gives detailed instructions to Habimas, and solicits his opinion about the plan, and also asks whether the mason thinks the inscription seems appropriate.145 What we note is the close
59
cooperation between mason and patron. This is, after all, what goes on today as well when a customer wants something made to order by an artisan. In the British Museum there is a sarcophagus fragment with an interesting inscription in Greek. The fragment is there dated to about AD 275310, and the inscription goes as follows in English translation, You, Proclus, husband of me, Rufina, lie here, by the will of the Fates abandoning your life and your widow. I bought a great tomb in a prominent site, a wonder to all. I added to it gleaming doors. I put in it a statue closely resembling you, dressed to reflect your distinction among the Ausonian [Italian] orators. Among these illustrious men you took the highest distinction. But never shall I lie apart from you. Just as before in our lifetime the same house protected us, so shall the same sarcophagus enclose our corpses (p. 16).146 Here we obtain valuable information. We learn that Rufina bought a tomb after her husband died. This should indicate that tombs were for sale in the cemeteries outside Rome. Clearly she and her husband had not arranged for a burial place before he died, perhaps suddenly, so she had to acquire both a tomb and a sarcophagus. It may come as a surprise that it was the wife who took charge when her husband passed away, but there were quite clearly many wealthy, well educated and capable women in the Roman society.147 Studies of Roman epitaphs show that a typical Roman funerary inscription also names the commemorator who normally was the heir responsible for the burial and commemoration.148 From this inscription we further learn that Rufina made certain that the statue of Proclus actually resembled him. On the sarcophagus decoration we see Proclus portrayed as a Greek orator. The inscription informs us that Proclus actually was an orator, so here we have an example of a motif chosen by the wife to portray her husband in a characteristic role. It is indeed unfortunate that we do not have the whole sarcophagus decoration preserved since we know that Rufina intended the sarcophagus to be the final resting place for herself as well; and it would have been of interest to see whether she had let herself be represented by a figure on the other side of the inscription and whether this figure had a portrait. We do not know whether the sarcophagus decoration and inscription she ordered was finished by the time of the burial. Perhaps
60
some of the final work was done after the sarcophagus was placed in the tomb. The statue could easily have been ordered and put in the tomb after the funeral, and since the statue is mentioned in the inscription, it might indicate that the inscription was carved after the statue was in place which means that the craftsmen would have worked on the sarcophagus decoration in the tomb. There is another inscribed plaque, apparently from the third century AD, which also shows that it was a woman who ordered the family tomb, Aurelia Filikistima bought this tomb and the platform and had made for it a sculptured sarcophagus of Proconnesian marble and sarcophagi on each side and a millstone (sarcophagus). She prepared the burial chamber for herself and her husband Epiktetos, for their children and their descendants.149 Here we are actually told that Filikitisma had a decorated sarcophagus made and that she bought and prepared the tomb. It is not clear whether she, like Rufina, did so after the death of her husband. The other and more likely possibility (since she says she prepared the tomb for herself and her husband, ...), is that she, rather than her husband, arranged to have the tomb prepared while they were still alive. Meyer cites Pliny the Younger who comments that, loyalty in friendship is so rare, the dead are forgotten so quickly that we must erect our own tombs and anticipate all the duties of the heir. Meyer remarks that worry about the monument is perhaps what prompted testators to compose their own epitaphs ahead of time and plan or build the tombs themselves.150 The inscription on the sarcophagus of Marcus Aurelius Prosenus from AD 217 (Repertorium, no. 929), tells us that he was an imperial freedman; a little further on we read, to a most deserving freedman a sarcophagus for him they have decorated. Prosenus was received by God.151 A close study of funerary inscriptions might give us additional information about ordering tombs and sarcophagi. The preserved sarcophagus decorations show pronounced individual variations, and this strengthens the hypothesis that these decorations were made to order, which means
61
that the customer would have decided what kind of decoration the sarcophagus should have. Several factors such as economy, religion, and family circumstances would probably have played a role in the choice of marble and decoration. There is nothing in the preserved material that points to the artisans being responsible for the compositions; but once the workshop knew what the client wanted, it is not unlikely that, as Pfanner reasoned, the sculptors used their skill and imagination when carving the decoration. If we look at the composition on the Santa Maria Antiqua sarcophagus, we see that it is carefully worked out; it is actually one of the finest pre-Constantinian Christian sarcophagus decorations we have preserved. It is probably also one of the oldest Christian decorations, which means that at the time it was composed, the pagan workshops had little or no experience in carving Christian motifs. We saw above that Rufina wished to be buried in her husbands sarcophagus. On our sarcophagus the center group consists of an orant and the deceased portrayed as a philosopher. Both have unfinished portraits. It is, therefore, natural to suppose that this is a husbandwife sarcophagus although we cannot be certain about this. Since the lid is missing, we do not know if we have a complete composition or if there was an inscription that might have told us the name(s) of the deceased. We have to assume that either the husband, the wife or both arranged with a workshop to have the sarcophagus made. They would probably have been careful about choosing a workshop they thought could handle the challenge of making a Christian decoration by using pagan motifs. If we suppose that the man portrayed as a philosopher was most likely the one who composed the decoration, it would only have been through a close cooperation with the master of the workshop that the composition could so skilfully be worked out and transferred to the surface of the sarcophagus. How was this done? Andreae & al. have examined the compositions of the Ludovisi Battle-sarcophagus and some other sarcophagi from the third century. They think the surface was divided into a pattern of squares by means of string and chalk and that the procedure was as follows: first the vertical centre line was drawn. In each of the two halves the diagonals were then marked off and vertical lines drawn through the points where the diagonals
62
crossed. This procedure was then repeated, i.e. new diagonals and vertical lines were drawn within the four squares. The result was a surface that was divided by seven vertical and three horizontal lines, which means that it was divided into eight by four rectangles.152 It is not unlikely that a grid was used to help transfer the composition to the surface of our sarcophagus. If we make such a grid and place it over a photo of the decoration, we see that such a division of the surface would have been useful. To the left of the central vertical line, the three vertical lines go through the trees. On the right side one vertical line goes through the middle of the philosophers folding chair, the next line follows the outside of the Good Shepherds left thigh and leg, and the last one goes through the Baptists nose, down through his right thigh and leg. As for the three horizontal lines, the centre one goes through the hips of the orant and the Good Shepherd and just below the hip of the Baptist who stands on a landscape ledge a little above the base line. The lower line goes just below the knees of these figures, while the top one passes through their shoulders and through the landscape ledge with the three animals. We are left with the impression that all the lines and squares would have facilitated a correct placing of the figures on the surface of the sarcophagus (Fig. 13). As we see, the trees are carefully placed. It is not unusual in Roman art to make use of trees to separate scenes. We see this, e.g., on the column of Trajan; and if we go back in time to Etruscan art, we have examples of trees being placed between figures in tombs at Tarquina, e.g. the tomb of Leopards and the tomb of the Triclinium.153 On the Santa Maria Antiqua sarcophagus the trees are evenly distributed over the surface and would have been an additional aid for the sculptor in placing the figures. By means of such simple devices an experienced sculptor probably had no difficulties sketching the composition on the surface of the sarcophagus. A substantial number of sarcophagi must have been destroyed over the years, and we shall never know how original the composition on the Santa Maria Antiqua was at the time it was made, but based on what we have preserved, it is safe to say that here is a composition with many familiar elements combined in a new way. We shall look at what is
63
characteristic for the composition and start with how the sculptor has created a sense of space and depth. The trees clearly serve more than one purpose, e.g., separating the scenes and creating a bucolic atmosphere as well as enlivening the empty background plane and conveying an impression of some depth. A certain sense of space and depth has also been achieved by making use of overlapping and by carving the figures in high relief. Several overlapping layers of relief can be observed in the composition. This is particularly noticeable in the Jonah motif, where from the front to the back plane our eyes move from Jonah to ketos, to the ship and then on to the landscape ledge, to the tree behind the ledge and finally to the back plane. The hanging gourds which have disappeared, would probably have strengthened the impression of space. What Rogers says about the figures on Greek reliefs also holds true for the relief on our sarcophagus: the figures exist in front of or against their background and have a high degree of autonomy as forms. All the figures on this type of relief stand on a shallow platform or protruding ledge, and occupy the space between a solid back plane and an implied front plane which is identical with the front of the block of stone they were cut from.154 No attempt has been made to create a greater sense of depth. There is enough of the solid back plane visible to convey the impression of a narrow stage. The figures come towards us rather than recede into the background. The viewer is meant to concentrate his attention on the scenes and figures in the front plane, and on this narrow stage the sculptor has managed to make the figures come alive. They seem to have air and space to move in, and the whole composition is drawn together into a harmonious whole. As for scale, we observe that it is not uniform; but this is not disturbing as the scale used in each scene seems perfectly natural for the figures in that scene. Early Christian art was a symbolic, not an illusionistic or narrative art. The viewer has to know the symbolic pictorial language to be able to read the motifs. It is therefore important that each motif and element in it is clearly portrayed. And we, as viewers, seem to accept
64
without difficulty that Jonah is portrayed as larger than the seamonster that swallowed him and that the seated philosopher takes up as much vertical space as the standing figures. Each scene appears to have a logical scale except for the baptism scene where Jesus is portrayed as a naked young boy. This is puzzling to a modern viewer and will be discussed in Part II where the scene will be analyzed. The human figures which are carved in high relief on the Santa Maria Antiqua decoration are well made. The Good Shepherd, the Baptist, and the two fishermen are portrayed as strong and muscular; but both the Good Shepherd and the Baptist appear at the same time to be sturdy and stocky. The scale of the orant is correct for the space available to her. The Good Shepherd and in particular the Baptist have less vertical space available to them; and this gives them a somewhat compressed look. It has apparently been important that these three figures should be portrayed on about the same scale, and this obliged the artisan to make a compromise. The result is a composition that gives a balanced and harmonious impression in spite of the compressed look of these two figures. What this composition has in common with other Roman sarcophagus decorations is frontality, parataxis, isocephalism, and a lack of uniform scale. Such compositions place the most important figure(s) or scene in the center and the least important on the sides. Our composition has the orant and philosopher figures placed on either side of the vertical central axis, and we sense that the seated figure is the dominant one. As we saw in the description of the decoration, the Santa Maria Antiqua composition can be grouped with a few other compositions which share the three motifs: orantphilosopherGood Shepherd. In order to discover what other sarcophagus compositions this one has anything in common with, we have to find characteristic compositional criteria to record in our database, e.g. that it has a frieze decoration, that the scenes are separated by trees and the figures placed on a base line, that there is use of overlapping and lack of a uniform scale, that there is use of landscape ledges, etc. All the figures and elements of the composition should be recorded. When such compositional criteria from many sarcophagi are carefully entered into the
65
database, it will eventually be possible to employ a computer program to tell which compositions show, e.g. landscape ledges, which show the combination orantGood Shepherd or, say, the combination shipketosJonah. The researcher will be able to ask for any combination of interest for a particular study. This will greatly facilitate the task of classifying the many sarcophagus compositions. As for our sarcophagus, once we have it grouped compositionally with other sarcophagi, we can search the database to find what sarcophagi in the group are made from the same marble and exhibit common technical and stylistic criteria and thereby gain information about workshop association. We have arrived at another important question concerning the sarcophagus decorations. What models did the workshops make use of for the large number of decorations they made?
PrototypesModels It is noticeable how often the research literature about Roman art raises the question of prototypes or models. There seems to be an underlying assumption that any Roman painting, sculpture in the round, or relief sculpture is either a copy or an adaptation of a classical Greek or Hellenistic work of high quality. It is a well-known fact that the Romans admired Greek art which they became acquainted with mostly through Hellenistic art, and many wealthy Romans wanted to surround themselves with copies of famous Greek sculptures. But that does not mean that Roman artists and artisans were incapable of being creative and producing work of high quality. Artists everywhere have always been inspired and influenced by the art they encounter in their surroundings. But when we are looking for prototypes and models, we should be aware that how an artisan finds them is a varied and often complex process, parallel to the one we discussed under style. And it may be useful to remind ourselves of how students of art today learn their trade in art schools and academies. They have teachers and study models, live models as well as plaster casts of famous works of art. As for artisans, they have for centuries learned their trade from a master in a workshop. In a Roman sculptors workshop there would have been craftsmen with different levels of skill, with the head of the workshop
66
responsible for their training. During long years as an apprentice in a workshop a sculptor could have developed his own special skill, and he might have turned out to be both creative and innovative and one day have become the master of his own workshop. There is no reason why there should have been any lack of talented and skillful artists and craftsmen in Rome during the Empire. In the first centuries BC and AD when classical Greek and Hellenistic art flowed into Rome and many skilled Greek artists worked in the city, there must have been a very active artistic milieu in Rome, and many artisans would have received their training in the workshops. Rome must have been a melting pot of people with different artistic backgrounds and training. It is not strange that this should result in an art which is complex and eclectic and influenced by many factors. Many scholars seem to be unaware of how artists and craftsmen learn their trade. This might explain why hypotheses about models, such as Weitzmanns theory of illustrated books and Schefold and other scholars theories of picture books and pattern books have become so generally accepted.155 Weitzmanns hypothesis is based on a conviction that the mythological scenes on pagan sarcophagi and on any other medium were modelled on Greek illustrated texts on papyrus rolls. Since he has to admit that we have hardly any material preserved that could substantiate such a hypothesis, it is surprising that many scholars have accepted it so readily. Bandinelli, on the other hand, in his discussion of wall decorations in Roman houses says, It is yet not possible to give a precise account of the origins and development of the typical wall-decoration of Roman houses. Its constituent elements have been unanimously recognized as Hellenistic; but the destruction of walldecorations in Hellenistic towns has been so complete that we cannot tell how far the painters who introduced this fashion into Rome were breaking new ground, nor from which Hellenistic centers they came. ..., it is clear that, once introduced, these decorative patterns developed within the context of Roman culture (p. 129). Bandinelli describes a painted frieze which he thinks has an unusual theme. He discusses this frieze and finds that in this particular case one should consider the
67
possibility that the theme could have come from an illustrated papyrus text.156 Contrary to Weitzmann, Bandinelli searches for possible sources, models and influences when he studies the Roman wall paintings, but makes it clear that our knowledge of wall painting is too inadequate to be able to explain the whole process from planning to finishing a painting. Both Weitzmann and Kessler are of the opinion that since Christianity is a book religion, it was inevitable that Christian art started as a book art. Themes drawn from the Bible were illustrated in many media; most characteristic was the illuminated manuscript. ... Jews had applied the papyrus style technique of illustration to the biblical text; illustrated Jewish books furnished part of the inheritance of Early Christian artists. ... Because they accomodated a wealth of pictures in a compact form, illustrated books must have been especially popular during the centuries of persecution.157 Kessler thinks the artists translated book illustrations into other media where they transformed the style, configuration and iconography. This, too, is an hypothesis which cannot be substantiated since the oldest preserved illustrated Hebrew Bible manuscript is dated AD 895, 158 and according to Diringer the oldest preserved illustrated Latin Bible stems from Carolingian times. He gives the following tentative explanation for why there are so few preserved Roman manuscripts, The genius of Roman art was an art of display, expressed chiefly by statuary, architecture, fresco painting, triumphal arches, splendid tombs, ... so that comparatively little effort may have been expended on the detailed work of enrichment of books (p. 31).159 However, Diringer shows that there is sufficient documentation to show that in GrecoRoman times many texts, literary and scientific, were illustrated. The question is what influence such illustrations had on art in other media. As long as scholars are unable to document that such illustrations served as prototypes, the book illustration hypothesis is one which remains unconvincing and unlikely. What has been said about the book-illustration hypothesis, also goes for Schefolds Bilderbcher hypothesis. Froning is sceptical to the idea of picture books and argues that if such books were in common use, it is strange that no examples
68
have survived, considering that they would have been made of parchment which is quite durable.160 A preliminary report of a very interesting, privately owned papyrus roll from Antaiupolis in Upper Egypt, was published in 1998. The roll is 250 cm long and up to 32.5 cm high, Sie enthlt auf dem Recto den Anfang einer mit einer Landkarte illustrierte Prachtausgabe eines geographischen Fachbuches, einen Teil eines Skizzenbuches mit Studien von menschlichen Kpfen und Krperteilen und auf dem Verso ein Musterbuch mit Zeichnungen von Tieren. Diese Teile sind in verschiedenen Phasen von verschiedenen Personen angebracht worden, vielleicht auch zu verschiedenen Zwecken; die kunstvolle Gestaltung weist jedenfalls darauf hin, dass die Rolle in einem Atelier fr wissenschaftliche und knstlerische Zeichnungen bearbeitet worden ist (p. 189). There is no date on the roll which seems to have been worked on during the first century BC and AD. At the outset it was intended to be a scientific geographic work with text and maps, but it was never finished. During reuse of the roll the blank verso was filled with sketches, mit Tieren aller Art, Vgeln, Sagetieren, Amphibien und Fischen, ... Das umfangreiche Skizzenbuch scheint eine Art Katalog von Tieren darzustellen, die dazu bestimmt waren, auf einem Wandgemlde oder einem Mosaik dargestellt zu werden. Dazu passt, dass, ebenso wie auf vielen Mosaiken, fast allen Tieren Namen beigegeben sind. ... Die hervorragende Ausfhrung spricht dafr, dass die Skizzen vom Meister selbst als Muster gezeichnet wurden (pp. 201203). The papyrus roll also contains sketches of heads, hand and feet which seem to be drawings made by apprentices.161 Here, for the first time it seems, we have a concrete proof of how a workshop worked with sketches before starting the work itself. What we see is not a Bilderbuch, but a practical sketchbook for use in one or, over time, different workshops. This shows that workshops probably economized by trying to get hold of used papyrus that had an empty verso which the master and his apprentices could use for their drawings.
69
In 1979 Gabelmann wrote that sarcophagus researchers had to abandon Weitzmanns theory because many sarcophagus compositions showed versions of myths different from those found in literature. It seems, he says, that the decorations were influenced by motifs on wall paintings, vases, gems, lamps and in particular decorated silver artifacts.162 Froning argues convincingly against Weitzmanns theory. In his opinion, panel paintings might have been a source for models. The wall paintings, on the other hand, he does not think could have had much influence on the sarcophagus decorations, and he states why, Diese Bilder sind der Form nach Mythenbilder, doch sie haben, wenigstens zum Teil, den konkreten Bezug zum mythischen Geschehen weitgehend verloren.163 But here we should be aware that the majority of sarcophagus decorations were made in the second, third and fourth centuries and that by then panel-painting, i.e. portable pictures painted on wooden panels, was evidently of minor importance. Ling refers to Pliny the Elder who, writing in AD 79, bemoans the contemporary fashion for painting walls and praises the wisdom of earlier times in prizing panels, which made an artist the common property of the world.164 Studies have demonstrated that literature and painting did not show any mutual influence during the first century AD; what is observed is that Greek mythology was the source of inspiration for both poets and painters. Sacro-idyllic landscape scenes are seen in Pompeian wall paintings, but are not directly influenced by Vergils Eclogues. In Roman painting from the first century AD we do not find any historical scenes, and there is not much that is disturbing or provocative. Private people had their mansions and houses decorated in order to advertise their taste and wealth. Greek themes were chosen because they were prestigous; the Romans wanted to emulate the Greeks.165 In looking for where the sculptors found models and inspiration for their sarcophagus decorations, we must keep in mind both artistic traditions and oral tradition and not be too tied to literature. Art has its own existence, and so does oral tradition.
70
In an article about Greek myths in Etruscan art Schauenberg asks how the myths were conveyed to the Etruscans and says this touches on the old problem of Bild und Lied. He is of the opinion that the Etruscan artists picked up the myths and mythological motifs by seeing them represented on Greek vases and on various decorated minor art objects, as well as by talking to Greek artists.166 A decade later we see that both Gabelmann and Froning reason in a similar way. They both conclude that decorated silver vessels could have played an important role in conveying motifs which originally perhaps appeared on Greek panel-paintings. Froning actually gives several examples of sarcophagus motifs which can be traced back to decoration on silver objects. Da man an dem erhaltenen Material enge ikonographische Beziehungen zwischen spthellenistischen bis frhkaiser-zeitlichen Werken der Toreutik und den in der mittleren Kaiserzeit einsetzenden mythologischen Sarkophagen nachweisen kann, muss untersucht werden, ob die toreutischen Werke als direkte Vermittler des Bildrepertoires an die Sarkophag Werksttten in Frage kommen.167 Froning thinks the motifs on the toreutic works were used as models for decorations on pottery. Arretine relief pottery did make use of toreutic models, but the production of this pottery ceased before the larger production of sarcophagi started in the second century AD. Another source for motifs could have been the many decorated Roman clay lamps; and the cinerary chests and urns as well as tomb altars from the centuries before burial in sarcophagi became the fashion would surely have been a source for both inspiration and motifs. All the larger archaeological museums have collections of ancient positive plaster casts of kostbaren Metallgefssen which served as models for artists. Froning gives as an example a silver vessel from the time of Augustus as well as a plaster cast and a sarcophagus from the time of the Antonines (138193), all showing the same motif. And he refers to important finds of plaster casts made in Egypt and Afghanistan of Greek and Roman toreutic works. On the casts found in Afghanistan there are several
71
motifs which correspond to motifs found on sarcophagi. Written sources confirm that casts were made of famous toreutic originals in order to make copies.168 In Baiae about 15 km north of Naples, a fashionable seaside resort during the first two centuries AD, 450 plaster cast fragments of Greek statuary from different periods were found in a 4 x 6 m large cellar-room of a bath where they formed part of the fill in the room. The studies of this find have yielded important results. Landwehr writes, Durch den Gipsfund von Baiae sind wahrscheinlich zum ersten Mal antike Gipsabgsse grossplastischer Werke ans Licht gekommen (p. 12). She emphasizes that no negative forms have been found in Baiae and that the plaster casts were not made in the area around Baiae, but were imported. Her theory is that the negative plaster cast forms, which consisted of many parts, had to be made where the original statues were placed, and that the workshops that made the negative forms also made series of plaster casts of bronze statues and distributed them to the various workshops where marble copies were made. She thinks that a workshop for making marble copies existed in Baiae because copies of high quality have been found in the vicinity. The researchers studying the fragments have been able to identify with great certainty twelve statues, and an additional twelve have been suggested. Their studies also reveal that the majority of the copies of Greek bronze statues were not exact copies but works adapted to marble, as well as to the taste of the Roman patron. In other words, the Romans were not interested in making exact copies; they wanted Greek statues adapted to their taste.169 The publication of the fragments found in Baiae confirm what other studies have revealed about how Roman artisans worked; if they made use of models, these were as a rule remodelled to a certain degree, especially in details like hair and face, to satisfy the Roman taste. But how much did the Roman artisans actually make use of plaster cast models? In her discussion of negative forms Landwehr observes that relatively few of the large number of Greek statues were copied by the Romans. In her view the reason for this may have been the cost of making negative forms and the fact that, with few exceptions, only bronze statues were copied. Modern experiments have shown that making negative casts of marble works destroys the marble surface. The
72
Greeks and Romans probably had the same experience; and since we know that marble statues and reliefs were painted, it is not surprising that we have no indication that negative forms were made of marble works.170 So if we assume that, as a rule, negative forms were made from works of metal, it is unlikely that workshops making sarcophagus decorations had a selection of larger plaster casts at hand as models. If they did make use of plaster cast models, it was probably the kind of casts of toreutic works mentioned above. But artists and craftsmen in a place like Rome would have had no difficulty finding models for scenes and figures. They lived and worked in a society where art was used both for propaganda and pleasure as well as much of it being functional. Both patrons and artisans must have been quite familiar with a number of motifs and might have taken delight in creating their own versions of a popular motif as well as in creating new ones. In a world without film and photography people would perhaps have observed and remembered motifs more keenly than we do today. In Porphyrys Life of Plotinos 1 we are told that the philosopher Plotinos (ca. A.D. 205270) did not wish to submit himself to being a subject for a painter or sculptor. The sculptor Amelius asked him to permit his portrait to be made, but Plotinos refused to pose. Amelius friend, the painter Karterios, then went to Plotinos philosophical gatherings. From seeing Plotinos frequently he became accustomed to visualizing more and more striking likenesses of him, owing to his increasingly accurate observation. Finally Karterios drew the portrait from the mental image which had been impressed on his mind, and Amelius corrected the first sketch to an even more exact likeness. Thus the natural talent of Karterios provided a portrait of Plotinos, although he [Plotinos] knew nothing of the likeness.171 This is instructive information and illustrates well how capable experienced artists were, and it reminds us that on many occasions artists may also have made use of live models for their painted or sculptured figures. There is no reason to suppose that trained artisans were dependent on plaster models they could copy. Most likely they painted or carved the various popular motifs their patrons wanted and which they knew well and consciously or unconsciously remodeled to fit the material and composition they
73
worked on.172 An inscription from the second century AD on the tomb of the Zenon family that lived in Rome gives a clear picture of the pride the Greek sculptor Zenon took in his work. Of me, Zenon, the most blessed fatherland is Aphrodisias. I have visited many cities, depending on my skill ... I built this tomb, and put up this grave-stone for my son Zenon who has just died; I myself cut the stone and carved the relief, achieving this remarkable work with my own hands, and within I constructed a tomb for my wife and all our descendants.173 As for pre-Constantinian Christian art, it seems certain that this was developed in pagan workshops using pagan models. It is only through detailed studies of the figures and motifs that researchers can hope to get an insight into how Christian art developed. In the light of the studies that have already been carried out, we can see that at the outset Christian art made use of neutral motifs. On the pagan sarcophagus decorations there were figures and motifs which the Christians could make use of without difficulty for their own decorations by rearranging the various elements in order to create a Christian motif. Huskinson gives an interesting example of such a process. She has studied the Orpheus motif and points out that Orpheus in pagan art is portrayed surrounded by wild animals. In some of the early Christian decorations in the Callistus, Priscilla, and Peter and Marcellinus catacombs and on sarcophagi, tame animals, such as lamb and doves, replace wild ones. The Orpheus motif has been Christianized, Orpheus becoming a Christ figure and the lamb and doves symbolizing Christian souls.174 In Part II, the iconographical analysis of the decoration on the Santa Maria Antiqua sarcophagus, we shall look for prototypes and models for the motifs on that sarcophagus decoration.
In summing up what the first part of our analysis has revealed about our present knowledge of the Santa Maria Antiqua sarcophagus, it is evident that as far as the preiconographical analysis is concerned, we have little information about both this and the other preserved sarcophagi. We have seen that the chronology of the Roman sarcophagi, both pagan and Christian, stands on a shaky foundation and that a new approach to the
74
question of chronology is required. In the absence of a more reliable relative chronology it will not be possible to analyze the Santa Maria Antiqua sarcophagus without making many reservations. We have further seen that researchers have not made any serious efforts to learn more about the workshop situation in Rome and have shown very little interest in the technical aspects of the sarcophagus decorations. This has resulted in a mixing of technical and stylistic criteria. Most of the researchers have been occupied with iconographical questions, relying on the chronology that has been worked out by others who have studied development of style and have attempted to date the various sarcophagus decorations by means of style and portraits. The research literature shows no sign of serious discussions of these methods; the majority of the researchers in this field seem to accept the traditional working methods. The overall picture is one of a research field in need of new approaches to the unsolved problems the researchers are facing, particularly those of chronology, of the association of sarcophagus and workshop, and of technique and style.
W. Elliger, Die Stellung der alten Christen zu den Bildern in den ersten vier
Jahrhunderten, Leipzig 1930; H. A. Sttzer, Frhchristliche Kunst in Rom. Ursprung christlich-europischer Kunst, Kln 1991.
2
Sister Charles Murray, Art and the early church, Journal of Theological Studies,
N.S. XXVIII, Pt. 2 (1977), 303345; H.-W. Bartsch, Das alttestamentliche Bilderverbot und die frhchristliche Verwendung des Bildes im Wort und in den Anfngen christlicher Kunst, Symbolon 6 (1968), 150162; P.C. Finney, Antecedents of Byzantine Iconoclasm: Christian Evidence before Constantine, in: J. Gutman (ed.), The Image and the Word. Confrontations in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Missoula, Montana 1977, 2748.
3
R. Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians, San Francisco 1988, 745 n. 70. P.C. Finney, The invisible God : The earliest Christians on art, New York, Oxford
1994, xii, 5, 710.

5
F.X. Kraus, Geschichte der christlichen Kunst, 2. Bind, Freiburg im Breisgau 1896,
75
5863.
6
J. Gutmann (ed.), No graven images : studies in art and the Hebrew Bible, New York
1971, IL, 116; S. Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm and the Failure of a Medieval Reformation, in: J. Gutmann (ed.), The Image and the Word, op.cit. (n.2), 50.
7
K. Schubert, Das Problem der Entstehung einer jdischen Kunst im Lichte der
literarischen Quellen des Judentums, KAIROS 16 (1974), 115; R. Hachlili, Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology in the Diaspora, Leiden-Boston-Kln 1998, 237238.
8
H. Schreckenberg and K. Schubert, Jewish historiography and iconography in Early
and Medieval Christianity, Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, Section III, Assen/Maastricht, Minneapolis 1992, 147161.
9
A. Konikoff, Sarcophagi from the Jewish catacombs of ancient Rome. A catalogue
raisonne, Stuttgart 1986; See also: L. M. White, Building Gods house in the Roman world, Baltimore and London, 1990, 6064, 7477, 9397; R. Doran, Birth of a worldview. Early Christianity in its Jewish and pagan context, Boulder, San Francisco, Oxford 1995, 5253; R. Hachlili, op.cit. (n. 7), 285291.
10
L.V. Rutgers, The Jews in late ancient Rome : evidence of cultural interaction in the
Roman diaspora, Leiden, New York, Kln, 1995, 4044.

11
E.R. Dodds, Pagan and Christian in an age of anxiety, Cambridge 1968, 105ff; W.
Frend, The Early Church, London 1971, 2126, 69ff; S. Benko, Pagan Rome and the Early Christians, Bloomington 1986.
12
P.C. Finney, op.cit. (n. 4), 73, 7981. H.A. Sttzer, Die Kunst der rmischen Katakomben, Cologne 1983, 7; J.N.D. Kelly,
13
Early christian Doctrines, London 1985, 459489; L.M. White, op.cit. (n. 9), 140; R. Doran, op.cit. (n. 9), 65, 80.
14
W. Frend, op.cit. (n. 11), 7375; S. Benko, op.cit. (n. 11), 147158. W. Frend, op.cit. (n. 11), 6972, 84; R. Lane Fox, op.cit. (n. 3), 266ff. L. M. White, op.cit. (n. 9), 1725, 111123; H. Torp, Europas kunst i tidlig
15
16
middelalder : den kristne kunst oppstr, in: Vr Kulturarv II, Copenhagen 1963,
76
309310; F. W. Deichmann, Einfhrung in die christliche Archologie, Darmstadt 1983, 6874; H. A. Sttzer, op.cit. (n. 1), 67; P.C. Finney, op.cit. (n. 4), 132.
17
L. Eizenhoefer, Die Siegelbildvorschlge des Clemens von Alexandrien und die
lteste christliche Literatur, JbAChr. 3 (1960), 5169; P.C. Finney, op.cit. (n. 2), 3840; P.C. Finney, op.cit. (n. 4), 111132, 287.
18
M. Pfanner, ber das Herstellen von Portrts. Ein Beitrag zu
Rationalisierungsmassnahmen und Produktionsmechanismen von Massenware in spten Hellenismus und in der rmischen Kaiserzeit, JDI 104 (1989), 157257. Hippolytus and Tertullian, both writing in the early third century, make statements about what occupations Christians can have, and Tertullian is very clear about what kind of work craftsmen, painters and sculptors can do, see: P. Guyot and R. Klein, Das frhe Christentum bis zum Ende der Verfolgungen: eine Dokumentation, Band 2: Die Christen in der Heidnischen Gesellschaft, Darmstadt 1997, 3543, 261266.
19
Passio IV Coronatorum, in: H. Delehaye, Les passions des martyrs et les genres
littraires (Subsidia Hagiographia, no. 13 B), Brussels 1966, 236246; A. Burford, Craftsmen in Greek and Roman society, London 1972, 7677.
20
G. Koch and H. Sichtermann, Rmische Sarkophage, Mnchen 1982, 85, Fig. 66/67;
G. Koch, Sarkophage der rmischen Kaiserzeit, Darmstadt 1993, 3740; S. Walker, Memorials to the Roman dead, London 1985, 31.
21
A.D. Nock, Sarcophagi and Symbolism, AJA 50 (1946), 150; H. von
Schoenebeck, Altchristliche Grabdenkmler und antike Grabgebruche in Rom, ArchivRel 34 (1937), 64; W. N. Schumacher, Zur Frage nach dem Ursprung des Hirtenbildes auf rmischen Sarkophagen, StAC 32 (1978), 496505; H. Brandenburg, berlegungen zum Ursprung der frhchristlichen Bildkunst, Studi di Antichita Cristiana XXXII, Atti del IX Congresso Internazionale de archeologia cristiana, Roma 2127 settembre 1975, Vol. I: I monumenti cristiani preconstantini, Citta del Vaticano 1978, 331360; N. Himmelmann, ber Hirten-Genre in der antiken Kunst, Rheinischwestflische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Band 65, 1980.
77
22
H. Torp, op.cit. (n. 16), 310311; L. M. White, op.cit. (n. 9), 7, 2125, 110116,
120123.
23
J. Fink, Die rmischen Katakomben, Antike Welt 9: Sondernummer, Zrich 1978,
30.
24
M. Guarducci, Die Ausgrabungen unter St. Peter, in: R. Klein, (herausgegeben
von), Das frhe Christentum im rmischen Staat, Darmstadt 1971, 364414; H.A. Sttzer, op.cit. (n. 1), 8284, 8796; P.C. Finney, op.cit. (n. 4), 231245.
25
J. Fink, op.cit. (n. 23), 125; J. Stevenson, The Catacombs. Rediscovered
monuments of early Christianity, London 1978, 740; J. Fink and B. Asamer, Die Rmischen Katakomben, Mainz am Rhein, 1997, 25
26
L. Reekmans, La chronologie de la peinture palochrtienne. Notes et rflexions,
RACrist 49 (1973), 271291.

27
L. Reekmans, Zur Problematik der rmischen Katakombenforschung, Boreas 7
(1984), 242260.
28
P.A. Fvrier, A propos de la date des peintures des catacombes romaines,
RAChrist 65 (1989), 105133; J.G. Deckers, Wie genau ist eine Katakombe zu datieren? Das Beispiel SS Marcellino e Pietro, in: Memoriam Sanctorum Venerantes, FS Saxer (Studi di antichita cristiana 48), Roma 1992, 217238.
29
H. Brandenburg, op.cit. (n. 21), 331360. Ibid., 342343; F. W. Deichmann, op.cit. (n. 16), 119120. L.V. Rutgers, berlegungen zu den jdischen Katakomben Roms, JbAChr 33
30
31
(1990), 140158.
32
E. Weigand, Die sptantike Sarkophagskulptur im Lichte neuerer Forschungen,
ByzZ (1941), Teil 2, 414425; J. Fink, Mythologische und biblische Themen in der Sarkophagplastik des 3. Jahrhunderts, RACrist 27 (1951), 167190.
33
L.V. Rutgers, op.cit. (n. 10), 77.
78
34
C.M. Kaufmann, Handbuch der altchristlichen Epigraphik, Freiburg im Breisgau
1917, 5758; G. F. Snyder, ANTE PACEM : Archaeological evidence of Church life before Constantine, Mercer Univ. Press 1985, 121122.
35
F.W. Deichmann, (herausgegeben von), Bearbeitet von G. Bovini und H.
Brandenburg, Repertorium der christlich-antiken Sarkophage, erster Band: Rom und Ostia, Wiesbaden 1967.
36
G. Koch, op.cit. (n. 20), 58, 91; R. Turcan, Les sarcophages romains a
representations Dionysiaques. Essai de chronologie et dhistoire religieuse, Paris, 1966, 21.

37
G. Koch, op cit. (n. 20), 4950; J.B. Ward-Perkins, Workshops and clients : the
Dionysiac sarcophagi in Baltimore, RendPontAcc 48 (1975/76), 191.

38
F. Matz, Die Dionysischen Sarkophage, Die antiken Sarkophagreliefs, Vierter
Band: erster Teil, Deutsches archologisches Institut, Berlin 1968, XIX.

39
B. Andreae and H. Jung, Vorlufige tabellarische bersicht ber die Zeitstellung
und Werkstattzugehrigkeit von 250 Prunksarkophagen des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr., Archologischer Anzeiger, Heft 3 (Zweites Symposium ber die antiken Sarkophagreliefs), (1977), 432436.
40
H. Jung, Zum Reliefstil der Stadtrmischen Sarkophage des frhen 3. Jahrhunderts
n. Chr., JdI 93 (1978), 328368.

41
G. Koch und H. Sichtermann, op.cit. (n. 20), 252. G. Koch, op.cit. (n. 20), 91. J.B. Ward-Perkins, op.cit. (n. 37), 203. M. Lawrence, Ships, Monsters and Jonah, AJA 66 (1962) 289296. R. Turcan, op.cit. (n. 36), 9698; M. Wegner, Bildniskunde rmischer Herrscher,
42
43
44
45
in: ANRW II:12:2, Berlin, New York 1981, 646666; L. Breglia, Roman Imperial Coins, their Art and Technique, London 1968, 3032.
46
G. Koch, op.cit. (n. 20), 9192; B. Andreae, G. Oehlschlegel and K. Weber,
Zusammenfgung der Fragmente eines Meleagersarkophags, JDAI 87 (1972), 431.
79
47
R.R.R. Smith, Roman portraits: honours, empresses, and late emperors, JRS 75
(1985), 209221, 215216; S. Wood, Roman portrait sculpture 217260 A.D., Leiden 1986, 180ff.
48
B. Andreae, Studien zur rmischen Grabkunst, MdI, Rmische Abteilung. Neuntes
Ergnzungsheft, Heidelberg 1963, 1625.

49
M. Wegner, Die Musensarkophage, Die Antiken Sarkophagreliefs, Band 5, Teil 3,
Berlin 1966, 148149.

50
K. Fittschen, Max Wegner: Die Musensarkophage. Berlin: Mann 1966, Gnomon
44 (1977), 486504, pp. 489491, 504. In 1978 he reviews another book by Wegner and strongly opposes Wegners research methods: Er wirft die Forschungen um 40 Jahre, nmlich hinter die grundlegenden Studien von H.P. LOrange zurck (p. 150), K. Fittschen, H.B. Wiggers, Caracalla, Geta, PlautillaM. Wegner, Macrinus bis Balbinus, Berlin 1971, in: Gttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen 230 (1978), 133153.
51
H. Jung, Zum Reliefstil der Stadtrmischen Sarkophage des frhen 3. Jahrhunderts
n. Chr., JdI 93 (1978), 328368.

52
E. von Reschke, Rmische Sarkophagkunst zwischen Gallienus und Konstantin,
in: F. Altheim und R. Stiehl, Die Araber in der alten Welt, Dritter Band: 12 Kap., Berlin 1966, 307419.
53
B. Andreae, Zur Sarkophagchronologie in 3. Jahrhundert, JbAChr 13 (1970),
8388.
54
M.D. Fullerton, The archaistic style in Roman statuary, Mnemosyne, Leiden, 1990,
190.
55
D. Stutzinger, Die frhchristlichen Sarkophagreliefs aus Rom : Untersuchungen zur
Formvernderung im 4. Jahrhundert n.Chr., Habelts Dissertationsdrucke : Reihe klassische Archologie, Heft 16, Bonn 1982.
56
W.W. Taylor, A study in archeology, London 1971, 120122; M. Johnson,
Archaeological Theory: An Introduction, London 1999.

57
O. Marucchi, Di un pregevole monumento di antica scultura cristiana rinvenuto
80
negli scavi del foro romano, NuovoBulldiArchcristiana 7 (1901), 206216; O. Marucchi, Di un importante sarcofago cristiano rinvenuto nella chiesa di s. Maria Antiqua, nel Foro romano, AttiaccLinc 298 (1901) 272278, Roma 1903.
58
The sarcophagus is today placed in the church of Santa Maria Antiqua in the Forum
Romanum, but the church is not open to the general public. For black-white photographs of the sarcophagus, see: J. Engemann, Untersuchungen zur Sepulkralsymbolik der spteren rmischen Kaiserzeit, JbAC Ergnzungzband 2, Mnster, Westfalen, 1973, Tafel 29 and 30; Repertorium, op.cit. (n. 35), Tafel 117, nos. 747,1, 2 and 3; W.M. Pierce, Santa Maria Antiqua-sarkofagen. Tidligkristne motivhedenske forbilder, in: i H.P. LORANGES fotspor, Forskning ved Det norske institutt i Roma, Oslo 1996, 137. The negatives belong to the German institute in Rome: Inst. Neg. DAI Rom, 59.421 (front), 59.422 (right side) and 59.423 (left side).
59
H. von Schoenebeck, op.cit. (n. 21), 65. G. P. Kirsch, The catacombs of Rome, Rome 1972, 30. E. Simon, Ein sptgallienischen Kindersarkophag mit Eberjagd, JdI 85 (1970),
60
61
194223; W.N. Schumacher, Hirt und Guter Hirt, Rmische Quartalschrift 34. Supplementheft, RomFreiburgWien 1977, 60.
62
Repertorium, op.cit. (n. 35), 306307. L. Casson, Ships and seamanship in the ancient world, Princeton 1971; L. Casson,
63
in: C. Roebuck (ed.), The Muses at work: arts, crafts, and professions in ancient Greece and Rome, Chap. 7, Cambridge/Mass., London 1969, 184201. A fine example of such a ship can be seen in National Geographic, vol. 192, no. 1, july 1997, 21, on a photograph of a tomb decoration on display in Museo Archeologico di Ostia.
64
M. J. Cary and T. J. Haarhoff, Life and thought in the Greek and Roman world,
London 1968, 135.

65
Oxford Latin Dictionary, ed. P.G.W. Glare, fascicle VIII, Oxford 1982, 1842; S.
Sande, Thats Entertainment. Athletics, Mime, and Theatre in the Piazza Armerina Villa, in: Institutum Romanum Norvegiae, Acta, ser. alt. XI, 1999, 4162.
81
66
Reproduced in: F. Gerke, Die christlichen Sarkophage der vorkonstantinischen Zeit,
Berlin 1940, Tafel 51.

67
Ibid. Tafel 52. Ibid., Tafel 51; Repertorium, op.cit. (n. 35), no. 66.2; W.M. Pierce, op.cit. (n. 58),
68
140.
69
H. Dtschke, Ravennatische Studien, Leipzig 1909, 145. F. Gerke, op.cit. (n. 66), 244250. G. Koch and H. Sichtermann, op.cit. (n. 20), 21. J. Ward-Perkins, op.cit. (n. 37), 233234. S. Walker, Aspects of Roman funerary art, in: P. Zanker, Image and mystery in the
70
71
72
73
Roman world, Three papers given in memory of J. Toynbee, Gloucester, 1988, 30; S. Walker and K. Matthews, Recent work in stable isotope analysis of white marble at the British Museum, in: J.C. Fant (ed.), Ancient marble quarrying and trade, BAR International Series 453 (1988), 117125.
74
L. Manfra, U. Masi and B. Turi, Carbon and oxygen isotope ratios of marbles from
some ancient quarries of western Anatolia and their archaeological significance, Archaeometry 17, 2 (1975), 215221; N. Herz and M. Waelkens (ed.), Classical Marble: Geochemistry, Technology, Trade, NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Marble in Ancient Greece and Rome ..., Lucca, 1988; L. Moens, P. De Paepe and M. Waelkens, Multidisciplinary research and cooperation: keys to a successful provenance determination of white marble, in: M. Waelkens et al. (eds.), Ancient stones: Quarrying, trade and Provenance, Leuven 1992, 247252.
75
L. Stowell Pearson and N. Herz, Isotopic analysis of a group of Roman Gorgon
sarcophagi, in: Ancient stones, op.cit. (n. 74), 283286.

76
J. B. Ward-Perkins, op.cit. (n. 37), 204. J. B. Ward-Perkins, The role of the craftmanship in the formation of early Christian
77
art, Studi di Antichita Cristiana XXXII, Vol. 1 (1978), 637652.

78
L. Moens et al., Provenance determination of white marble sculptures from the
82
Allard Pierson Museum in Amsterdam, based on chemical, microscopic and isotopic criteria, in: Ancient stones, op.cit. (n. 74), 255262, 269-276; See also: P. De Paepe et al., An analytical investigation of white marble sculptures from the Basel Museum of Ancient Art and Ludwig Collection, Switzerland, in: Ancient Stones, op.cit. (n. 74), 255-262.
79
[Fiehn.], Steinbruch, PWRE (= Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopdie der
klassischen Altertumswissenschaft), Neue Bearbeitung begonnen von G. Wissova, Zweite Reihe (R-Z), Dritter Band (1929), 22792280; [Orth.], Bergbau, PWRE, Suppl. 4 (1924), 152155; J.B. Ward-Perkins, Quarrying in antiquity. Technology, tradition and social change (Proceedings of the British Academy, Vol. LVII), London 1972, 124; S. Oppermann, Steinbruch, Der Kleine Pauly, Vol. 5, Mnchen 1975, 351352; J. M. Klein, Untersuchungen zu den kaiserlichen Steinbrchen an Mons Porphyrites und Mons Claudianus in der stlichen Wste gyptens, Bonn 1988, 2541; M. Waelkens et al., Patterns of extraction and production in the white marble quarries of the Mediterranean: history, present problems and prospects, in: J.C. Fant (ed.), Ancient marble quarrying and trade, op.cit. (n. 73), 108114; J.C. Fant, The Roman emperors in the marble business: capitalists, middlemen or philanthropists?, in: NATO Advanced Research Workshops ... op.cit. (n.74), 147158; J.C. Fant, Ideology, gift, and trade: a distribution model for the Roman imperial marbles, in: The inscribed economy. Production and distribution in the Roman empire in the light of instrumentum domesticum, W.V. Harris, (ed.), Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplementary series no. 6, Ann Arbor, MI 1993, 145165.
80
C. Pharr, The Theodosian Code and novels and the Sirmondian constitutions. A
translation, Glossary, and bibliography, New York 1969, 283285.

81
N. von Asgari, Die Halbfabrikate kleinasiatischer Girlandensarkophage und ihre
Herkunft, Archologischer Anzeiger Heft 3 (op.cit n. 39), 329436; NATO Advanced research workshops on marble in ancient Greece and Rome, op.cit. (n. 74), 1129, 6585, 139159, 187197, 399411; M. Waelkens et al., op.cit. (n. 79), 110114.
83
82
J. B. Ward-Perkins and P. Throckmorton, The San Pietro wreck, Archaeology
XVIII (1965), 201209; P. Throckmorton, Ancient shipwreck yields new factsand a strange cargo, National Geographic Magazine, Vol. 135, No. 2 (1969), 282300.
83
D. Strong and A. Claridge, Marble sculpture, in: D. Strong and D. Brown (ed.),
Roman crafts, London 1976, 196197; For the importance of Proconnesian marble, see: S. Walker, Memorials to the Roman Dead, London 1985, 2832.
84
L. Stowell Pearson and N. Herz, op.cit. (n. 75). [Fiehn.], Steinbruch, PWRE, op.cit. (n. 79), 2283; J.B. Ward-Perkins, op.cit. (n.
85
79), 1314; E. Nash, Pictorial dictionary of ancient Rome, London 1968, 380381; J.C. Fant, Cavum Antrum Phrygiae. The organization and operations of the Roman imperial marble quarries in Phrygia, BAR International Series 483 (1989), 911; P. Pensabene, The method used for dressing the columns of the Colosseum portico, and The Roman Imperial Marble Yard at Portus, in: Ancient Stones, op.cit. (n. 74), 82, 115120.
86
H. Jung, Zur Frage der Sarkophagwerksttten in gallienischer Zeit,
Archologischer Anzeiger Heft 3 (op.cit. n. 39), 444.

87
J. E. Packer, Roman imperial building (31 B.C.A.D. 138), in: The muses at
work, op.cit. (n. 63), 42.

88
Roman crafts, op.cit. (n. 83), 195. [Schroff], Marmorarius, 2 PWRE, op.cit. (n. 79), Vierzehnter Band, Stuttgart
89
1930, 18971899.
90
J.C. Fant, op.cit. (n. 85), 8; H. von Petrikovits, Die Spesialisierung des rmischen
Handwerks II, Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 43 (1981), 294, 301.

91
A. Burford, op.cit. (n. 19), 7577, 86, 96101, 184207. C. Walter, Expressionism and Hellenism : a note on stylistic tendencies in
92
Byzantine figurative art from sptantike to Macedonian Renaissance, Revue des tudes byzantines 42 (1984), 283.
93
M. J. Cary and T. J. Haarhoff, op.cit. (n. 64), 119; A. Burford, op.cit. (n. 19), 60;
84
A.H.M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire 284602, Vol. 2, 1986 (1964), 860862.
94
V. C. Goodlett, Rhodian sculpture workshops, AJA 95 (1991), 669681. A. Burford, op.cit. (n. 19), 8288. M. Pfanner, op.cit. (n. 18), 178. E. Dinkler, Die ersten Petrusdarstellungen, Marburger Jahrbuch fr
95
96
97
Kunstwissenschaft, 11. und 12. Band (1938/39), 179.

98
F. Matz, Die Dionysischen Sarkophage, Die antiken Sarkophagreliefs, Vierter
Band: erster Teil, Berlin 1968, 519520.

99
K. Fittschen, Meleager Sarkophag, Libieghaus Monographie, Band 1, Frankfurt a.
M., 1975, 14; G. Koch und H. Sichtermann, op.cit. (n. 20), 259267.
100
B. Andreae und H. Jung, op.cit. (n. 39), 432436; H. Jung, Zur Frage der
Sarkophagwerksttten in gallienischer Zeit, Archologischer Anzeiger, Heft 3 (op.cit. n. 39), 436444.

101
D. Stutzinger, op.cit. (n. 55), 7778. Op.cit. (n. 79); M. J. Cary and T. J. Haarhoff, op.cit. (n. 64), 118121. K. Eichner, Die Produktionsmetoden der stadtrmischen Sarkophagfabrik in der
102
103
Bltezeit unter Konstantin, JbAChr 24 (1981), 85113.

104
G. Koch, op.cit. (n. 20), 218, n. 153; N. Belayche, La neuvaine funraire Rome
ou la mort impossible, in: F. Hinard (ed.), La mort au quotidien dans le monde romain, Paris 1995, 155169.
105
Aschehoug and Gyldendals Store Norske Leksikon, Vol. 10, Oslo 1980, 89; R.
Lane Fox, op.cit. (n. 3), 47; W.V. Harris, Between archaic and modern: some current problems in the history of the Roman economy, in: W.V. Harris (ed.), The inscribed economy, op.cit. (n. 79), 24.
106
K. Eichner, op.cit. (n. 103), 85113; M. Pfanner, Vom Laufenden Bohrer bis
zum Bohrlosen Stil: berlegungen zur Bohrtechnik in der Antike, AA (1988), 667676.
107
K. Eichner, op.cit. (n. 103), 105106.
85
108
D. Strong and A. Claridge, op.cit. (n. 83), 199; J. Ward-Perkins, op.cit. (n. 37), 232. B. S. Ridgway, Stone carving: sculpture, In: The muses at work, op.cit. (n. 63),
109
103104.
110
M. Pfanner, op. cit. (n. 106), 669 f. J.-C. Bessac, Problems of identification and interpretation of tool marks on ancient
111
marbles and decorative stones, in: NATO Advanced research workshop on marble in ancient Greece and Rome, op.cit. (n. 74), 5152.
112
K. Eichner, op.cit. (n. 103), 109. Ibid., 111. M. Pfanner, Dogmatische Bedenken oder Rationalisierung? Zur
113
114
Herstellungstechnik frhchristlichen sarkophage, HASB 4 (1978), 3033.

115 116
Ibid. P. Reuterswrd, Studien zur Polychromie der plastik Griechenland und Rom,
Stockholm 1960, 238; Photo of the Hirtensarkopag 150 im Lateran, see: Repertorium, op.cit. (n. 35), no. 2.
117
G. Koch, op.cit. (n. 20), 4243. G. Koch and H. Sichtermann, op.cit. (n. 20), 610614. Ibid., 200, 204, fig. 264. The Pullius Peregrinus sarcophagus (Rome, Mus.
118
119
Torlonia): Inst. Neg. DAI Rom 31.958. See also: F. Gerke, op.cit. (n. 66), Tafel 49.
120
M. Schapiro, Style, in: Anthropology Today, Chicago & London, 1953, 287. M. Gough, The origins of Christian art, London 1973, 9. Koch and Sichtermann, op. cit. (n. 20), 15. E. Kitzinger, On the interpretation of stylistic changes in Late Antique Art,
121
122
123
Bucknell Review 15 (1967), 110.

124
M. D. Fullerton, op.cit. (n. 54), 111. R. B. Bandinelli, Rome : the center of power : Roman art to A.D. 200, London
125
1970, 29, 58.

126
E. Kitzinger, Byzantine Art in the making. Main lines of stylistic development in
86
mediterranean art, 3.-7. cent., London 1977, 1819.

127
O. J. Brendel, Prolegomena to the study of Roman art, New Haven, London 1979,
133137.
128
B. Andreae, Die rmischen Jagdsarkophage, Die Sarkophage mit Darstellungen
aus dem Menschenleben = Die antiken Sarkophagreliefs, erster Band, zweiter Teil, Berlin 1980, 139
129
Ibid., 137138. Ibid., 139140. O. Marucchi (1901), op.cit. (n. 57), 205. M. Simon, Notes sur le sarcophage de S. Maria Antica, MlangesArcheoHist 53
130
131
132
(1936), p 132; The sarcophagi Ravenna, La Gayolle and Via Salaria, see notes 66, 67 and 68.
133
F. Gerke, Das heilige Antlitz : Kpfe altchristlichen Plastik, Berlin 1940, 7. H. Brandenburg, ARS HUMILIS : zur Frage eines christlichen Stils in der Kunst
134
des 4. Jahrhunderts nach Christus, JbAC 24 (1981), 7184.

135
E. Kitzinger, op.cit (n. 126), 6. E. von Reschke, op. cit. (n. 52), 356357. Ibid., 373. M. W. Asmussen, The labours of Adam and Eve : a rare motif in Early Christian
136
137
138
art, HAFNIA, Copenhagen Papers in the History of Art 7 (1980), 11.

139
G. Koch, op.cit. (n.20), 45. J. Huskinson, Roman Childrens Sarcophagi; Their Decoration and its Social
140
Significance, Oxford 1996, 79.

141
S. Walker, op.cit. (n. 20), 4243. G. Koch, op.cit. (n. 20), 45. B. Andreae, Bossierte Portrts auf rmischen Sarkophagen, In: Rmisches
142
143
Portrt; Wege zur Erforschung eines gesellschaftlichen Phnomens, WZBerlin 2/3 (=Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift, der Humboldt-Universitt zu Berlin) (1982), 137138.
87
144
M. Pfanner, op.cit. (n. 18), 182. G. Petronius, Satyricon, The Loeb Classical Library, 1919, 137141. S. Walker, op.cit. (n. 20), 1618. P. Veyne, The Roman Empire, in: P. Veyne (ed.), A history of private life; I.
145
146
147
From pagan Rome to Byzantium, Cambridge, Mass. and London, 1987, 5234; Gillian Clark, Women in Late Antiquity. Pagan and Christian Life-styles, Oxford 1993, 135138; P. Rousseau, Learned women and the development of a Christian culture in late antiquity, Symbolae Osloenses, LXX (1995), 116147; Anne Jensen, Gods self-confident Daughters. Early Christianity and the Liberation of Women, KampenThe Netherlands, 1996, 26 ff.
148
R. P. Saller and B. D. Shaw, Tombstones and Roman family relations in the
Principate: Civilians, soldiers and slaves, JRS 74 (1984), 124156; E. A. Meyer, Explaining the epigraphic habit in the Roman Empire: the evidence of epitaphs, JRS 80 (1990), 7496; J. Engels, Funerum Sepulcrorumque Magnificentia, Stuttgart 1998, 162, 176 ff.,
149
S. Walker, op.cit. (n. 20), 18. E. A. Meyer, op.cit. (n. 148), 77, n. 23; B. Andreae, G. Oehlschlegel and K. Weber,
150
Zusammenfgung der Fragmente eines Meleagersarkophags, JDAI 87 (1972), 432.

151 152
G. F. Snyder, op.cit. (n. 34), 122123. B. Andreae, G. Oehlschlegel and K. Weber, op.cit. (n. 150), 421. J. Reich, Italy before Rome, Oxford 1979, 9495. L. R. Rogers, Relief sculpture, (The appreciation of the arts/8), London 1974, 6466. K. Weitzmann, The survival of mythological representations in Early Christian and
153
154
155
Byzantine Art and their impact on Christian iconography, DOP 14 (1960), 4968; K. Weitzmann, Late Antique and Early Christian book illumination, London 1977; K. Schefold, Bilderbcher als Vorlagen Rmischer Sarkophage, MEFRA 882 (1976), 759796.
156
R. B. Bandinelli, op.cit. (n. 125), 122129.
88
157
H. L. Kessler, Narrative representations, in: Age of sprirituality, (K. Weitzmann,
ed.), New York, 1979, 449450.

158
J. Gutman, op.cit. (n. 6), XLV. Scholars carry on a similar discussion about possible
models for the wall paintings in the Dura-Europos synagogue; See: R. Hachlili, op.cit. (n. 7), 182197. He concludes that the Dura paintings are not based on an illustrated written text.
159
D. Diringer, The illuminated book, its history and production., London 1967,
3172.
160
H. Froning, Die ikonographische Tradition der kaiserzeitlichen mythologischen
Sarkophagreliefs, JdI 95 (1980), 322341, p. 326; M. Koortbojian, Myth, Meaning, and Memory on Roman Sarcophagi, BerkeleyLos AngelesLondon 1995, 71 ff. In favour of pattern books, see: R. Hachlili, op.cit. (n. 7), 188190, 441454.
161
C. Gallazi and B. Kramer, Artemidor im Zeichensaal. Eine Papyrusrolle mit Text,
Landkarte und Skizzenbchern aus spthellenisticher Zeit, Archiv fr Papyrusforschung 44/2 (1998), 189208.
162
H. Gabelmann, Review of G. Koch, Die antiken Sarkophagreliefs 12, 6.
Meleager, (1975), BJb 179 (1979), 786;

163
H. Froning, op.cit. (n. 160), 326. R. Ling, Roman painting, Cambridge 1991, 1. A. Wallace-Hadrill, Ut pictura poesis, JRS 73 (1983), 180183. K. Schauenberg, Zu griechischen Mythen in der etruskischen Kunst, JdI 85
164
165
166
(1970), 2881.
167
H. Froning, op.cit. (n. 160), 337. Ibid., 339340. C. Landwehr, Die antiken Gipsabgsse aus Baiae; Griechische Bronzestatuen in
168
169
Abgssen rmischer Zeit, Berlin 1985, 125, 181188.

170
Ibid., 183.
89
171
J.J. Pollitt, The art of Rome, c. 753 B.C.A.D. 337, Sources and Documents,
Cambridge 1983, 216.

172
E.W. Leach, Patrons, painters, and patterns: The anonymity of Romano-
Campanian painting and the transition from the second to the third style, in: K. Gold (ed.), Literary and artistic patronage in ancient Rome, Austin 1982, 135167; Y. Thbert, Private life and domestic architecture in Roman Africa, in: P. Veyne, op.cit. (n. 147), 313405.
173 174
A. Burford, op.cit. (n. 19), 180. H. Huskinson, Some pagan mythological figures and their significance in early
Christian art, BSR 42 (1979), 6997.
90

WMPtext

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WMPtext

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Santa Maria Antiqua Sarkophagus A Study in Method and an Analysis

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

The Santa Maria Antiqua sarcophagus Part I

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce

13.06.01 W.M. Pierce