Bril/Varner/HS/MGR10/4de 27-05-2004
(PANTONE 5285 CBlack
11:09 Pagina 1 (Zwart/Process
Plaat)
Plaat)
mg
&r
e r i c r . va r n e r ,
Ph.D. (1993) in Classics, Yale
University, is Associate Professor
of Art History and Classics,
Emory University.
He has published on Roman
portraits, including the catalogue
From Caligula to Constantine:
Tyranny and Transformation in Roman
Imperial Portraiture (Atlanta, 2000).
i s b n 90 04 13577 4
9 789004 1 35 772
i s s n 0169-8850
va r n e r
t h e con de m n at ion of m e mory
inexorably altered the visual landscape of
imperial Rome. Representations of ‘bad’ em-
perors, such as Caligula, Nero, Domitian,
Mutilation and Transformation
Commodus, or Elagabalus were routinely
reconfigured into likenesses of victorious
successors or revered predecessors. Alterna-
tively, portraits could be physically attacked
and mutilated or even executed in effigy.
From the late first century b.c. until the
fourth century a.d., the recycling and de-
struction of images of emperors, empresses,
and other members of the imperial family
occurred on a vast scale and often marked
periods of violent political transition. This
volume catalogues and interprets the sculp-
tural, glyptic, numismatic and epigraphic
evidence for damnatio memoriae and ulti-
mately reveals its praxis to be at the core of
Roman cultural identity.
m o n u m e n ta g r a e c a e t ro m a n a
Mutilation
and Transformation
da m n at io m e mor i a e
a n d ro m a n i m p e r i a l p o rt r a i t u r e
m.g.r 10
by
This book is volume 10 in the series
m o n u m e n ta g r a e c a e t ro m a n a .
e r i c r . va r n e r
brill
brill
www.brill.nl
Opgegeven en ingestelde rugdikte = 32 mm
MUTILATION AND TRANSFORMATION
MONUMENTA GRAECA
ET ROMANA
FOUNDING EDITOR

H. F. MUSSCHE

VOLUME X
 MUTILATION
AND TRANSFORMATION
Damnatio Memoriae and Roman Imperial Portraiture

BY

ERIC R. VARNER

BRILL
LEIDEN • BOSTON
2004
On the cover: the four illustrations represent the chronological and conceptual span of the mutilation and
transformation of Roman imperial images. Portraits were routinely reconfigured from the Julio Claudian period
(as evidenced by the image of Nero transformed to Vespasian in Cleveland [top left]) through the Constantinian
period (as evidenced by the colossal portrait of Constantine in the Palazzo dei Conservatori, transformed from a
pre-existing image of Maxentius [bottom right]). Portraits were also attacked and defaced, especially in the late
seond and third centuries (as evidenced by mutilated portraits of Plautilla, in Houston [top right], and Macrinus,
at Harvard [bottom left]).

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISSN 0169-8850
ISBN 90 04 13577 4

© Copyright 2004 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written
permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal

use is granted by Brill provided that
the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright
Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910
Danvers MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.

printed in the netherlands

table of contents v

D M
Ann Varner
vi table of contents
 table of contents vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................................... ix

Chapter One. Developments, Implications, and Precedents ................................................................... 1

Chapter Two. Caligula, Milonia Caesonia and Julia Drusilla ............................................................... 21

Chapter Three. Nero and Poppaea ........................................................................................................ 46

Chapter Four. Other Julio-Claudians ..................................................................................................... 86

Julia Maior .......................................................................................................................................... 86
Agrippa Postumus ............................................................................................................................... 88
Julia Minor .......................................................................................................................................... 89
Agrippina Maior ................................................................................................................................. 90
Nero and Drusus Caesar .................................................................................................................... 91
Sejanus ................................................................................................................................................ 92
Livilla ................................................................................................................................................... 93
Valeria Messalina ................................................................................................................................ 95
Agrippina Minor ................................................................................................................................. 97
Claudia Octavia ................................................................................................................................ 100
Claudia Antonia ................................................................................................................................ 101
Julia Livilla, Julia Drusilla, Lollia Paulina and Domitia Lepida ...................................................... 102
Ptolemy of Mauretania .................................................................................................................... 103

Chapter Five. A.D. 69 ........................................................................................................................... 105

Galba ................................................................................................................................................. 105
Otho .................................................................................................................................................. 107
Vitellius ............................................................................................................................................. 108

Chapter Six. Domitian .......................................................................................................................... 111

Chapter Seven. Commodus, Lucilla, Crispina and Annia Fundania Faustina ................................... 136

Chapter Eight. The Severans A.D. 193-235 ........................................................................................ 156

The Rivals Of Septimius Severus: Didius Julianus, Clodius Albinus, and Pescennius Niger ........ 157
Plautilla ............................................................................................................................................. 164
Geta ................................................................................................................................................... 168
Caracalla ........................................................................................................................................... 184
Macrinus and Diadumenianus ......................................................................................................... 184
Elagabalus and Julia Soemias ........................................................................................................... 188
Severus Alexander and Julia Mammaea .......................................................................................... 195
viii table of contents

Chapter Nine. The Later Third Century (235-285) ............................................................................ 200

Maximinus Thrax, Maximus, and Caecilia Paulina ........................................................................ 200
Pupienus and Balbinus ..................................................................................................................... 203
Gordian III ........................................................................................................................................ 204
Philip the Arab, Philip Minor and Otacilia Severa ......................................................................... 205
Trajan Decius, Herrenius Etruscus, and Hostilian .......................................................................... 207
Trebonianus Gallus ........................................................................................................................... 208
Aemilian and Cornelia Supera ...................................................................................................... 209
“Celsus” ............................................................................................................................................ 210
Gallienus, Salonina, Valerian Minor, Saloninus and Marianianus ................................................. 210
Carinus ............................................................................................................................................. 211
Carausius and Allectus .................................................................................................................... 212

Chapter Ten. The Early Fourth Century ............................................................................................. 214

Maximian .......................................................................................................................................... 214
Maxentius, Galeria Valeria Maximilla and Romulus ...................................................................... 215
Maximinus Daia ............................................................................................................................... 220
Prisca, Galeria Valeria and Candidianus ......................................................................................... 221
Crispus and Fausta ............................................................................................................................ 221

Catalogue of Mutilated and Altered Portraits

1. Caligula ....................................................................................................................................... 225
2. Nero ............................................................................................................................................ 237
3. Julio-Claudians ........................................................................................................................... 257
4. A.D. 69 ........................................................................................................................................ 259
5. Domitian ..................................................................................................................................... 260
6. Commodus, Livilla, Crispina and Annia Fundania Faustina .................................................... 270
7. The Severans. Plautilla, Geta, Macrinus, Diadumenianus, Elagabalus, Severus Alexander
and Julia Mammaea ................................................................................................................... 275
8. Third Century ............................................................................................................................ 283
9. Fourth Century ........................................................................................................................... 286

Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................... 289

Index of Museums and Collections ...................................................................................................... 307

General Index ....................................................................................................................................... 317

List of Illustrations and Photo Credits ................................................................................................. 335

Illustrations
 table of contents ix

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project would not have been possible without the sustained help and encouragement of
innumerable friends and colleagues. A very special debt of gratitude is owed to Diana Kleiner who,
as mentor and friend, has generously shared with me her wide-ranging insights on Roman sculpture
and who has nurtured the project along in its various guises. Many thanks are also due to Pat Erhart
Mottahedeh who originally suggested the topic of damnatio memoriae to me and looked after it in its
earliest incarnation.
In addition, I would like to warmly thank the following: Paolo Arata, Musei Captiolini; Jane Biers,
University of Missouri at Columbia, Museum of Art and Archaeology; John Bodel, Rutgers University;
Sheramy Bundrick, University of South Florida; Maddalena Cima, Musei Capitolini; John Clarke,
University of Texas at Austin; Robert Cohon, Nelson Atkins Museum; Diane Conlin, University of
Colorado, Boulder; Penelope Davies, University of Texas, Austin; Stefano de Caro, Museo
Archeologico di Napoli; Sandro de Maria, Università di Bologna; Jas Elsner, Oxford University;
Harriet Flower, Princeton University; Jasper Gaunt, Michael C. Carlos Museum; John Herrmann,
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; Tony Hirschel, Indianapolis Museum of Art; Catherine Howett Smith,
Michael C. Carlos Museum; Sandra Knudsen, Toledo Museum of Art; Ann Kuttner, University of
Pennsylvania; Anne C. Leinster-Windham; Paolo Liverani, Musei Vaticani; Susan Matheson, Yale
University Art Gallery; David Minten, Harvard University Art Museums; Mette Moltesen, Ny
Carlsberg Glyptotek; Sarah Morris, University of California at Los Angeles; Michael Padgett, The
Art Museum, Princeton University; John Pappadopoulos, University of California at Los Angeles;
Carlos Picon, Metropolitan Museum of Art; Jerry Podany, J. Paul Getty Museum; J. Pollitt, Yale
University; J. Pollini, University of Southern California; Gianni Ponti, Sovrintendenza Archeologica
di Roma; Gay Robins, Emory University; Peter Rockwell; Brian Rose, University of Cincinnati; V.
Rudich, Yale University; Marion Schröder, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Rome; Alan Shapiro,
the Johns Hopkins University; Catherine Simon, Shelby White and Leon Levy Collection; Niall Slater,
Emory University; Alaistair Small, University of Alberta; R.R.R. Smith, Oxford University; Renée
Stein, Michael C. Carlos Museum; Katrin Stump, Deutsches Archäoligisches Institut Rome; Michiel
Klein Swormink, Brill Publishers; Emilia Talamo, Museo Nazionale Romano; Marion True, J. Paul
Getty Museum; Ute Wartenburg, American Numismatic Society; Bonna Wescoat, Emory University;
Susan Wood, Oakland University.
I would also like to thank all of my colleagues and staff in the departments of Art History and
Classics at Emory University, the staff of the Michael C. Carlos Museum, the staff of the Library
of the American Academy in Rome, the staff of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut in Rome,
as well as my current and former graduate students, Katrina Dickson, Erin Black, John Stephenson
and Brandon Foster for various, sundry and invaluable assistance. As always, heartfelt thanks to
Brad Lapin for help on every level and for putting up with bad emperors (and the bad moods they
have been known to induce) for so long. Ultimately, all omissions, errors, and translations are my
own.
vi table of contents
 developments, implications, and precedents
CHAPTER ONE
DEVELOPMENTS, IMPLICATIONS, AND PRECEDENTS
As vital expressions of political authority and
prestige, imperial portraits permeated all aspects
of Roman society. Representations of the em-
peror and his family were prominently displayed
in civic, sacred, and domestic spaces throughout
the empire and were carefully manipulated and
disseminated in order to reach multiple audi-
ences. The power of these images lay in their
ability to speak to disparate members of the so-
ciety, from the illiterate and slaves through the
most educated members of the Roman elite.
However, imperial portraits were neither immu-
table nor monolithic, and should an emperor be
overthrown, his images were systematically mu-
tilated or physically altered into the likenesses of
other emperors. This process, popularly known
as damnatio memoriae, is the first widespread ex-
ample of the negation of artistic monuments for
political and ideological reasons and it has inexo-
rably altered the material record of Roman cul-
ture. Jerome aptly describes the fate of the por-
traits of Rome’s” bad” emperors: “When a tyrant
is destroyed, his portraits and statues are also
deposed. The face is exchanged or the head
removed, and the likeness of he who has con-
quered is superimposed. Only the body remains
and another head is exchanged for those that
have been decapitated (si quando tyrannus obtrun-
catur, imagines quoque eius deponuntur et statuae, et vultu
tantummodo commutato, ablatoque capite, eius qui vicerit,
facies superponitur, ut manente corpore, capitibusque prae-
cisis caput aliud commutetur).1 Although Jerome was
writing in the late fourth/early fifth century, his
description clearly reflects centuries of established
practices regarding the public images of emper-
ors condemned as tyrants.
Beginning in the republican period, the legal
sanctions which could be associated with damnatio
memoriae provided the mechanisms by which an
1
individual was simultaneously canceled and con-
demned. The Romans themselves realized that
it was possible to alter posterity’s perception of
the past especially as embodied in the visual and
epigraphic record. Sanctions passed by the Sen-
ate could mandate the destruction of the monu-
ments and inscriptions commemorating capital
offenders or hostes, the official enemies of the
Roman state.2 As a result, the condemned in-
dividual’s name and titles were excised from all
official lists ( fasti); wax masks (imagines) represent-
ing the deceased were banned from display at
aristocratic funerals;3 books written by the con-
demned were confiscated and burned; property
rights were forfeited; wills were annulled; the
birthday of the condemned was proclaimed a day
evil to the Roman people (dies nefastus), while the
anniversary of the death was celebrated as a time
of public rejoicing; houses belonging to the de-
ceased were razed; and prohibitions could be
enacted against the continued use of the con-
demned’s praenomen.4 After Augustus solidified
his control of the Mediterranean in 31 B.C. and
subsequently established the imperial system,
damnationes memoriae and the attendant mutilation
and transformation of images were almost exclu-
sively enacted against deposed principes, other
condemned members of the imperial house, or
private individuals who had conspired against the
1 In Abacuc 2.3.14-16.984-88. P. Stewart (1999) 159, 180-
81.
2
F. Vittinghoff (1936) 13.
3
On the imagines, see H.I. Flower (1996). Flower also
discusses the term imago in its narrowest senses as a wax
ancestor mask, and its later broader implications of por-
traiture in general, 32-52.
4 On the razing of houses, T.P. Wiseman (1987) 393-
4 and n. 3; J. Bodel (1997) 7-11. On the banning of praeno-
mina, see H. Solin (1986)70-3; H. Solin (1989) 252-3; H.
Flower (1998) 163-5.
2 chapter one
reigning emperor. Damaged or transfigured
imperial portraits survive in vast quantities and
include marble, bronze, and painted likenesses,
as well as representations in relief, on coins, and
gems.
The term damnatio memoriae, literally the dam-
nation or condemnation of memory, is modern,
but it accurately reflects the Romans’ preoccu-
pation with the concepts of memory and fame.5
The Latin term memoria has much broader reper-
cussions than its English cognate, memory, and
encompasses the notions of an individual’s fame
and greater reputation. The belief that a deceased
individual enjoyed an afterlife through the per-
petuation of his memory or by being remembered
is at the core of Roman cultural identity and is
amply witnessed by the innumerable surviving
works of funerary art and architecture created for
all classes of the society, throughout the empire.6
Furthermore, Varro closely links the idea of
monumental commemoration with the perpetu-
ation of memory.7 In effect, the condemnation,
damnation or abolition of an individual’s memory
is a posthumous destruction of his or her very
essence or being. When discussing the condem-
nation of a person’s memory and monuments,
ancient authors usually combine the word memoria
with particularly strong verbs damnare, condemnare,
5 The term damnatio memoriae covers a wide array of post
mortem sanctions against a condemned individual’s memo-
ry and monuments. These penalties could be officially
mandated by the Senate, emperor, or even army, or they
could be unofficial, de facto sanctions; see F. Vittinghoff
(1936) 13, 64-74; K. Mustakallio (1994) 9-15; J.M. Paillier
and R. Sablayrolles (1994) 12-15; and H. Flower (1998)
155-6. The term first appears as the title of a dissertation
completed in 1689 by Schreiter-Gerlach; see P. Stewart
(1999) 184, n. 3.
6 On commemoration and perpetuation of memory, see
M. Koortbojian in J. Elsner, ed. (1996) 210-34; P.J.E.
Davies (1997) 41-65. For the “activity of memory in monu-
ments” see, J. E. Young (1989) 69-106.
7 Ling. 6.49: Sic monimenta quae in sepulcris, et ideo secun-
dum iviam, quo praetereuntis admoneat et se fuisse et illos esse mortalis.
Ab eo cetera quae scripta ac facta memoriae causa monimenta dicta
(...so monuments which are on tombs, and in fact along
the roads, in order that they can warn anyone coming along
that the deceased themselves were once mortal, just as they
are now mortal. From this, other things which are written
or done for the sake of memory are said to be monuments).
See also J. Bodel (1997) 21.
accusare, abolere, or eradere.8 These verbs, to damn,
condemn, accuse, abolish, or eradicate, them-
selves resonate with the process of historical cen-
sure which is the basis of damnatio memoriae. Over-
all, these sanctions were not conceived of in
absolute terms, but were flexible and practical
methods of destroying the condemned’s posthu-
mous reputation and memory.9
Cancellation of a bad emperor’s identity and
accomplishments from the collective conscious-
ness was one of the fundamental ideological aims
of damnatio in the imperial period. Portrait stat-
ues and busts were routinely removed from public
and private display and the names and titles of
overthrown rulers were ruthlessly excised from
the inscriptions that had formerly extolled their
virtues. This calculated obliteration of images,
effectively an abolitio memoriae (abolition of me-
mory), is starkly illustrated by representations
which have been chiseled out of relief monu-
ments, as for instance portraits of Commodus
removed from the series of reliefs honoring his
father, Marcus Aurelius, or the excision of Plau-
tianus, Plautilla, and Geta from reliefs deco-
rating Severan arches in Rome and Lepcis
Magna.10 For representations of condemned em-
perors in the round, their removal from public
display and subsequent storage in secure locations
has often led, ironically, to their preservation for
posterity. Indeed, damnatio contributed directly to
the warehousing of great numbers of imperial
images.
Another important aim of post mortem sanctions
could be the complete denigration of the con-
demned individual’s posthumous reputation as a
8 For example see, Suet. Dom. 23.1 (abolendamque omnem
memoriam); HA.Com.19.1 (memoriam aboleatur), and Cod.Iust.
1.3.23; (memoriam accusare defuncti ) CodIust 1.5.4.4Pap. Dig.
31.76.9 (memoriam damanatam); Cod.Iust. 7.2.2 (memoria ...
damnata); Ulp. Dig. 24.1.32.7 (memoria... damnata); Ulp. Dig.
28.3.6.11 (memoria...damnata); Paul. Cod.Iust 9.8.6 (memoria
...damnetur); Inst. 4.18.3 (memoria... damnatur); Inst. 3.1.5
(memoria...damnata); F. Vittinghoff, Staatsfeind 13; 66-69; T.
Pekáry (1985) 135.
9 H.I. Flower (1995) 163.
10 Arch of Septimius Severus in the Forum Romanum,
infra; Arch of the Argentarii, infra; and the Arch of Septimius
Severus at Lepcis Magna, infra.
 developments, implications, and precedents
stark political warning to future offenders.11 Al-
though posthumous denigration would appear at
first glance contradictory to the total eradication
of a condemned individual’s memory, in prac-
tice the two prove to be neither incompatible nor
mutually exclusive. In visual terms denigration
was effected through the physical mutilation of
portraits. As recognizable signs of an overthrown
ruler’s disgrace, deliberately damaged likenesses
physically expressed the abstract concepts of in-
famia (disrepute, disgrace) and iniuria (insult, af-
front, revenge), and must have remained publicly
visible for some time after the emperor’s over-
throw. The sensory organs comprising the eyes,
nose, mouth and ears were specific targets of the
attacks on sculpted portraits. The resulting dam-
age to the face is T-shaped, but still renders the
representation recognizable. The mutilation of
images is often described in graphically anthro-
pomorphic terms. Pliny recounts the destruction
of bronze images of Domitian just like they were
living beings, capable of feeling pain and says that
the portraits were attacked as if “blood and pain
would follow every single blow” (ut si singulos ic-
tus sanguis dolorque sequeretur).12 Dio similarly por-
trays the destruction of Sejanus’s statues: those
who assaulted his images acted as if they were
attacking the man himself.13 Although probably
historically spurious, the account in the Historia
Augusta of the “crucifixion” of a portrait of the
North African usurper Celsus is certainly indica-
tive of fourth century attitudes and expectations
concerning the treatment of representations of
condemned rulers, as well as the continued Rom-
an perception of images as effigies.14
The anthropomorphic rhetoric employed
when discussing the destruction of imperial im-
11 H. Flower discusses the these two approaches (“the
tendency to forget” vs. the “urge to remember”) in the case
of Gn. Calpurnius Piso (1998) 180.
12 Pan. 52.4-5; for an interpretation of the full passage
in its Domitianic context, see infra.
13 58.11.3.
14 Tyr.Trig. 19: et novo iniuriae genere imago in crucem sublata
persultante vulgo, quasi patibulo ipse Celsus videretur (and in a new
kind of outrage, his portrait was hoisted on a cross, with
the crowd running around as if they were seeing Celsus
himself on the gibbet); see infra.
3
ages underscores their function as literal embodi-
ments of the imperial presence in stone or bronze.
Trajan’s posthumous Parthian triumph, in which
a statue of the emperor rode in the quadriga,
illustrates well the positive, celebratory connota-
tions of imperial portraits as effigies.15 Con-
versely, deliberate assaults on these images are
directly analogous to physical attacks against the
emperor’s person, a kind of mutilation or execu-
tion in effigy.16 The desecration of the vital sen-
sory organs, the eyes, ears, nose and mouth,
negates any “power” of these images to see, hear
or speak. Furthermore, the disfigurement of
imperial likenesses has close conceptual ties to the
desecration of the corpses of capital offenders, a
process known as poena post mortem.17 Lucan
graphically describes the mutilation of a corpse
and the attack on the ears, eyes, nose and mouth
exactly parallels the disfigurement of imperial
images: exsectaque lingua/ Palpitat et muto vacuum ferit
aera motu./Hic aures, alius spiramina naris aduncae/
Amputat; ille cavis evolvit sedibus orbes, (And the
tongue having been severed, squirms and with
silent motion strikes the empty air. Someone
amputates the ears, someone else the nostrils of
his hooked nose, and another one gouges the eyes
out of their hollow sockets).18 Although corpse
abuse was not uncommon for criminals and other
noxii executed in arena spectacles, the desecra-
tion of elite corpses was viewed as an extremely
severe form of punishment, and as a result is fairly
rare for condemned emperors or other members
of the imperial house.19 Nevertheless, the bodies
15 As illustrated on Hadrianic aurei of 117-18, BMCRE
244, no. 47; S. Settis, ed. (1988) 78-9, fig. 33.
16 Actual effigies were important components of impe-
rial funerals, see S.R.F. Price (1997) 64, 96-7. For the mu-
tilation of imperial portraits as effigies, see F. Vittinghoff
(1936) 13-19; J. von Schlosser (1910-11) 184; W. Brückner
(1966) 192; J.P. Rollin (1979) 165-69; D. Freedberg (1989)
259.
17 On the post mortem abuse of corpses, see F. Vittinghoff
(1936) 43-6; D.G. Kyle (1998) 131-3, 220-24, and 183, n.
106 where he calls the “abuse of statues” “surrogate corpse
abuse;” E.R. Varner (2001a).
18 BC 2.181-4.
19 Although obviously comic in nature, Apuleius’s story
of the guarding of a corpse at Larissa against mutilation
4 chapter one
of Nero Caesar, Drusus Caesar, Sejanus, Lollia
Paulina, Claudia Octavia, Galba, Vitellius,
Pertinax, Pescennius Niger, Clodius Albinus,
Plautianus, Macrinus, Diadumenianus, Elagaba-
lus, Julia Soemias, Maximinus Thrax, Maximus,
Pupienus, Balbinus, Gallienus, and Maxentius
were all abused in some fashion. Politically, the
mutilation of imperial images and corpses was in-
tended as a visual expression of dissatisfaction
with the policies and personalities of the con-
demned emperor, and, concomitantly, loyalty to
the new regime. Dio links the concepts of image
and corpse abuse in his account of the attacks on
Sejanus’s portraits, which the condemned man
was forced to witness, thus becoming an unwill-
ing spectator of his own imminent death and
destruction (6"\ @ÜJT 2g"JZH ô< Bg\FgF2"4 §:g88g<
¦(\(<gJ@).20 After Commodus’s overthrow, the
populace mutilated his images, as artistic surro-
gates for his corpse.21 Deliberate defacement of
images was often the result of spontaneous dem-
onstrations against a condemned emperor’s
memory and it additionally represents a very
physical and violent response to the news of an
emperor’s overthrow. Not coincidentally, the
mutilation and destruction of imperial likenesses
reaches its apogee in the middle years of the third
century, c. A.D. 235-85, when the empire was
engulfed in a period of military, social, political,
and economic unrest, with no single emperor or
dynasty able to maintain control or guarantee
stability for an extended period.
of the facial features by witches illustrates the seriousness
with which Romans viewed the this kind of desecration,
Met. 2.21-22, 30. The mutilation of the ears and nose which
is ultimately carried out on the guard, Thelyphron, rather
than the dead man, resembles the disfigurement of impe-
rial images and corpses. Significantly, Thelyphron views his
own mutilation as a great disgrace which will prevent him
from ever returning to his hometown. Deiphobus’s corpse
has been similarly disfigured with the nose and ears sev-
ered in the Aeneid (6.494-9): Atque hic Priamiden laniantum
corpore toto/Deiphobum vidit, lacerum crudeliter ora,/ora manusque
ambas, populataque tempora raptis/ auribus et truncas inhonesto
vulnere naris./vix adeo agnovit pavitantem ac dira tegentem/ supplicia,
et notis compellat vocibus ultro. Vergil’s use of supplicia further
recalls the language of criminal punishment.
20 58.11.3; D.G. Kyle (1998) 221.
21 Dio 74.2.1.
Sculpted images could also be effectively can-
celed and transformed through recarving. Por-
traits of condemned emperors were routinely
recut to represent victorious successors or es-
teemed predecessors. Reuse constitutes a Roman
practical response to the economic problems
inherent in the destruction of images. Marble
portrait sculptures were expensive commissions
and recutting representations of condemned in-
dividuals is an efficient and cost-effective form of
artistic recycling.22 Furthermore sculptural reuse
has ideological implications as a kind of visual
cannibalism in which the likeness of a successful
ruler displaces that of his defeated predecessor.
Thus the transformed image has the potential to
cannibalize the power and meaning residing in
the original portrait. The process of manipulat-
ing preexisting images into new more acceptable
likenesses occurs throughout the imperial period.
In the early empire vast numbers of the marble
portraits of Caligula, Nero, and Domitian were
recut and reconfigured into new likenesses and
it is the most intensive period for the recycling
of imperial images.23 At least 120 extant sculpted
representations of these emperors have been
transformed. In the second century, there is a
hiatus in the process of recarving imperial por-
traits. No likenesses of Commodus, Lucilla, or
Crispina were recut immediately after their con-
demnations. Their images which were refash-
ioned were not altered until the third and fourth
22 On the high cost of sculpture, recutting, and ques-
tions of econmy, see C.B. Rose (1997) 10.
23 Private images were also reworked throughout the
imperial period, as for instance a late Flavian/early
Trajanic female portrait whose coiffure was completely
recut and updated in the late Trajanic period (Boston,
Museum of Fine Arts, inv. 1988.327; J.J. Herrmann, jr.
(1991) 34-50, figs. 1a-d). I cannot agree with P. Liverani
that the reworking of private images provide the impetus
for the recarving of imperial portraits (1990-91) 170-71.
The sheer number of reworked images beginning with Ca-
ligula would seem to argue that the relationship was ex-
actly the opposite, with the imperial manifestations influ-
encing the private examples. Nevertheless, Liverani is right
to stress the widespread nature of the phenomenon, both
private and imperial. Furthermore, Liverani is correct to
point out that the private examples provide an ongoing
context within which to read the recutting of imperial
images.
 developments, implications, and precedents
centuries.24 In the third century, reuse remains
relatively rare, with examples essentially limited
to portraits of Elagabalus transformed into rep-
resentations of his cousin and successor, Severus
Alexander. Recutting at this time may have been
pragmatically motived by the strong physical
resemblance between the two young Severan
cousins. Under Constantine, there is a renewed
interest in reworking marble portraits as attested
by several of his images which have been refash-
ioned from earlier likenesses of Maxentius (as well
as the recut relief portraits on the Arch of
Constantine).25 Altered likeness are not limited
to three dimensional marble portraits, but in a
few instances also occur in relief, gem, bronze,
basalt, and coin portraits. Imperial images were
transformed in all parts of the empire with sur-
viving examples from Italy, Spain, Gaul, Ger-
many, Greece, North Africa, Egypt, and Asia
Minor.
Marble images were also transformed and
recycled in more utilitarian fashion as building
material. A relief representing Nero and Agrip-
pina was reused face down as a paving slab in
the Sebasteion complex at Aphrodisias, while a
mutilated portrait of Julia Mammaea was re-
cycled as a paving stone in one of Ostia’s thor-
oughfares.26 The use of images as paving stones
may also have had further denigrative intent
against the memory of the condemned as people
literally trampled the portraits underfoot.
24 A marked decline in the instances of reuse is already
apparent in the recut images of Domitian: there are 24
recut marble representations of Domitian in the round,
versus 53 for Nero and 43 for Caligula. This may reflect
in part accidents of preservation, as well as the fact that
so many of Domitian’s own portraits had been reworked
from portraits of Nero, thus precluding a third recutting,
but is also probably due to changing practices.
25 On the recut portraits on the Arch of Constantine,
see J. Rohmann (1998) and J. Elsner (2000).
26 Nero and Agrippina, Aphrodisias, infra; Julia
Mammaea, Ostia, Museo, inv. 26 infra; Portraits of Lucilla
(Palazzo dei Conservatori, Centrale Montemartini 2.91, inv.
2766) and Otacilia Severa (Palazzo dei Conservatori,
Centrale Montemartini 2.95, inv. 2765) were incorporated
into the fabric of a post-antique wall between the Colos-
seum and the Basilica of Maxentius and are likely indica-
tive of earlier practices.
5
The physical removal of banned images from
public view resulted in large numbers of portraits
being warehoused, stored or hidden.27 Several
likenesses were deposited in sculptural caches
including portraits of Nero, Lucilla, Commodus,
Geta, Macrinus, and Elagabalus.28 The storage
of these images has ultimately ensured their sur-
vival, and often contributed to their fine states
of preservation, as in case of the well known
Commodus as Hercules from the Esquiline (fig.
141). Portraits, or other monuments, were also
removed to sculptors’ workshops in order to be
reworked, as may have been the case with
Cancelleria Reliefs.29 The warehousing of images
is further confirmed by portraits of Caligula,
Nero, Domitian, Lucilla, Commodus, Plautilla,
and Geta which were not recut for decades or
even centuries, suggesting that they were in good
states of preservation and readily accessible at the
time of their reuse.30 Portraits could also be
buried or hidden from public view, as presum-
ably happened to a likeness of Domitian discov-
ered in the Tomb of Julia Procula at Isola
27 M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981) 320 describe
these marble depots as Steingarten (stone gardens); see also
D. Kinney (1997) 118, 124-25.
28 Nero, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, Centrale
Montemartini 1.25B, inv. 2835, infra; Lucilla, Rome,
Palazzo dei Conservatori, Centrale Montemartini 3.85, inv.
1781, infra; Commodus, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori,
Sala degli Arazzi, inv. 1120, infra; Geta, Oslo, Nasjonal-
galleriet 600, inv. 1433, infra; Macrinus, Rome, Palazzo
Conservatori, Centrale Montemartini 3.82, inv. 1757, in-
fra; Elagabalus, Oslo, Nasjonalgalleriet, inv. 1434 infra. For
a brief discussion of sculptural caches, see E. Bartmann
(1991) 72 and ns. 3 and 4.
29 Rome, Musei Vaticani, Museo Gregoriano Profano,
cat. 5.17.
30 Caligula/Claudius Gothicus?, New York, White-Levy
Collection, cat. 1.37; Nero/Gallienus, Columbia, Univer-
sity of Missouri, Museum of Art and Archaeology, 62.46,
cat. 2.62; Nero/4th century emperor, Rome, Museo
Nazionale delle Terme, inv. 126279, cat. 2.63; Domitian/
Constantinian emperor, Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, 89.6,
5.30; Lucilla/Helena, Florence, Uffizi, inv. 1914.171, cat.
6.11; Lucilla/Helena, Rome, Museo Capitolino, Stanza
degli Imperatori 59, 496, cat. 6.12; Commodus/Pupienus?,
Mantua, Palazzo Ducale, inv. G 6812/1, cat. 6.5; Com-
modus/Pupienus, Musei Vaticani, Galleria Chiaramonti
27.8, inv.1613, cat. 6.6; Plautilla/fourth century empress,
Irvine, Robert K. Martin Collection, cat. 7.3; Geta/mid
third century individual, Rome, Museo Capitolino, Salone
51, inv. 675, cat. 7.10.
6 chapter one
Sacra.31 The numerous images of condemned
individuals recovered from the Tiber, other bod-
ies of water, sewers and wells suggest that more
violent and destructive forms of disposal, can also,
ironically, contribute to a portrait’s ultimate sur-
vival.32 In antiquity, the disposal of portraits in
bodies of water, especially the Tiber, closely
parallels the disposal of the corpses of arena vic-
tims, another aspect of poena post mortem.33 Addi-
tionally, the practice has intriguing connections
with the Sacra Argeorum, an annual purification
ritual of hostile spirits in which human effigies
were thrown into the Tiber from the Pons Sublicius
every May.34
In the imperial period, the Senate continued
to formally pass sanctions in the case of official
damnationes. Livilla, Sejanus, Messalina, Nero,
Domitian, Commodus, Elagabalus, and Julia
Soemias were all officially condemned by the
Senate. Condemnations could demonstrate sena-
torial autonomy, as in the case of Nero, who was
declared a hostis while still living, or Domitian,
condemned against the express wishes of the
army. Naturally, the emperor could also exert his
influence in cases of damnatio. As early as the
damnatio of Caligula, his successor Claudius re-
fused to permit the senate to formally proscribe
his memory, but did allow an unofficial, de facto
damnatio.35 In cases of conspiracy (maiestas or
perduellio), as for Livilla, Sejanus and Messalina,
it seems likely that the emperor took a direct hand
in promoting the senatorial sanctions. By the
early fourth century, the damnatio of Maxentius
appears to have been a necessary response by the
31 Ostia, Museo, Magazzini, inv. 19, infra.
32 Portraits allegedly recovered from the Tiber include
several bronze and marble portraits of Caligula (New York,
White-Levy Collection, infra; Rome, Museo Nazionale
Romano delle Terme, 4256, infra; Switzerland, Private Col-
lection, infra) as well as a bronze portrait of Domitian
(Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 664, inv. 768). A
portrait of Otho was unearthed from Ostia’s sewer, (Os-
tia, Museo, inv. 446). Portraits thrown in wells include:
heads of Caligula from Tharsis (Huelva, Museo Provincial),
Domitian from Munigua (Munigua, Museo), and Clodius
Albinus from Dougga (Tunis, Musée du Bardo). For this
kind of “refuse disposal,” see also P. Stewart (1999) 166.
33 D.G. Kyle (1998) 213-28.
34 D.G. Kyle (1998) 215-6.
35 Suet. Claud. 11.3; Dio 60.4.5-6, and infra.
Senate and people of the city of Rome to the new
political realities of life under Constantine, as
evidenced by the inscription on Constantine’s
arch which publicly memorializes the former
ruler Maxentius in highly negative terms as a
tyrannus.36
Damnatio is the direct antithesis of consecratio, the
process by which a deceased emperor was de-
clared an official god of the Roman state, and
his character, policies, and reign formally and
eternally endorsed.37 S.R.F. Price has suggested
that in the early imperial period the Senate was
able to act with some degree of freedom in cases
of consecratio as when they conspicuously refused
to deify Tiberius, but by the second century
consecrations, while still technically voted by the
Senate, were largely at the discretion of the reign-
ing emperor.38 Price cites the deification of
Hadrian, which was passed by an unwilling Sen-
ate at the express instigation of Antoninus Pius
as indicative of the new state of affairs and by
the end of the century Septimius Severus un-
equivocally compels the consecratio of Commo-
dus.39 The inverse phenomenon of condemna-
tion appears to mirror the decline in senatorial
autonomy in matters of consecration. Indeed, by
the end of second century, the senate was not
only forced by Septimius Severus to consecrate
Commodus as a new divus but also, in a more
humiliating blow, to rescind the damnatio they had
pronounced against him. Caracalla appears to
have bypassed the senate entirely, at least in the
early stages of his condemnation of Geta, when
he demanded that the army, rather than the Sen-
ate, declare his brother a hostis.40
The destruction and alteration of images was
likely accomplished in much the same way as
portrait dedications. In the latter case, the sen-
ate or emperor could decree portrait honors, or
municipalities, groups, or individuals could pe-
tition to erect commemorative images, usually in
36 CIL 6.1139=ILS 694.
37 On the inverse relationship between damnatio and
consecratio see S. G. MacCormack (1981) 96, 98, 132-3, 149,
254; S. Settis, ed. (1988) 76.
38 (1987) 86-87, 91-3.
39 S.R.F.. Price (1987) 93.
40 HA. Carac. 1.1; Herod. 4.8; see infra.
 developments, implications, and precedents
response to senatorial or imperial decrees mark-
ing important events in the life and reign of the
emperor and his family.41 Similarly, municipali-
ties, groups, or individuals were expected to re-
spond appropriately to senatorial decrees man-
dating the dishonoring of an emperor’s memory
and monuments. The army may also be impli-
cated in the implementation of damnationes, as
suggested by their involvement in Geta’s condem-
nation, as well as their presumed physical involve-
ment in the damnationes of the soldier emperors
later in the century.42 As is to be expected in
Rome and its environs, compliance with senato-
rial sanctions against a condemned emperor’s
memory is essentially universal, but elsewhere it
could be more sporadic and there appears to have
been a certain degree of autonomy in respond-
ing to condemnations. Several representations of
Caligula, whose condemnation was for the most
part unofficial, were allowed to remain on pub-
lic display, as were a boyhood portraits of Nero
at Velleia (and possibly Rusellae), and a statue
of Domitian as prince from the theater at Aphro-
disias.43 In the few instances where portraits of
condemned emperors or other members of the
imperial family were permitted to remain visible,
their presence within group dedications as well
as their importance for dynastic coherence and
imperial continuum must have outweighed con-
cerns over canceling or denigrating the indiv-
idual’s memory.
The physical destruction and mutilation of an
emperor’s images is the direct visual equivalent
of the vilification of his character and actions
which occurs in literary and historical sources.
Literary, historical, or biographical damnatio of-
ten relies on rhetorical tropes of invectio and
41 For a discussion of the motivations of portrait dedi-
cations in the late Republic and early Empire, see C.B. Rose
(1997) 7-10.
42 P.J. Casey (1994) 34.
43 Portraits of Caligula: Iesi, Palazzo della Signoria;
Genoa-Pegli, Museo Civico, inv. 614; Gortyna, Antiqua-
rium; Heraklion, Archaeological Museum, no. 64; see in-
fra. Statues of Nero: from Velleia, Parma, Museo Nazio-
nale d’Antichità, no. 3, inv. 826; see infra; from Roselle,
Grosseto, Museo Archaeologico. Statue of Domitian from
Aphrodisias: Aphrodisias, depot, excavation inv. nos. 66-
27, 67-282-85, 71-477; see infra.
7
vituperatio in order to defame the memory of the
condemned ruler.44 Indeed, the author of the
Historia Augusta acknowledges the distortions and
difficulties surrounding the biographies of con-
demned emperors or “historical losers” in his
biography of Pescennius Niger, the defeated ri-
val of Septimius Severus:
Rarum atque difficile est ut, quos tyrannos aliorum vic-
toria fecerit, bene mittantur in litteras, atque ideo vix omnia
de his plene in monumentis atque annalibus habentur.
primum enim, quae magna sunt in eorum honorem ab
scriptoribus depravantur, deinde alia supprimuntur, postremo
non magna diligentia in eorum genere ac vita requiritur,
cum satis sit audaciam eorum et bellum, in quo victi fuerint,
ac poenam proferre.45
(It is uncommon and difficult to give an unbiased
written account of those men who have come to
be characterized as tyrants because of the victory
of others and furthermore scarcely anything about
these men is accurately preserved in monuments
or histories. For indeed, in the first place, great
events which accrued to their honor are misrep-
resented by historians, and then other events are
suppressed, and finally no great diligence is given
to recounting their ancestry or life, since it seems
enough to reveal their effrontery, the battle in
which they were conquered and their punishment.)
Significantly, the author links the literary distor-
tions and omissions with the visual distortions and
omissions on monuments (in monumentis atque
annalibus). Thus, the mutilation and transforma-
tion of imperial images can be viewed as a de-
liberate rewriting of the visual record of Roman
history and society.
The literary vilification of an overthrown ruler
which mirrors the mutilation of images was in-
tended as a written portrait of the emperor’s evil
deeds and moral inadequacies. Like publicly
mutilated likenesses, they function as potent re-
minders of an emperor’s posthumous disgrace
and failure as leader. Literary denigration, like
its visual counterpart, could also be actively and
officially promoted; indeed, E. S. Ramage has
44 T. Barton in J. Elsner and J. Masters, eds. (1994) 48-
66.
45 HA, Pesc.Nig. 1.1-2; M. Cullhed points out the im-
portance of this passage for the study of condemned empe-
rors, or historical losers, in his monograph on Maxentius
(1994) 9-11.
8 chapter one
pointed out that while images could be removed
or transformed, buildings destroyed or rededi-
cated, texts favorable to a condemned ruler could
never be entirely rescinded, so hostile literary
traditions were actively encouraged.46
While the centrality of epigraphical texts to the
understanding and interpretation of artistic and
architectural monuments for the ancient viewer
can be overstated, the phenomenon of damnatio
memoriae certainly underscores the interdepen-
dence of image and text, at least for the literate
segments of Roman society.47 Obvious parallels
exist between the treatment of the monumental
inscriptions and portraits of condemned emper-
ors. Just as the emperor’s name and titles are
eradicated in commemorative inscriptions or
papyri, so too are his sculpted images removed
from public display, and his likenesses erased
from reliefs and paintings. Like portraits, inscrip-
tions are intended as visual signifiers of the
emperor’s position and achievements, and when
an emperor is overthrown and damned, his por-
traits, like inscriptions, can be “erased” from the
public consciousness. The practice of eradicating
condemned emperors from the epigraphic record
is remarkably long lived, as witnessed by the
erasure of Phocas’s name from the inscription on
his column, the last commemorative monument
known to have been erected in the Forum
Romanum.48 Portrait inscriptions, or inscriptions
on arches, both of which identify and explain the
monuments to which they belong, are places in
which imperial images and texts necessarily in-
teract. Such inscriptions can also be transformed
from commemorations of a condemned ruler into
celebrations of a successor or predecessor, as for
instance a statue base from the Caserma dei Vigili
at Ostia in which the name and titles of Commo-
dus have been erased and replaced with those of
his successor Septimius Severus.49 Presumably
46 Ramage discusses the phenomenon within the con-
text of Pliny’s Panegyricus and Juvenal’s Satires (1989) 643,
650.
47 J. Elsner has underscored the function of epigraphical
texts as monuments in their own right, in J. Elsner, ed.
(1996) 32-53. For epigraphical damnatio, see H.I.Flower
(2000).
48 CIL 6.1200
49 R. Lanciani, NSc 75.
any image which this statue base supported was
similarly transformed. Inscriptions are also liable
to mutilation, as when only part of a condemned
individual’s name is erased, making the inscrip-
tion still readable as a kind of denigrative memo-
rial.
The erasure of an overthrown emperor’s name
in inscriptions, papyri and on coins is also related
to prohibitions against the continued use of a
condemned individual’s praenomen. Both high-
light the importance of the act of naming in
Roman culture. In the realm of religious dedi-
cations, the simple naming of the dedicant com-
prises the great majority of Roman votive inscrip-
tions and M. Beard has suggested that naming
is a fundamental and permanent assertion of the
dedicant’s membership in the larger pagan com-
munity.50 Thus the erasure of a condemned em-
peror’s name and the suppression of praenomina
are acts of un-naming and effectively exclude the
condemned individual from society at large. In
addition un-naming acts to deny the physical
existence of the nameless individual.51 By the
fourth century A.C., there exists a well established
rhetorical tradition of not explicitly naming over-
thrown emperors or those who were deemed
usurpers of legitimate imperial authority.52
Just as imperial representations were created
in order to reach multiple Roman audiences, so
too were the messages encoded in their destruc-
tion and transformation intended to reach differ-
ent segments of the public.53 On the most fun-
damental level, the negation of images or their
alteration into new likenesses signal to the entire
populace the political transition to a new regime.
50 M. Beard (1991) 46-8.
51
P.J. Casey (1994) 46; naming is also an equivalent
existence in the ancient Near East, and the excision of an
inscribed name is tantamount to the suppression or removal
of physical being, Z. Bahrani (1995) 377.
52 A.E. Wardman (1984) 222.
53 The widespread nature of the surviving physical
evidence for damnatio in the form of mutilated, transformed,
or warehoused portraits, as well as erased inscriptions
certainly refutes C. W. Hedrick’s statement that the audi-
ence for damnationes is a “small percentage” of the popula-
tion, namely the senatorial elite, (2000) 110-11. While the
aristocracy are indeed an important audience, as well as
agent for condemnations, all strata of the society are im-
plicated in the phenomenon.
 developments, implications, and precedents
Certainly those illiterate members of the popu-
lation who could not read the written history of
the failed regime could read its visual history as
embodied in mutilated and transformed images.54
But alteration of the visual landscape of impe-
rial portraits could also be read in alternative
ways by different audiences. Damnationes which
were avidly pursued or desired by the Senate such
as those of Caligula, Nero, Domitian, Commodus
or Elagabalus, served to reaffirm the Senate’s
power and prestige for the senatorial aristocrats
themselves and for the society at large. Similarly,
for the new emperor, his family, and supporters,
the mutilation and transformation of a predeces-
sors images made tangible the authority of the
new regime. For the partisans of the overthrown
emperor, the destruction of portraits stand ob-
viously as negative exempla. To a certain extent,
the new emperor could also read the negation of
his predecessor’s likenesses as negative exempla,
visual warnings of the consequences to his own
images should his regime fail.
In cases where images have been altered, it
may have been the intention that visually sophis-
ticated Roman viewers recognize the transforma-
tion and appropriation of the original portrait.
Reworked likenesses which to modern audiences
seem less satisfactory because they retain too
many traces of the original image may be symp-
tomatic of this trend. The Nero/Domitian/Nerva
statue from Velleia stands as an extreme example
since it contains strong visual elements of its two
earlier incarnations as representations of both
Nero and Domitian (cat. 2.50/5.13). These por-
traits may then exhibit deliberate signs of their
own transformation, readable by certain viewers
as manifestations of the new emperor visually
cannibalizing the power and images of his de-
feated predecessor.
If imperial images act on certain levels as ef-
figies, intended to embody in marble or bronze
the reigning princeps, his family, and revered or
54 H. Flower discusses the importance of the visual
trappings of power and prestige, such as the display of
imagines or the erection of important public building and
monuments in communicating to the populace at large in
republican Rome (1996) 65, 69.
9
deified predecessors, then another potential au-
dience for mutilation and transformation of these
representations becomes the images themselves.
H. Flower has raised the intriguing possibility that
imagines, wax ancestor masks, assembled in the
atrium of a Roman house, act as a kind of audi-
ence witnessing the actions of their living descen-
dants. Similarly, when worn by actors at elite
funerals, imagines also function as both participants
in, and an audience for, the funerary rites.55
The physical alteration or mutilation of artis-
tic objects, such as portraits, also provided an
effective means of visual communication between
subject and ruler. Official sanctions which man-
dated the destruction of images pointedly com-
municated the victorious emperor’s new status,
while the public’s response to the damnatio could,
in turn, proclaim loyalty to the new regime.
Spontaneous demonstrations against an over-
thrown emperor’s memory and monuments, es-
pecially in instances where the ruler was never
officially condemned, provided important outlets
for public expression.56 Portraits of Severus
Alexander, Julia Mammaea, and Gordian III
have all been spontaneously attacked, despite the
fact the none of them was officially condemned
and Severus Alexander and Gordian III were
actually deified.57 The spontaneous mutilation,
transformation, or destruction of images visually
repudiates the failed ruler and simultaneously
professes allegiance to his successor.
55 H.I. Flower (1996) especially 60-127, and 185-222.
56 T. Pekáry reviews the evidence for spontaneous dem-
onstrations (1985) 134-42; see also C. W. Hedrick, Jr. (2000)
99 for popular demonstrations involving Gn. Calpurnius
Piso’s statues during his maiestas trial under Tiberius, and
infra for descriptions of spontaneous demonstrations involv-
ing the images of Poppaea and Claudia Octavia.
57 Damaged portraits of Severus Alexander: Bochum,
Kunstasammlungen der Ruhr-Universität, cat. 7.20; Rome,
Museo Capitolino, Magazzini, inv. 1431, cat. 7.22; Swit-
zerland, Private Collection, cat. 7.24; Damaged portraits
of Julia Mammaea: Bochum, Kunstsammlungen der Ruhr-
Universität, cat. 7.25; Paris, Louvre, MA 3552 (inv. MND
2137) cat. 7.27; Ostia, Museo, inv. 26, cat. 7.26; Switzer-
land, Private Collection, cat. 7.28; Damaged portrait of
Gordian III: Sofia, Archaeological Museum, inv. 1497, cat.
8.9.
10 chapter one
Iconographic Implications
Earlier works have been intent largely on docu-
menting the historical dimensions of damnatio or
its specific physical effects on individual sculpted
portraits, paintings, coins, inscriptions, or papyri.
The conceptual implications of the phenomenon
have not yet been fully addressed. Obviously,
knowledge that a work of art has been trans-
formed or intentionally mutilated radically alters
assumptions concerning the production and cul-
tural context of these images. Implicit in the
creation of imperial portraits, then, is the notion
that mechanisms and sanctions existed whereby
representations could be transformed or de-
stroyed. Thus, the imperial image is not inher-
ently stable or static.
In formal terms the mutability of imperial
images has serious iconographic and stylistic
ramifications. Sheer numbers alone reveal the
importance of recut images. As already men-
tioned, well over 100 surviving early imperial im-
ages have been transformed from representations
of Caligula, Nero, and Domitian. Altered repre-
sentations often retain some or all of the style of
the original image. At the most basic level, these
trends can be reduced to classicizing or idealiz-
ing versus veristic approaches to imperial por-
traits. Style functions as a significant bearer of
meaning in Roman portraits, especially in peri-
ods of political transition, periods also marked by
damnationes memoriae and the transformation of
images. Important evidence for the ideology of
style is furnished by representations of Vespasian
whose emphasis on verism is often viewed as a
conscious visual repudiation of Nero and the
Julio-Claudian past and a return to late Repub-
lican values and style. On the other hand, those
portraits of Vespasian which are more classiciz-
ing can be read as attempts to project the idea
of imperial continuum and visually connect the
new Flavian emperor with his respected Julio-
Claudian predecessors, Claudius, Tiberius, and
especially Augustus. These opposing approaches
and intentions exist simultaneously in Vespasian’s
portraiture and suggest that his images were
designed for audiences with different expecta-
tions. Vespasian’s veristic likenesses with their
Republican associations may have been intended
for the members of the senatorial aristocracy who
had grown disaffected with Nero, the Julio-
Claudians and the imperial system in general,
while the classicizing images may have appealed
to the middle and lower classes or inhabitants of
the eastern sections of the empire, whose expe-
rience of the Julio-Claudians would have been
radically different and more positive.58
Significantly the most veristic of Vespasian’s
surviving portraits, as well as the most classiciz-
ing and Julio-Claudian in style are all reworked
from earlier representations of Nero.59 In the
former instance, the supra-verism is inspired by
a desire to obliterate all trace of the initial im-
age and its style, while in the latter instance, the
reworked image attempts to co-opt and cannibal-
ize the idealizing style of the original. Similar
patterns apply for the portraits of Claudius re-
cut from Caligula and they challenge basic no-
tions about the development of style and stylis-
tic trends, since in these examples the heightened
verism or classicism of the likenesses is a direct
result of and response to the necessity of refash-
ioning a pre-existing work of art with its own in-
herent iconographical meaning.60 The divergent
styles expressed in the reworked images may also
reflect differing approaches on the part of artists
facing the technical challenges of recarving, dif-
fering wishes expressed by the patrons oversee-
ing the reworking, or the differing audiences for
whom they were intended. Finally, a recognition
of the profound stylistic influence which an origi-
58 This interpretation runs counter to R. Bianchi-
Bandinelli’s classic Marxist reading of Vespasian’s portrait
typology which sees the veristic portraits as more plebeian
in style, designed to appeal to the proletariat and to present
the emperor as ordinary citizen, while the classicizing
portraits are more “intellectual” and stress Vespasian’s
position as ruler, (1969) 211-12.
59 Arguably the most veristic of Vespasian’s likenesses
is a head recut from Nero in the Terme, inv. 38795 (see
cat. 2.23), while his most classicizing is another recut head
from Lucus Feronia, Magazzini cat. 2.22.
60 A portrait of Claudius in the Centrale Montemartini
refashioned from Caligula is often cited as his most realis-
tic likeness, inv. 2443 (cat. 1.31). Claudius’s most classicizing
image, also recut from Caligula, is the colossal head from
Otricoli in the Sala Rotonda of the Vatican, 551, inv. 242
(cat. 1.30).
 developments, implications, and precedents
nal portrait can have on its recarved progeny can
drastically alter assumptions about whole periods
in Roman art, as for instance the colossal Maxen-
tius/Constantine in the Cortile of the Palazzo dei
Conservatori whose classicism and spirituality are
often cited as characteristic of new directions in
Constantinian art but which were, in reality,
already significant artistic components of the
Maxentian original, appropriated wholesale by
the new image.61
Furthermore, the wide range and variation of
coiffure and physiognomy among recut images,
which can have only the most approximate re-
semblance to more standardized, unreworked
representations, underscore the innate diversity
present in the portraiture of any given emperor.62
Inscriptions and context would have aided an-
cient viewers in identifying less precisely defined
reworked portraits. The latitude within specific
portrait types, especially apparent among altered
likenesses, is yet another symptom of the flexibil-
ity and mutability of imperial images.
Beyond the important stylistic implications for
the development and history of Roman portrai-
ture, a recognition of altered imperial images has
ramifications for other kinds of subsidiary imag-
ery. For instance, reworked cuirassed images of
Nero suggest that certain motifs on sculpted
breastplates, such as that of victories flanking a
thymeterium, may be an innovations of Neronian
rather than Flavian (or Trajanic) artists. Similarly,
a representation of Augustus with a corona spicea
which has been transformed from a likeness of
Nero suggests that Nero, rather than Augustus,
is the first emperor to introduce this important
corona in male imperial portraits.63
The recutting of Roman portraits also impacts
modern questions surrounding the authenticity
and forgery of ancient works of art. Portraits
which look strange and unusual, because they
were reworked in antiquity have been con-
61 Inv. 1622, cat. 9.4.
62 On diversity within the framework of imperial por-
trait typology, see H. von Heintze, in A. Cambitoglou ed.
(1995) 264; R.R.R. Smith (1996) 30-47.
63 Sala dei Busi 274, inv. 715; as proposed by B.S.
Spaeth (1996) 23; on the portrait see cat. 2.10.
11
demned as fakes, as for instance a likeness of
Severus Alexander refashioned from Elagabalus
in Kansas City (cat. 8.X).64 In fact, the oddities
occasioned by recutting can help to validate a
portrait’s authenticity. However, E.B. Harrison
has sounded an important note of caution con-
cerning reworked pieces of ancient sculpture and
the art market: “In the art market and in the
museums for which the market is the main
source, they represent a real danger, for the idea
of an anciently recut original can serve as a mask
for the ineptitude of a forger.”65
Much scholarly effort has been expended in
attempting to recover the lost voices of those
members of Roman society who are misrepre-
sented, under represented or not represented at
all in the literary and historical tradition largely
authored by the male elite or in the officially
sponsored monuments of Roman art. The po-
sition of women, slaves, foreigners, as well as
Roman attitudes towards gender, ethnicity, and
sexuality have all been explored in recent schol-
arship.66 “Bad” emperors like Caligula, Nero,
Domitian, Commodus, Elagabalus and Maxen-
tius as historical losers have also been deprived
of their voices and no longer have the power to
speak through their images that revered rulers
such as Augustus, Vespasian, Trajan, or Con-
stantine have retained. A survey of condemna-
tions prompts reappraisals of art created for these
“bad” emperors and reveals new insights into
various aspects of imperial self-representation
including Caligula’s innovations in Julio-Claudian
group dedications, the surprising persistence of
Neronian military imagery or the extraordinary
range of Maxentius’s visual propaganda during
his six year rule of Rome. Furthermore, it often
calls into question the veracity of certain asser-
tions in surviving ancient sources and our own
64 Nelson Atkins Museum 45-66, cat. 7.16. On ques-
tions of forgery and authenticity, see R. Cohon (1996).
65 (1990) 180.
66 Scholarship has grown rather vast in these areas, but
important contributions in the field of Roman art include:
N.B. Kampen, ed. (1996); D.E.E. Kleiner and S.B.
Matheson eds., (1996) and in particular N.B. Kampen,
“Gender Theory in Roman Art,” 14-26; J.R. Clarke (1996b)
599-603; and J.R. Clarke (1998) and 2003.
12 chapter one
subsequent historical assumptions. The physical
evidence provided by damaged, altered, or mu-
tilated portraits also aids in the recovery of the
lost political voice of Roman imperial women
such as the two Julias, Livilla, Messalina, Lucilla,
Crispina, and Fausta.67 Although these women
were most often accused of adultery and sexual
misconduct, the virulent destruction of their
images underscores the political nature of their
crimes, namely involvement in conspiracies to
overthrow the reigning princeps. Thus, damnatio
contributes new avenues for revisionist ap-
proaches to Roman art and history.
Sculptors also faced substantial technical ob-
stacles when recarving marble portraits. In com-
parison to a freshly cut portrait, freshly cut from
a block of stone, the volume of marble available
for refashioning a likeness is obviously limited to
the extent of the pre-existing image. The basic
position of eyes, ears, and nose is also established
by the original likeness. The recutting of portraits
and resulting reduction in sculptural volume,
often results in representations with overly large,
projecting ears, thick necks, and receding chins.68
Marble also becomes more friable as it ages, so
projecting elements such as ears, noses, and
crowns can prove especially delicate and prob-
lematic. Indeed, ears and crowns, are often left
entirely intact from the original likeness. The
recutting of the lower sections of the face and in
particular the mouth, often a focus in the trans-
formation process may have additional ideologi-
cal implications as the word for mouth, os can also
be used to signify the entire face.69
Precedents and Parallels
The Near East
Prior to the Roman imperial period, represen-
tations of rulers were certainly destroyed, dam-
aged, or altered for political reasons. Numerous
67 See infra and E.R. Varner (2001a).
68 M. Pfanner (1989) 218-9; C.B. Rose (1997) 59.
69 H. von Heintze in A. Cambidoglou, ed. (1995) 264.
examples of mutilated royal images survive from
the Near East. A vandalized copper head of an
Akkadian ruler from Nineveh provides an early
example of mutilation in effigy.70 The ears have
been severed from the image, the left eye gouged
out, the bridge and tip of the nose damaged by
chisel blows, and sections of the beard broken off,
all acts of deliberate denigration. These vandal-
ized features contrast with the rest of head which
is well preserved, a hallmark of most intention-
ally disfigured images. C. Nylander has pointed
out that the portrait’s mutilation finds close par-
allels to the mutilation of criminals in the Near
East, and in particular of the two Persian pre-
tenders Fravartish and Ciçantakhma, whose noses
and ears were cut off and one eye blinded by
order of Darius.71 Nylander also suggests that the
damaged state of much Akkadian hard stone
sculpture may be the result of systematic destruc-
tion.72 In a relief from Nineveh representing Sen-
nacherib, the head of the king has been gouged
out, while also at Nineveh, the faces of Ashur-
banipal and his queen have been attacked, as
have reliefs of Ummanigash.73 In the case of Sen-
nacherib’s representation, the identifying inscrip-
tion was also defaced.74 At Persepolis, royal re-
liefs have also been attacked. In scenes depicting
the king enthroned and leading processions, the
faces of the king have been obliterated, as have
their scepters. Animistic beliefs in these images
as effigies or doubles for the rulers may have
motivated the deliberate disfigurement of royal
representations in the Near East, as well as their
abduction by hostile rulers.75 Indeed, the suscep-
tibility of Near Eastern royal images to politically
motivated mutilation prompted many curse in-
scriptions, including that of the eighth century
Assyrian king Sargon who cursed “anyone who
70 Baghdad, Museum; C. Nylander (1980) 330-31 (with
earlier literature). For the politically chaotic context of the
mutilation, see A. Kuhrt (1987) 20-55.
71 C. Nylander (1980) 331-2.
72 C. Nylander (1980) 330, n. 6.
73 C. Nylander (1980) 331-2; Z. Bahrani (1995) 365-67,
figs. 19, 21; see also T. Beran (1988).
74 Z. Bahrani (1995) 366, fig. 19.
75 Z. Bahrani (1995) 375-80.
 developments, implications, and precedents
would alter or damage” the features of his im-
ages.76
Pharaonic Egypt
The destruction of royal monuments and imag-
es for political reasons was also carried out in
Egypt. Representations of Hatchepsut, who ruled
as pharaoh together with her nephew and step-
son, Thutmoses III, have been extensively mu-
tilated and her cartouches often erased.77 In some
instances her name and titles have been replaced
by those of Thutmoses III, and in others they
remain blank. These erasures appear to be part
of a concerted effort on the part of Thutmoses
III to rewrite the historical record, and he seems
to have been largely successful, as the name of
his co-ruler Hatcheput is noticeably absent in
surviving king lists.78 Images of Hatchepsut were
also deliberately mutilated, as attested by the
great number of damaged sphinxes bearing her
likeness discovered buried together at the site of
her great mortuary temple. 79 The excavator,
H.E. Winlock, estimated that there were origi-
nally as many as 200 Hatchepsut shpinxes. The
76
Z. Bahrani (1995) 372-5; 378-80; I.F. Winter (1997)
368.
77 For the evidence for a “damnatio memoriae” of Hatcehp-
sut, see C.F. Nims (1966) 97-100; P.F. Dorman (1988) 46-
65; C. Van Siclen (1989) 85-6; G. Robins (1993); J.
Tyldesley (1996) 216-229.
78 Omitting Hatchepsut’s name from the king lists would
cause no noticeable chronological gaps in the record, since
she ruled together with Thutmoses III and it would then
appear that the succession passed directly from her hus-
band and brother Thutmoses II to his son by another wife,
Thutmoses III. The alteration of the historical record as
expressed in inscriptions, reliefs, and statues may have been
intended to suppress Hatschepsut role as a successful king
and discourage other influential royal women from attempt-
ing to rule as pharaoh. In this regard it is telling that it is
only representations and inscriptions which celebrate
Hatchepsut as pharaoh, and not those which celebrate her
proper female role as queen consort, which have been tar-
geted for obliteration. G. Robins (1993) 51-52; J. Tyldesley
(1996) 223-6.
79 The “Hatchepsut Hole” discovered accidentally by
H.E. Winlock in 1922-23; Other damaged images of
Hatchepsut were discovered by Winlock in 1926-28 at the
“Senenmut Quarry,” H.E. Winlock, 23 (1928) 46 and in
1927-8 (1928) 1-23.
13
uraeus, symbol of Hatchepsut’s position as king,
has been chiseled off many of these representa-
tions, and the noses have been attacked and the
eyes carefully gouged out. The destruction of the
nose and eyes recalls the mutilation of the Akka-
dian copper head and also provides striking early
parallels to the later mutilation of Roman impe-
rial images. Monuments celebrating Hatchepsut’s
advisor Senenmut have also been attacked.80
The reign of Akhenaten witnesses several
unusual examples of the transformation of rep-
resentations of a royal woman. Reliefs and in-
scriptions honoring the pharaoh’s minor wife
Queen Kiya appear to have been regularly al-
tered to depict one of his daughters by Nefertiti,
Meretaten or Ankhesenpaaten and as a result
Kiya has virtually disappeared from the artistic
record.81 Kiya’s image is often remodeled by
simply altering her headress into a “modified
Nubian wig,” as in two reliefs in Copenhagen,82
and a relief in New York.83 Identifying inscrip-
tions were also recut to honor Meretaten or
Ankhesnpaaten.84 It is not entirely clear what
prompted the obliteration of Kiya’s memory, but
during her lifetime she appears to have enjoyed
a great deal of prominence at Akhenaten’s court,
and it is tempting to view the transformation of
Kiya’s monuments as an indication of the in-
creased importance and influence of Nefertiti and
her daughters towards the end of the reign.85
80 P.F. Dorman discusses the complex problems sur-
rounding the destruction of Senemut’s monuments and the
evidence, or lack thereof, for a concerted proscription of
his memory (1988) 141-64.
81G. Robins (1993) 54-55; D. Arnold, J.P. Allen and L.
Green (1996) 11, 87-88, 105-6.
82 Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, AE.I.N. 1776; D. Arnold,
J.P. Allen and L. Green (1996) 106, 132-3, no. 27, fig. 100.
Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, AE.I.N. 1797; D. Arnold, J.P.
Allen and L. Green (1996) 87-88, 105-106, 133, no. 28,
fig. 79.
83 Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1985.328.8; D. Arnold,
J.P. Allen and L. Green (1996) 106, fig. 101.
84 As in one of the Copenhagen reliefs (Ny Carlsberg
Glyptotek, A.E.I.N. 1776) whose inscription now reads
“daughter of the king of his flesh, his beloved...Meretaten,”
but beneath it, the beginning of Kiya’s usual titles are still
legible: “the wife and [great] beloved of the King of Up-
per and Lower Egypt who lives on [Maat],” D. Arnold, J.P.
Allen and L. Green (1996) 106.
85 On Kiya, see: R. Hanke (1978)188-96; W. Helck
14 chapter one
After his own death, monuments honoring
Akhenaten, his family, and references to the new
monotheistic god Aten were systematically de-
stroyed as Akhenaten’s new religion was aban-
doned and orthodoxy reasserted.86
Sculpted representations of Egyptian rulers
were also transformed and recycled in large
numbers without being politically motivated.
Many statues of Rameses II have been refash-
ioned from pre-existing images of Amenhotep III,
whose sculpted images were produced in far
greater numbers than any of his predecessors. A
representation of Amenhotep’s chief wife, Queen
Tiye may also have been recut, but not until the
Ptolemaic period when it was reworked into an
image of Arsinoe II.87 The drapery of the statue
has been substantially recut, jewelery removed,
the bottom edges of the wig narrowed, the eyes
retouched, and the modius crown of Tiye modi-
fied into an Isis crown. The image of Queen Tiye
may have been deliberately selected by the Ptole-
maic artists because of the perceived similarities
between the two popular queens and its rework-
ing can then be seen as a kind of positive trans-
formation, very different from the generally hos-
tile transformations of the Roman period.88 In
addition, the substantial alterations to the body
of the statue are not typical of Roman transfor-
mations, which are generally concentrated en-
tirely on the facial features and coiffure.
Greece and Sicily
Athens, from the late Archaic through the Hel-
lenistic periods furnishes a number of close par-
allels to the Roman phenomenon of damnatio. An
early example of the politically motivated destruc-
tion or alteration of an artistic monument is
provided by a painted plaque, attributed to
(1980) cols. 422-24; W. Helck (1984) 159-67; A.P. Thomas
(1994) 72-81; D. Arnold, J.P. Allen and L. Green (1996)
14-5, 105-7; On Nefertiti’s importance towards the end of
Akhenaten’s reign and her possible position as co-regent,
see G. Robins (1993) 54 and D. Arnold, J.P. Allen and L.
Green (1996) 88-9, and n. 28.
86 D. Metzler (1973) 19-20.
87 Miho, Museum. A. Kozloff, xxx.
88 A. Kozloff, in J.N. Newland, ed. (1997) 34-37.
Euthymides, in which the name of Megakles, one
of the Alkmeonidai, in the 6"8@H inscription has
been erased, and that of Glaukon substituted.89
In 487, Hipparchos, the son of Charmides was
ostracized and his statue on the Akropolis de-
stroyed.90 At the end of the fourth century, the
Athenians revoked the decrees honoring Dem-
etrios of Phaleron and melted down three hun-
dred of his metal statues, further denigrating his
memory by refashioning some of them as cham-
berpots and throwing others into the sea.91 An
inventory list of statues on the Acropolis compiled
under Lycurgus c. 335 B.C. also provides evi-
dence for the destruction and disposal of statues
for aesthetic, and perhaps religious reasons.92
In 200 B.C., in defiance of Macedon, the
Athenians repudiated the public honors accorded
to Philip V and Livy describes the destruction of
his monuments in terms which are intended to
recall anachronistically Roman practices of
damnatio memoriae:
Tum vero Atheniensium civitas, cui odio in Philippum
per metum jam diu moderata erat, id omne in auxilii
praesentis sepem effudit...Rogationem extemplo tulerunt
plebesque scivit ut Philippi statuae et imagines omnes
nominaque earum, item maiorem eius virile ac muliebre
secus omnium tollerentur delerenturque diesque festi, sacra,
sacerdotes, quae ipsius maiorumque honoris causa institutua
essent, omnia profanarentur; loca quoque, in quibus positum
aliquid inscriptumve honoris eius causa fuisset, detestabilia
esse.93
(Then indeed the Athenian state, long restrained
in their hatred of Philip through fear, because help
was at hand, fully vented their rage...They im-
mediately put forth a resolution, and the popu-
lace passed it, that all of the statues and portraits
of Philip and their identifying inscriptions, and
all those of his ancestors, both men and women
89 Athens, Akropolis Museum, GL 1037; Brouskari, The
Acropolis Museum 126-127, no. 67, fig. 241.
90 Lykurg. Leokrat. 117; M. Donderer (1991-2) 271, no.
1.
91 Strabo 9.1.20 Plut. Mor. 820E; Dion. Hal. Chron.
37.41 (where the number of destroyed statues is given as
1500); Diog. Laet. 5.77 (statues thrown into the sea); C.
Houser (1987) 269; P. Green (1990) 48; M. Donderer (1991-
2) 271, no. 6.
92 D. Harris (1992) 637-52.
93 31.44.2-5. See also, P. Green (1990) 309; M.
Donderer (1991-2) 272, nos. 7-8. On the “damnatio” of
Philip, see H.A. Thompson (1981) 354.
 developments, implications, and precedents 15

should be abolished and destroyed and that the evidence of non-Roman damnatio from Ana-
festivals, religious rites, and priesthoods which had tolia.98 The body of the polychrome sarcophagus,
been instituted in his honor or that of his ances-
tors should be desecrated, and that also the sites
which seems to have been created for a local
in which any inscriptions or honors had been ruler, depicts a stag and boar hunt. The facial
placed should be held as abominable.) features of one of the horsemen in the stag hunt
have been intentionally obliterated from the re-
Polybius records that, slightly earlier in 220 B.C.,
liefs. Evidence for this kind of portrait effacement,
votive images at Dion, sacred to the Macedonians
in which only the head is attacked is generally
were also deliberately attacked and destroyed by
rare for Roman reliefs, but there are comparable
the Aetolians.94 The names of Macedonian kings
instances for both Domitian and Geta.
have also been erased in inscriptions from the
Athenian Agora, and the Athenians passed sanc-
tions against the monuments of Philip V of The Ptolemies
Macedon and those of his ancestors, c. 200 B.C.
Several late Ptolemaic portraits have been re-
Several fragments of a gilded bronze equestrian
worked for political reasons and stand as impor-
statue discovered in a well located in the north-
tant precursors to the altered likenesses of the
western section of the Agora in 1971 may belong
Roman imperial period. In particular, three rep-
to an image of Demetrius Poliorcetes, one of
resentations of Ptolemy IX (116-107, 88-80 B.C.)
Philip V’s most famous ancestors, destroyed
appear to have been remodeled from portraits of
during the Athenian demonstrations and sanc-
his younger brother and successor Ptolemy X
tions of 200 B.C.95 The Agora well had been used
(107-88) when the former regained control of
as a dump Like the Romans, the Athenians de-
Egypt in 88 B.C.99 Iustinus also records the de-
stroyed the dwelling places of those convicted of
struction of images of Ptolemy X by the Alex-
crimes agains the polis, a process known as
andrians.100 A head in Boston which initially
6"J"F6"NZ.96
depicted Ptolemy X Alexander I Physkon has
At Syracuse, after the expulsion of Dionysus
been transformed into a portrait of his elder
II, Timolean encouraged the inhabitants of the
brother Ptolemy IX Soter II Lathyros by
city to demolish Dionysus’s citadel, as well as
recarving the eyes and mouth and refashioning
other monuments honoring Dionysus and his
the hair and beard with stucco additions.101 The
predecessors. Plutarch closely associates the de-
general proportions of the facial features have
struction of these works of art and architecture
also been slimmed down from the original rep-
commemorating Dionysus with the charges of
resentation of Ptolemy X, whose nickname
tyranny leveled against him; in order to under-
Physkon, refers to his corpulence. The reworked
score the symbolic intent of the destruction,
image may also have been completed with an
Timolean built law courts on the site of the
eagle headdress which would have linked Ptolemy
obliterated monuments, as an architectural em-
IX, whose epithet was Soter, to the founder of
bodiment of the triumph of justice over tyranny.97
An early fourth century B.C. Greco-Persian
sarcophagus discovered at Çan may also present 98 See N. Sevinç, et al (2001).
99 Late Ptolemaic portraits are notoriously difficult to
identify, but circumstantial evidence based on representa-
94 4.62.1-2; M. Donderer (1991-2) 271, no. 3; A.F. tions preserved on sealings from Edfu and Nea Paphos
Stewart notes that this deliberate destruction of images is suggests that Ptolemy IX and X can be differentiated on
an attempt to obliterate “Macedonian historical conscious- the basis of their facial features, the former usually appear-
ness,” (1993) 25. ing with a distinctive underchin beard and with slimmer
95 J.M. Camp (1986) 164-5, fig. 138; C. Housere (1987) facial features than his younger brother, see R.R.R. Smith
255-81, figs. 16.1-6; P. Green (1990) 307; M. Donderer (1988a) 95-7.
(1991-92) 267, no. 1. 100 38.8.12; M. Donderer (1991-2) 273-4, no. 274.
96 W.R. Connor (1985) 79-102. 101 Museum of Fine Arts inv. 59.51, h. 0.46 m.; R.R.R.
97 Plut. Tim. 22.2-3; 23.7; Dion.Hal. Chron 37.20f ; M. Smith (1988a) 167, no. 57, pl. 39.1-2 (with earlier litera-
Donderer (1991-2) 272, nos. 9, 12. ture).
16 chapter one
the dynasty Ptolemy I Soter.102 A portrait in the
Getty of Ptolemy IX exhibits similar signs of
reworking (fig. 1).103 The eyes and mouth have
been recut. Like the Boston likeness, the portrait’s
overall volume has been reduced. The neck pre-
serves clear evidence of having been cut down
and the area below the right ear has been cut
back, perhaps to facilitate the addition of another
eagle headdress to the altered image. Chisel
marks are also clearly visible at the back of the
head along a large flat area, perhaps also for
securing added headgeart, or, alternatively, for
repairs in stucco or marble to damage suffered
during Ptolemy X’s overthrow. The head has
been broken from a statue whose drapery is
visible at the left of the neck. A third portrait of
Ptolemy IX in Stuttgart, discovered at Athribis,
also appears to have been modified from a like-
ness of Ptolemy X.104 The recutting of these
images predicts the reworking of Roman marble
portraits, although stucco additions are a rela-
tively rare form of alteration in the Roman pe-
riod.
The Roman Republic
The first recorded example of the destruction of
a Roman honorific monument as a result of
damnatio occurs in Pliny the Elder: a bronze statue
of Spurius Cassius Vecellinus erected in front of
the Temple of Tellus was melted down by order
of the censors after his condemnation for at-
tempted tyranny in 485 B.C.105 The historical
veracity of Pliny’s account is called into question
by three important inaccuracies: namely, true
102 On the reworking of portraits of Ptolemy IX and X
and the putative eagle headdress, see R.R.R. Smith (1986)
74-8.
103 83.AA.330, h. 0.34 m.; R.R.R. Smith (1988a) 167,
no. 59, pl. 40.1-2 (with earlier literature).
104 Würtembergisches Landesmuseum, inv. SS.17, h.
0.233 m; R.R.R. Smith (1988a) 96, n. 65 (with earlier lit-
erature); S. Walker and P Higgs, eds. (2000) 81, no. 1.74,
with fig., (with earlier literature).
105 NH 34.30. eam vero, quam apud aedem Telluris statuisset
sibi Sp. Cassius, qui regnum adfectaverat, etiam conflatam a
censoribus. See also T. Hölscher (1994) 32 and n. 98. For
further discussion of Spurius Cassius, see K. Mustakallio
(1994) 30-38, and B. Spaeth (1996) 71-3.
commemorative portraiture is probably anach-
ronistic for early fifth century Rome, the office
of censor had not yet been established in 485, and
the temple of Tellus itself was not dedicated until
268.106 Nevertheless, this anecdote is particularly
revealing because it indicates that Pliny and the
contemporary audiences for whom he was writ-
ing, familiar with the damnationes of Gn. Cal-
purnius Piso Pater, Livilla, Caligula, Messalina,
Nero, and others earlier in the century, expected
such a direct link between attempted tyranny,
condemnation, and the destruction of portraits.
It also underscores the traditional, Republican
precedents ascribed to the negation of images in
the imperial period. Other early Republican
manifestations of damnatio assigned to the fifth and
fourth centuries document the razing of houses
of condemned individuals, including domås be-
longing to the same Spurius Cassius, Spurius
Maelius, Marius Manlius Capitolinus, and
Marius Vitruvius Vaccus.107 Later, the houses of
M. Fulvius Flaccus, a follower of the Gracchi and
Lucius Saturninus were similarly destroyed.108
Flaccus’s house, which stood on the Palatine, was
replaced by a portico constructed by Q. Lutatius
Catullus, further canceling Flaccus’s memory.109
The destruction of Cicero’s house on the Palatine
ordered by Clodius and the partial demolition of
his villas at Tusculum and Formia can also be
viewed as Republican expressions of architectural
damnatio memoriae.110 The demolition of houses,
106 T. Hölscher (1994) 32; for anachronistic elements
in later accounts of Republican condemnations, see also
C. W. Hedrick (2000) 100.
107Cic. Dom. 100-102; Val.Max. 6.3.1a-b; Livy 2.7.5-12,
2.41.11 (Spurius Cassius), 4.16.1 (Spurius Maelius), 6.20.13
(Marius Manlius Capitolinus), 8.20.8 (Marius Vitruvius
Vaccus); T.P. Wiseman (1987) 394 and n. 3; K. Mustakallio
(1994) 39-64; J. Bodel (1997) 7-9; C. W. Hedrick, Jr. (2000)
100, 102, 105-6.
108 Cic. de.off. 1.138, Dom 102, 114; Val. Max. 6.3.1c;
T.P. Wiseman (1987) 393; J. Bodel (1997) 7-8.
109 Cic. Dom. 102; 114 (ut eius qui perniciosa rei publicae
consilia cepisset omnis memoria funditus ex oculis hominm ac mentibus
tolleretur [so that every memory of him who had conceived
treacherous plots against the Republic should be entirely
abolishted); Val. Max. 6.3.1 c; T. Hölscher (1994) 57; J.
Bodel (1997) ms. 5..
110 Cic. Dom. 62; Red.Sen 18; Att 4.2.5, 7); J. Bodel (1997)
9.
 developments, implications, and precedents
even those belonging to condemned individuals
outside the imperial family, continued in the early
empire, as attested by the partial destruction of
a house or houses belonging to Gn. Calpurnius
Piso pater under Tiberius as decreed by the
Senate and the surviving remains of a domus on
the Caelian destroyed under Nero and likely
belonging to G. Calpurnius Piso, condemned in
A.D. 65 for conspiring against the emperor.111
The Roman aristocratic domus functioned as a
semi-public monument to the achievements and
social prestige of its owners, and as a result is
closely bound up with the memoria and fama of its
inhabitants.112 It is not surprising then that the
house as monument would be a primary target
included in the sanctions associated with damnatio
memoriae. This emphasis on the cancellation of
memory and reputation sharply differentiates the
Roman practice of house razing from the Greek
practice, 6"J"F6"NZ , which, as noted earlier,
seems motivated more by the desire to remove
a polluted dwelling from the polis.113
Although it dates to the reign of Tiberius, the
senatorial decree of A.D. 20 concerning the
damnatio of Gn. Calpurnius Piso pater which sur-
vives in six (or seven) bronze inscriptions from
Spain, provides important evidence for the treat-
ment of the images of condemned individuals and
likely reflects established republican practices.114
Piso, implicated in the death of Germanicus at
Antioch in A.D. 19, was accused of maiestas and
committed suicide in A.D. 20. In addition to the
partial demolition of his domus, the senate ex-
pressly ordered the removal of his portraits,
wherever they may have been erected and for-
bade the display of his imago in any funerals where
111 For Gn. Calpurnius Piso, see J. Bodel (1997) ms. 9;
H. Flower (1998) 169-70. These sanctions only targeted
additions made by Gn. Calpurnius Piso to the propery. On
the destruction of the Caelian domus and its likely associa-
tion with G. Calpurnius Piso, see V. Santa Maria Scrinari
(1997) 9.
112 T.P. Wiseman (1987) 393-413; B. Bergmann (1994)
225-56; J. Bodel (1997).
113 W.R. Connor (1985) 79-102.
114 M. Kajava (1995) 201-10; W. Eck, A. Caballos, and
F. Fernandez, eds (1996); H. Flower (1996) 23-28; H.
Flower (1998) 158-82.
17
it might normally have appeared.115 It is also
notable that the Senate’s decree concerning the
penalties enacted against Piso’s memory and
images survives in several copies.116 Similar pro-
hibitions had been passed against the appearance
of imagines of M. Scribonius Libo Drusus, after
his condemnation for treason in A.D. 16 and
slightly later against G. Silius A. Caecina Largus
in A.D. 24.117 Libo’s condemnation also included
the declaration of public rejoicing on the anni-
versary of his death.118 Sanctions against the
portraits and imagines of the tyrannicides Brutus
and Cassius continued in the early imperial pe-
riod, as attested in Tacitus’s description of the
funeral of Junia Tertulla in A.D. 22 which was
remarkable for their conspicuously absent like-
nesses.119 Later, under Nero, Cassius Longinus
was prosecuted for displaying an image of his
ancestor, Cassius the Tyrannicide.120 This is
115 Utiq(ue) statuae et imagines Cn. Pisonis patris, quae ubiq(ue)
positae essent, tollerentur .... neue imaginibus familiae Calpurniae
imago eius interponeretur (the statues and portraits of Cn. Piso,
the father, should be removed wherever they have been
erected .... nor should his mask be placed among the other
masks of the Calpurnian family); 73-80. The phrase quae
ubique positae essent is presumably meant to stress the fact
that Piso’s images are to be removed from both public and
private spaces. The Senate also enacted sanctions against
Piso’s name and ordered his son to change is name from
Gnaeus (he seems to have adopted Lucius instead). It was
also proposed that Piso’s name be erased from the public
records (fasti), but this penalty was vetoed by Tiberius and
not carried out; Tac. Ann. 3.17; see also H.I. Flower (1996)
28, and n. 45; H. Flower (1998) 160-61.
116 H. Flower makes an important distinction between
Gn. Piso’s condemnation, which actually preserved the
prestige of his family and descendants, and the much more
punitive sanctions against defeated political rivals, which
is the norm for condemned emperors. Flower points out
the complex and conflicting motivations which could lie
behind post mortem sanctions and sees Piso’s punishment as
more traditional and characteristic of earlier republican
practices, (1998) 179.
117 Tac. Ann. 2.32.1. As with Piso, sanctions were passed
against Libo’s name and future Scribonii were forbidden
the use of the cognomen Drusus. For Silius, see Tac.
Ann.11.35. See also H. Flower (1998) 170-71.
118 II ad Ides of September; C. W. Hedrick, Jr. (2000)
107.
119 Ann. 3.76. There is some ambiguity as to the treat-
ment of Brutus and Cassius’s images under Augustus and
he may have permitted display of their portraits, despite
sanctions; see Tac.Ann. 4. 35; Plut. Comp. Brutus and Dio 5;
C.W. Hedrick (2000) 111, 126.
120 Suet. Nero 37.1; Tac. Ann. 16.7; H. Flower (1996)
317, no. T81.
18 chapter one
supported by Dio who claims that in an earlier
period, possession of a portrait of Cassius had
been a capital offence.121 However, by the
principate of Trajan, sanctions appear to have no
longer been in force against the portraits of both
Cassius and Brutus.122
The desecration of corpses as acts of poena post
mortem is also attested in the Republican period.
Important examples include Antonius’s insistence
that Cicero’s head and hands be cut off and then
draped over the ship’s beaks of the Rostra in the
Forum Romanum, or Octavian’s order’s that the
head of Brutus be sent from Philippi to Rome and
thrown at the feet of a portrait statue of Julius
Caesar.123
Marius and Sulla
Images played a crucial role in the civil war which
Marius and Sulla waged at the beginning of the
first century B.C. During the ascendancy of
Marius, Sulla was declared a hostis and his house
and possessions destroyed during his campaign
against Mithradates. It is at this time, as well, that
the monument put up by the Numidian King
Bocchus in honor of Sulla’s Iugurthine victories
may have been deliberately damaged. 124 The
faces of the Victories flanking a shield have been
chiseled from the reliefs. The symbolic intent is
clear: by mutilating the victory figures, Sulla’s
military accomplishments are denigrated and
invalidated. When Sulla regained power (after the
death of Marius), Marius’s portrait statues were
pulled down and trophies commemorating his
12162.27.2.
122 Plin. Ep. 1.17.3. Although C.W. Hedrick interprets
the passages relating to the portraits of Cassius and Brutus
as reflecting the lack of uniform practices associated with
condemnations, Pliny’s intent seems to be that it is now
possible to display their images, precisely because any
sanctions have been rescinded or are not enforced under
the more enlightened rule of Trajan, (2000) 101, 275, n.
36.
123 Cicero: Plut. Cic. 48.6; 49.2, Brutus: Suet. Aug. 13.1;
D.G. Kyle (1998) 132.
124 Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, Braccio Nuovo
2750; T. Hölscher (1994) 71; S. Nodelman (1987) 83-84;
T. Hölscher in Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene Republik (Ber-
lin 1988) 384-6, no. 214 (with fig.).
victories on the Capitoline were destroyed.125
Furthermore, Sulla banned the display of any
imagines of Marius,126 as well as imagines belonging
to partisans of Marius who had been condemned
as hostes.127 The first instance of numismatic
damnatio also occurs under Sulla when he restrikes
(countermarks) coins issued under Marius.128
Marius’s memory was subsequently rehabilitated
and the Capitoline trophies which included his
portrait were restored and reinstalled by Julius
Caesar in 65 B.C.129
Marcus Antonius and Cleopatra VII
Likenesses of Marcus Antonius were produced
and widely disseminated after Caesar’s assassina-
tion on 15 March 44 B.C. and especially during
his struggle for supremacy in the Mediterranean
with Octavian. Indeed, P. Zanker has demon-
strated how the two rivals waged a virtual war
of images.130 Representations of Antonius are
preserved on coins and depict him with a full
head of hair, fleshy face, prominent hooked nose,
and thick neck. Nevertheless, no sculpted like-
nesses can be identified with certainty as a result
of the removal and destruction of his portraits
following the defeat at Actium in 31 B.C. and his
subsequent suicide in 30. Three portraits from
Egypt, all with a similar coiffure are the best
candidates as possible representations of Antonius
and if they do depict him, they are likely to have
been removed from public display and ware-
housed.131 Antonius had been declared a public
125HN 34.20.32; T Hölscher (1994) 50-55.
126 Plut. Caes. 5; H. Flower (1996) 68.
127 Plut. Caes. 5; H. Flower (1996) 123. The proscribed
imagines were exhibited again at the funeral of Caesar’s aunt
Julia, the widow of Marius, in 69 B.C.
128 K. Harl (1996) 35; C. W. Hedrick, Jr. (2000) 274,
n. 24.
129 Plut. Caes. 6.1-5. For the inclusion of a portrait of
Marius in the resurrected monument: ¦46`<"H...9"D\@L...
ñH •<JÂ BV<JT< –>4@H gÇ0 Ò •<¬D J0yH 9"D\@L FL((g<\"H.
130( 1987) 33-78.
131 All three portraits have a similar arrangement of
locks over the forehead: limestone statue, Cairo, Egyptian
Museum, inv. JE 42891; a marble head in Alexandria,
Société archéologique d’Alexandrie; and a basalt pharaonic
statuette, Cairo, Egyptian Museum, inv. 13/3/15/3; G.
 developments, implications, and precedents
enemy of Rome (hosti iudicato) 132 and Plutarch
specifically states that Octavian, on entering Alex-
andria, had Antonius’s statues pulled down.133
Furthermore, both Plutarch and Dio confirm that
the Senate in Rome ordered Antony’s monu-
ments to be effaced or dismantled, his birthday
to be declared a dies nefastus, and his descendants
to be forbidden the use of the praenomen
Marcus.134 His birthday was further considered
ill-omened (vitiosus).135 The destruction of Anto-
nius’s images provides important precedents for
the treatment of representations of overthrown
emperors and political rivals in the imperial
period.
Antonius’s memory and reputation did how-
ever undergo rehabilitation. This process was
begun under Augustus himself. Although ar-
chaeological evidence for Augustus’s arches in the
Forum Romanum is extremely complicated, it
appears that, as part of the damnatio, Antonius’s
name was deliberately omitted from the list of
Grimm (1989) 348-353, ns. 12, 30, fig. 1, pls. 84-5. It is
important to point out that these images do not have close
correspondences to Antonius’s numismatic images and the
coiffures of the basalt portrait in Cairo and the Alexandria
head are not different enough to support Grimm’s asser-
tion that they represent two distinct portrait types: type A,
Antonius as Triumvir and type B, Antonius as “sole ruler”
in the east, respectively. The basalt statuette has also been
associated with Augustus, Z. Kiss (1984) 31-2, figs. 25-6.
R.R.R. Smith has more cautiously identified the limestone
statue in Cairo as simply representing a late Ptolemy
(1988a) 168 no.61, pl. 41. Three other portraits often as-
sociated with Antonius (Kingston Lacy, the Banks Collec-
tion; Brooklyn, Museum of Art, 54.51, and Budapest,
Museum of Fine Arts, 4807) all have divergent hairstyles
and physiognomies, nor do they have strong similarites with
the three Egyptian images; as a result, they are likely to
represent private individuals, see S. Walker and P. Higgs,
eds. (2001) 241, no. 261, 243, no. 263, 254-5, no. 277.
132 Suet. Aug. 17.2.
133 Ant. 86.5.
134 Cic.49.4: ¦Nz @Þ JVH Jz gÆ6`<"H º $@L8¬ 6"2gÃ8g<
z!<JT<\@L 6"Â J•H –88"H ²6bDTFg J4:VH 6"Â BD@FgR0N\F"J@
:0*g<Â Jä< z!<JT<\T< Ð<@:" 9VD6@< gÉ<"4; Dio 51.19.3;
see also D.G. Kyle (1998) 234, n. 47. On the erasure of
Antonius’s name, see Plut. Cic. 49.4; Dio 51.19.3; F.
Vittinghoff (1936) 21 and. M. Kajava (1994) 201; see also
C.W. Hedrick (2000) 104.
135 Fasti Verulani, Caeretaini, Maffaeiani, Praenestini, and
Appiani minores; Dio 51.19.3; H. Flower (1998) 171, and n.
101; see also II 13.3 ad 14 January and ad Kalends of
August and C.W. Hedrick, Jr. (2000) 107.
19
consuls which decorated the interior bay of
Augustus’s Actian arch in the Forum Roma-
num.136 By 19 B.C., however, when the Actian
Arch was replaced by a tripled bayed arch com-
memorating the return of the Parthian standards,
Antonius’s name is reinstated in the new list of
triumphatores.137 The rehabilitation of Antonius’s
memory is continued under his direct descen-
dants, Caligula and Claudius.138 Antonius’s res-
toration prefigures the rehabilitation of the
memory of Commodus under Septimius Severus
or that of Nero in the 4th and 5th centuries A.C.
As Antonius’s consort and ally, it is Cleopatra
against whom Octavian technically waged war.
Both Dio and Plutarch indicate that Cleopatra
was also declared a hostis, and if so, she is the only
woman for whom there is historical evidence of
a proclamation as an official enemy of the Ro-
man state.139 Indeed, there is a conscious at-
tempt made on the part of Octavian and his
supporters to portray the civil conflict against An-
tonius as a struggle between Rome and a foreign
power, Egypt. Nevertheless, there is no evidence
136 R.A. Gurval reviews the rather sparse numismatic,
archaeological, and literary evidence for the Actian arch
and notes that it is possible that the predecessor to the
Parthian arch in fact celebrated Augustus’ victory over
Sextus Pompey at Naulochus in 36 B.C., (1995) 36-47, as
earlier proposed by F. Coarelli (1985) 258-308. However,
the evidence of the omission of Antony’s name in the list
of consuls, which seems to have been part of the earlier
arch, would favor an identification of the earlier arch as a
commemoration of the victory at Actium rather than
Naulochus, see A. Degrassi (1945-6) 96-7; A. Degrassi
(1947) 133-5, 47 B.C., 42 B.C., 37 B.C.; E. Nedergard in
E.M. Steinby, ed. (1993) 80-85 (with earlier literature).
137 A. Degrassi (1947) 86-7, 40 B.C. Tac.Ann. 3.18 in-
dicates that Antony’s name was visible under Tiberius,
further evidence of the rehabilitation. The idea of recon-
ciliation and the rehabilitation of Antonius’s memory is also
present in the Ara Pacis. The Apolline and Bacchic ele-
ments of its acanthus leaf scrollwork can even be read as
a kind of numen mixtum reconciling Apollo, the patron de-
ity of Augustus and Bacchus, with whom Antony was of-
ten identified. On the scrollwork see J. Pollini (1993a) 181-
217 and D. Castriota (1995).
138 Suet. Cal. 23.1; Claud.11.5; Dio 59.20.1 and A.
Barrett, Caligula 218..
139 Dio 50.4.4 (*¥ 58g@BVJD‘ JÎ< B`8g:@<); Plut. Ant 60.1
(R0N\>gJ"4 58g@BVJD‘ B@8g:gÃ<). In the Octavia Nero calls
for his wife to be treated as a hostis, which prompts the
praefect to whom he is talking to respond by wondering if
a woman can really be a hostis 865-6.
20 chapter one
to suggest that Cleopatra’s images were system-
atically destroyed or removed after her suicide.
In the same passage where Plutarch records the
destruction of Antonius’s portraits at Alexandria,
he also indicates that Octavian accepted 2000
talents from Archibius in order that Cleopatra’s
images should not be pulled down. Three sculpt-
ed portraits of Cleopatra have survived in the
Vatican,140 Berlin,141 and Cherchel.142 The Va-
tican portrait was reportedly discovered in 1784
at the Villa of the Quintilii on the Via Appia. It
may have been carved during her sojourn in
Rome with Julius Caesar between 46-44 B.C. and
then eventually incorporated into the extensive
sculptural display at the Villa.143 The Berlin
portrait is also likely to have come from the
environs of Rome, perhaps in the vicinity of
Ariccia or Genzano, and it too may have been
created between 46-44.144 In any event, it is ex-
tremely unlikely that new images of Cleopatra
would have been created in Rome during her
140 Museo Gregoriano Profano, inv. 3851, h 0.39 m;
R.R.R. Smith (1988a) S. Walker and P. Higgs, eds. (2000)
157-8, no. III.2, with figs. (with earlier literature).
141Antiken Museen, 1976.10, h. 0.27 m.; R.R.R. Smith
(1988a) S. Walker and P. Higgs (2000) 159, no. III.4, with
figs. (with earlier literature).
142 Museum, S 66 (31); h. 0.31 m.; R.R.R. Smith
(1988a) ; S. Walker and P. Higgs (2000) 158, no. III.3, with
fig. (with earlier literature).
143 The portrait has also been attributed to the “Tomba
di Nerone” near the via Cassia. For the most recent attri-
bution to the Villa dei Quinitllii, see S. Walker and P. Higgs
(2000) 147, 157, no. III.2.
144 S. Walker and P. Higgs, eds. (2000) 159.
alliance with Antonius and conflicts with Oc-
tavian or after the Battle of Actium. Both Appian
and Dio mention the gilded bronze portrait of
Cleopatra which Julius Caesar placed in the
Temple of Venus Genetrix, and Dio’s account
indicates that the statue was still in situ in the
early 3rd century.145 The statue was apparently
not removed after Actium, just as her images
were not destroyed at Alexandria. The site of this
portrait in the Temple of Venus Genetrix and its
strong associations with Divus Iulius may have
insured its survival. M. Flory has further sug-
gested that Octavian may have added portraits
of Octavia and Livia to the temple in order to
deliberately contrast his wife and sister’s romanitas
and moral virtue with Cleopatra’s foreignness and
perceived moral laxity; thus the three statues
together would have acted as an exempla of
correct versus incorrect female behavior, as valid
after Actium as before.146 Posthumous images of
Cleopatra do seem to have been produced as
evidenced by the Cherchel portrait whose anach-
ronistic pin curls framing the face find close
correspondences in Julio-Claudian coiffures and
suggest that the likeness was produced in the
second quarter of the first century A.C. The
portrait comes from Iol Caesarea, the capital of
Roman Mauretania, and may have been com-
missioned by Cleopatra’s grandson, Ptolemy, the
last king of Mauretania (r. A.D. 23-40).
145 App. BC 2.102; Dio 51.22.3
146 (1993) 295-6; see also S. Wood (1999) 32.
 caligula, milonia caesonia and julia drusilla
CHAPTER TWO
CALIGULA, MILONIA CAESONIA AND JULIA DRUSILLA
Caligula’s name has become synonymous with
the excesses and debauchery of the early empire,
and indeed he is the first of Rome’s emperors to
be assassinated and to suffer a damnatio memoriae.
Gaius Iulius Caesar Germanicus, nicknamed
Caligula by the troops of his father Germanicus,
was born on 31 August A.D. 12.1 On 18 March
37, he succeeded his great-uncle Tiberius as the
third emperor of Rome, at the age of twenty-four.
Initially, Caligula’s reign was viewed as a wel-
come change from the repressive policies of Tibe-
rius.2 However, Caligula’s relations with the sen-
atorial aristocracy eventually soured as a result
of the emperor’s increasingly megalomaniacal
behavior. Caligula was assassinated, during the
Ludi Palatini, on 24 January 41, together with
his wife Milonia Caesonia, and his infant daugh-
ter Julia Drusilla.3 Dio adds the additional grue-
some detail that some of Caligula’s assassins ate
the flesh from his corpse.4
The Senate wished to condemn his memory
officially, but Caligula’s uncle and successor
Claudius, who himself may have been involved
in the plot to murder Caligula, refused to per-
mit formal sanctions5 or to declare the day of
1 Suet.Cal.8.1; Fasti Vallenses; Fasti Pighiani; Dio.59.6.1;
and A. Barrett (1989) 6-7, n. 9 with discussion of conflict-
ing evidence for Caligula’s birthplace.
2 A. Barrett (1989) 50-71.
3 Suet. Calig. 59; Dio 49.29.7; the murders of Caeso-
nia and Drusilla may have occurred slightly after that of
Caligula, Jos. AJ. 19.190-200. See also J. Scheid (1984) 180,
184.
4 59.27.7 (6"\ J4<gH 6"Â Jä< F"D6ä< "ÛJ@Ø ¦(gbF"<J@).
5 Suet. Claud. 11.3; Dio 60.4.5-6; On Caligula’s unof-
ficial damnatio, see F. Vittinghoff (1936) 102; J. Bleicken
(1962) 104-105; J.P. Rollin (1979) 165; H. Jucker (1982)
110; A. Barrett (1989)177. There is no evidence that Caligu-
la was declared a hostis, as stated by E. Angelicoussis (1992)
57, no. 24.
21
Caligula’s death a public holiday.6 However,
Claudius did permit the images of his predeces-
sor to be removed at night7 and his acts to be
annulled.8 As a further mark of his defamation,
Caligula’s remains were not interred in the
Mausoleum of his great-grandfather Augustus,
but rather buried in the imperial gardens on the
Esquiline.9 Caligula’s exclusion from the Mau-
soleum of Augustus stood as a posthumous act
of disinhersion from the Julian gens and had
happened earlier to Julia Maior, Julia Minor, and
to Caligula’s mother, Agrippina Maior, as well
as his brothers Nero and Drusus Caesar.10
Claudius had multiple motives for vetoing an
official damnatio. Clearly, senatorial condemnation
of Caligula’s memory would have reflected neg-
atively on the entire Julio-Claudian dynasty and
ultimately on Claudius’s own legitimacy and fit-
ness to rule. And in fact, immediately following
Caligula’s murder, the Senate considered abolish-
ing the memories of all the Julio-Claudians and
destroying their temples (quidam vero sententiae loco
abolendam Caesarum memoriam ac diruenda templa cen-
suerint).11 Nevertheless, during his lifetime Caligu-
la had enjoyed considerable popularity with other
6 Suet. Claud. 11.3.
7 Dio 60.4.5.
8 Suet. Claud. 11.3.
9 Initially the corpse was only partially cremated and
then hastily buried. Caligula’s spirit was reported to have
haunted the Esquiline gardens and the palace on the Pa-
latine until Caligula’s two surviving sisters, Agrippina Minor
and Julia Livilla completed the cremation and properly in-
terred the remains, Suet. Calig. 59; see also S.R.F. Price
(1987) 76.
10 See J. Linderski (1988) 191.
11 Suet. Calig. 60. Clearly, many of the temples referred
to were dedicated to Augustus, underscoring the depth of
feeling against the Julio-Claudians among the senatorial
aristocracy. See also Joseph. AJ 19.173, 187.
22 chapter two
segments of the Roman populace, most notably
the Praetorian Guards and the plebs. As a result,
Claudius found it to be politically expedient to
bring Caligula’s assassins to trial and execute
them in order to appeal to lingering sentiment
favorable to Caligula. On the other hand, by
condoning an unofficial, de facto damnatio, which
included the removal and replacement of Caligu-
la’s portraits and the erasure of his name from
inscriptions, Claudius managed to retain favor
with the disaffected senatorial aristocracy who
had come to view Caligula as a deranged and
dangerous despot. Despite its unofficial nature,
Caligula’s damnatio and the resulting treatment of
his sculpted images established important prece-
dents for the condemnation of future emperors.
As was the case with earlier members of the Julio-
Claudian dynasty who had been condemned,
representations of Caligula were removed from
public display, deliberately mutilated, or altered
into other likenesses, most often of Claudius or
Augustus.
Caligula’s Portrait Typology
Suetonius presents an unflattering description of
the young princeps’ physical appearance:
Statura fuit eminenti, colore expallido, corpore enormi,
gracilitate maxima cervicis et crurum, oculis et temporibus
concavis, fronte lata et torva, capillo raro et circa verticem
nullo hirsutus cetera. Quare transeunte eo prospicere ex
superiore parte aut omnino quacumque de causa capram
nominare e criminosum et exitiale habebatur. Vultum vero
natura horridum ac taetrum etiam ex industria efferebat
componens ad speculum in omnem terrorem ac formidinem.
Valitudo ei neque corporis neque animi constitit.
He was of tall stature, had a pallid complexion,
and a body disproportionately large for his slen-
der neck and skinny legs. His eyes were deeply
set, his temples hollow, and his forehead was wide
and forbidding. His hair was sparse and he was
bald around the top of his head, although the rest
of his body was hairy. As a result to view him
from above as he went by or for any reason at
all to name a goat were held as capital crimes.
His face was frightful and loathsome by nature
and he exacerbated this by practicing all man-
ner of terrifying and threatening expressions in
the mirror. Neither his body nor his mind were
imbued with health.12
Suetonius’s unpleasant physical characterization
of Caligula functions as a visual component of
the author’s negative assessment of the emper-
or’s life and character, underscored by the state-
ment: valitudo ei neque corporis neque animi constitit.
As such, his depiction of the emperor is strongly
influenced by ancient physiognomic theory which
was in vogue during the second century A.C. and
therefor serves a largely rhetorical function and
should by no means be taken literally.13 Caligu-
la’s small eyes and bodily appearance denote the
petty, thieving and deceitful character of the
panther as well as the sensual nature of the goat
(further underscored in the anecdote about his
sensitivity to his baldness); his pale skin is a sign
of cowardice, while his wide forehead and hol-
low temples are further indications of stupidity,
foolishness, and madness.14 Clearly, Suetonius’s
exaggeration of Caligula’s unattractive physical
traits is intended to reflect his unwholesome spir-
itual and moral qualities.15
12 Cal. 50.1-2.
13 For ancient physiognomic theory see: E.C. Evans
(1969); for the use of physiognomic theory in Suetonius’s
description of the Caesars see: J. Couisson (1953) 246; D.
Wardle emphasizes that Suetonius’s description derives
from a hostile literary tradition (1994) 326. The discrep-
ancies between the surviving sculpted and numismatic like-
nesses of Caligula, and the literary portrait provided by
Suetonius continue to perplex modern scholars who wish
to take Suetonius at face value. E. Bartman has pointed
out the problems inherent in giving the literary depictions
of Caligula primacy over the surviving visual evidence and
vice-versa, (1994) 341. However, Bartman herself in a
subsequent work refers to Caligula’s visual representations
as “sublimating” his unpleasant physical appearance, thus
taking Suetonius’s description at face value (1998) 26. There
is also no objective evidence for Bartman’s speculation that
portraits of Caligula which represented him as “effeminate”
or “divine” (and so in keeping with the literary represen-
tations) were more “offensive” and thus the first to be
destroyed (1994) 341. In fact, there is no evidence that “ef-
feminate” portraits were ever created, and Caligula’s di-
vine or heroic portraits were actually reworked to repre-
sent Claudius and Augustus (cat. 1.X-X0.
14 E.C. Evans (1969) 54-55; D. Wardle (19940 323-30;
Psued.Arist. 812a, 812b, 808b; Pol. 182, 230, 244, 248, 254;
Adamant. 377-78, 386, 392; Anon.Physig.Lat. 2.27, 2.29,
260, 2.92-4, 2.117, 2120.
15 Caligula’s literary damnatio may have additional con-
 caligula, milonia caesonia and julia drusilla
In contrast to Suetonius’s literary portrait of
Caligula, the emperor’s surviving numismatic
images present him with handsome and regular
facial features including a smooth and broad
forehead, sharply delineated brows, large, deep-
ly set eyes, aquiline nose with slightly bulbous tip,
well-formed mouth with receding lower lip, and
a rounded chin.16 The distinctive numismatic
representations of Caligula have facilitated the
identification of forty-eight sculpted and glyptic
portraits of the emperor.17 D. Boschung has
convincingly divided the surviving likenesses into
two types based on the arrangement of comma
shaped locks over the forehead.18 However Bos-
chung’s criteria, which are derived from an elab-
orate schematization of individual locks, should
be simplified, and the portraits grouped accord-
ing to the presence or absence of a central or
slightly off-center part. Such a grouping essen-
tially follows Boschung’s division. The majority
of Caligula’s sculpted likenesses exhibit a prin-
cipal parting of the locks at the center of the
forehead, or over the inner corner of the left eye,
constituting Boschung’s main type (Hauptty-
pus).19 The locks over the temples are often
combed back towards the center of the forehead.
However, in several portraits, the part is omit-
ted, or occurs at the extreme left of the forehead;
in this type (Boschung’s secondary type [Neben-
typus]), most of the locks over the forehead are
combed from proper left to right.20 As the sec-
sequences. It has been suggested that Curtius, the Alexander
historian is Q. Curtius Rufus (cos. A.D. 43) and that his
negative assessment of Alexander and his achievements
is, in fact, a reflection on Caligula, see A. Stewart (1993)
17.
16 A.E. Wardman (1967) notes that unlike Plutarch,
Suetonius does not explicitly refer to visual representations
of the emperor, such as portraits, in his written physical
descriptions, 419. This may be because Suetonius is very
well aware that his written descriptions do not correspond
with the visual representations of the emperors.
17 Catalogued by D. Boschung (1989)
18 D. Boschung (1988) 31-70.
19 Sometimes referred to as the Schloss Fasanerie type,
after a well preserved replica, fig. 30.
20 Sometimes referred to as the New Haven type after
the well-preserved replica in the Yale University Art Gal-
lery, see D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 127. Although Boschung
23
ondary type exists in far fewer numbers, and
there are no verifiable examples which have been
recarved, it is likely to have been introduced after
the main type, probably rather late in Caligula’s
principate. Additionally, the secondary type por-
traits are only found in Italy, suggesting that they
had not yet been widely disseminated.21 As a
result, the main type is almost certainly type 1,
and the secondary type, type 2.
The Mutilation and Destruction of Caligula’s Images
The most dramatic visual evidence for the den-
igration of Caligula’s posthumous reputation is
provided by surviving images which were delib-
erately mutilated in antiquity as a direct result
of his condemnation. Intentional defacement of
Caligula’s portraits constituted an effective way
of visually and physically dishonoring his mem-
ory and, concomitantly, expressing loyalty to the
new emperor, Claudius. Nevertheless, actual
mutilation of Caligula’s images is extremely rare.
An under life-sized cuirassed bronze bust in a
Swiss private collection, a replica of the main
type, received violent blows to the surface of the
face from a square hammer and the eyes have
been gouged out (cat. 1.3. figs. 2a-b).22 The
violent elimination of the eyes is the first surv-
ing instance of an attack on the sensory organs
only recognizes three marble replicas of this type (New
Haven, Yale University Art Gallery, 1987.70.1; Naples,
Antiquario Flegreo, no. 68; Fossobrone, Museo), three
additional marble portraits, classified as the main type by
Boschung, should actually be reassigned to the Nebentypus
on the basis of the coiffures which are parted at the far left
of the forehead (Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 637a
inv. 2687; New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 14.37,
and Worcester, Art Museum, 1914.23).
21 R. Grossman is the first scholar to have explored the
typological implictions of the geographical distribution of
Caligula’s surviving portraits in a senior essay at Yale
University (2001) written under the supervision of D.E.E.
Kleiner.
22 H. .097 m.; H. Jucker (1973) 20; H. Jucker (1982)
112; D. Boschung (1989) 29, n. 12, 49-50, 54-57, 91, 92,
100, 115, no. 30, pls. 27.1-4, 45.1 (with previous literature);
A. Barrett (1989)178, n. 30; J. Pollini (1993) 425, and n.
14; E.R. Varner (2001b) 47.
24 chapter two
in imperial portraits and the practice would
become common in deliberately disfigured im-
ages. In addition, H. Jucker has plausibly suggest-
ed that a marble fragment in Aquileia compris-
ing a chin and mouth is derived from an over
life-sized portrait of Caligula which was broken
apart with a hammer following the emperor’s
death (cat. 1.1; fig. 3).23 Similarly, the upper
section of a colossal head with corona civica from
Saguntum in Spain may be derived from a van-
dalized representation of Caligula (cat. 1.2).24
This head was discovered in the forum and pro-
vides evidence for the destruction of Caligula’s
public images in the western provinces.
Evidence for the mutilation of Caligula’s like-
nesses is limited to these three portraits and sug-
gests that such mutilation resulted from sponta-
neous demonstrations against his memory, as
opposed to officially sponsored sanctions. Cassius
Dio records such spontaneous demonstrations
occurring in the chaos which erupted immedi-
ately after Caligula’s assassination when some of
the emperor’s statues were overthrown and
dragged from their pedestals (•<*D4V<JgH Jg "ÛJ@Ø
6"Â gÆ6`<gH ¦FbD@<J@).25 In addition, the major-
ity of Caligula’s portraits in gold, silver, or bronze
would have been melted down for their metal
content, effectively combining destruction with
reuse.
Certain Caligulan coins have also been delib-
erately defaced, often with the C for Gaius be-
ing hacked out.26 Caligula’s portrait features have
been intentionally mutilated in aes coinage from
lower Germany,27 while, according to H. Juck-
er, approximately 9.5% of certain Caligulan types
23 Aquilea, Museo Archeologico, inv. 128; h. .012 m.;
H. Jucker (1982) 111, pl. 15.1-2; D. Boschung (1989) 120,
no. 49, pl. 39.5-6 (with previous literature); E.R. Varner
(2001) 48.
24 Museo Arqueológico.
25 59.30.1a. A. Barrett sees this as a “limited and spon-
taneous” action on the part of the conspirators, probably
taking place on the Palatine (1989) 178, n. 28.
26 E. Jonas (1936-38) 89-91; H. Hinz, W. Hagen, and
D. Haupt (1966) 580 for an as from 37/38 minted at Rome
with most of Caligula’s name removed; Jucker (1982) 114-
8; A. Barrett (1989)180, n. 45.
27 H. Chantraine (1968) 22; K. Coleman (1988) 230.
have the initial C obliterated.28 Chisels, hammers,
and files were all used to mutilate the Caligulan
coins.29 The obliteration of Caligula’s praenom-
en on coins must be related to one of the earli-
est legal sanctions which would have been includ-
ed in a damnatio memoriae, namely the prohibition
against a family’s continued use of the con-
demned individual’s praenomen. Coins were
expressive and tangible monuments of Caligula’s
policies and propaganda; their random destruc-
tion and mutilation effectively denigrated his
memory and could be carried out by private
persons or soldiers not necessarily acting with a
mandate from the Senate or princeps. Although
Caligulan coins appear to have remained in cir-
culation, they were closely connected in the
popular consciousness with the disgraced repu-
tation of the overthrown princeps and the bronze
issues were considered worthless.30
Caligula’s coins also suffered official forms of
defacement. On a series of Caligula’s Vesta aes
coinage, the countermark TICA (Tiberius Clau-
dius Augustus) has been used to obliterate the
inscription C CAESAR. In some instances, coun-
termarks obliterate and cancel the emperor’s
facial features.31 A. Barrett has proposed that
these countermarked coins were used to pay the
soldiers stationed on the Rhine and that the
countermarks acted as assertions of Claudius’s
new and legitimate authority.32 If Barrett is cor-
rect, it signals that the army is an important
audience for the mutilation and destruction of
28 RIC 23/25 (adlocutio), RIC 26 (Caligula’s three sisters),
RIC 27/29 (corona civica), RIC 35/37 (consecratio of the
Temple of Augustus), and RIC 42 (Agrippina Maior’s car-
pentum). H. Jucker (1982) 117. Based on Jucker’s individu-
al breakdown of the types with 410 total coins vs. 39 dam-
aged coins.
29H. Jucker (1982) 117.
30 plus minus asse Gaiano, Stat. Silv. 4.9.22; K. Coleman
(1988) 230. A. Bay has even suggested that the aes coinage
which was technically issued by the Senate and prominently
displayed SC on the reverses was particularly targeted
because the Senate did not want to be associated in any
way with Caligula’s memory, (1972) 122.
31 New York, American Numismatic Society, inv.
1953.171.1082; E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 108-109, cat. 11.
32 A. Barrett (1989)179, n. 42, (with previous literature
on the coins).
 caligula, milonia caesonia and julia drusilla
monuments from the outset of imperial damna-
tiones. In a more sweeping condemnation of
Caligula’s memory, the Senate also ordered in
A.D. 43 that his bronze coins be recalled and
melted down.33 This act seems to have been lim-
ited to the mint at Rome, but the two years which
intervened between Caligula’s death in 41 and
the passing of the Senate’s decree in 43 highlight
the lingering hatred that the senatorial aristoc-
racy still bore towards the memory of Caligula.34
Furthermore, it indicates that there was, in fact,
an official aspect to his condemnation, although
not enacted immediately after his death. The
dearth of small bronze coinage in the provinces
may also be attributed to an effective numismatic
damnatio.35 On the other hand, local mints in Gaul
seem to have continued to mint aes coinage with
Caligula’s portrait perhaps as late as A.D. 43, a
significant example of the widely varying respons-
es to, and even acceptance of, Caligula’s condem-
nation on the part of local municipalities.36 In
general, however, the scarcity of Caligulan coins
in hoards, of both base and precious metals,
indicates some kind of official de-monetization.37
The Transformation of Caligula’s Images
Caligula/Claudius
The great number of recut images of Caligula
confirms that reworking, rather than intentional
mutilation, was the preferred approach to the
emperor’s sculpted likenesses once they had been
removed from public display. Indeed, well over
half of Caligula’s marble portraits have been
altered into other likenesses. Reuse was econom-
ically, as well as ideologically motivated. In ad-
33 Dio 60.22.3.
34 A. Barrett (1989)178.
35 RPC 698-99; A. Savio (1988)13.
36 A. Barrett (1989) 178.
37 A. Barrett (1989)179 with a list of coin hoards and
the number of Caligulan issues versus those of other reigns.
Caligula’s numismatic damnatio has been investigated by C.
Clay: “Claudius and the Coinage of Caligula: Numismat-
ic Damnatio Memoriae Under the Roman Empire,” (talk
presented at “The Science of Numismatics” Chicago, 27
March 1996).
25
dition to preserving a costly piece of marble,
recutting was a way of visually cannibalizing
images of the overthrown Caligula and physically
displacing them with representations of his suc-
cessor Claudius, or his revered predecessor,
Augustus. Refashioned likenesses of Caligula
provide the first large body of evidence for the
recarving of imperial portraits. This practice
would become the standard approach to images
of the other two emperors condemned later in
the first century, Nero and Domitian. Indisput-
ably, the unofficial damnatio of Caligula supplied
the impetus for the development of techniques
of recarving. In addition to the technical ramifi-
cations for sculptural production and modifica-
tion, the recutting of Caligula’s portraits also
significantly influenced the style and iconography
of Claudius’s public representations. Indeed,
recut images stand as prominent visual markers
for periods of political transition in the first cen-
tury.
A majority of Caligula’s recut portraits have
been refashioned into likenesses of Claudius.
Reworking marble portraits of the youthful
Caligula into convincing representations of his
middle-aged uncle, Claudius posed numerous
challenges to sculptors. Obviously, the chief
obstacle was the greatly reduced volume of
marble available from which to create the new
portrait. In addition, the increasing friability of
marble as it ages mandated that the sculptors
responsible for recutting heads had to take spe-
cial care when handling protruding elements like
noses and ears. The representations of Claudius
reworked from images of Caligula can be divid-
ed into two categories: classicizing likenesses
which retain youthful elements of Caligula’s
portraits, and veristic likenesses which emphasize
Claudius’s more mature physiognomy.
Claudius’s own sculpted portraits divide into
two types on the basis of their coiffures.38 In the
most widely disseminated type (main type/haupt-
38 Interpretations of Claudius’s portrait typology include
D. Salzmann (1976) 252-64; K. Fittschen (1977a) 55-58,
no. 17; H. Jucker (1981a)254-84; Fittschen-Zanker I, 16-
17; H.-M. von Kaenel (1986); D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 129-
35; C.B. Rose (1997) 70-71, no. 23.
26 chapter two
typus) created during his principate, Claudius’s
generally veristic, middle-aged portrait features
are combined with a hairstyle which is parted
near the inner corner of the left eye. Locks at the
edges of the forehead are often combed back
towards the part, creating the pincer-like motif
which is characteristic of this coiffure. An appar-
ently earlier type (the so-called Kassel type),
perhaps created during the reign of Caligula, or
at the outset of Claudius’s own reign has a coif-
fure which is usually parted at the right of the
forehead, combined with more youthful facial
features.39
Significantly, Claudius’s single most veristic
likeness, a replica of his main type, is a recarved
portrait of Caligula in the Palazzo dei Conser-
vatori (cat. no. 1.31; fig. 4a-d).40 Numerous de-
tails signal the reworking of this image, includ-
ing the overly long neck, the receding chin which
has been carved back from the frontal plane of
the face, and, most tellingly, the remnants of
Caligula’s main type coiffure. The top and up-
per left side of the head have been roughly
worked with a flat chisel in an attempt to remove
traces of the original Caligulan coiffure, but
Caligula’s pattern of locks remains visible at the
right side and rear of the head. Additionally, the
locks over the forehead, although slightly cut
back, substantially retain Caligula’s original ar-
rangement, with the part occurring over the inner
corner of the left eye. The long Caligulan hair
on the nape of the neck has also been shortened.
Modifications to the coiffure have caused the
occiput to be overly large when seen in profile.
The ears have been recut to reduce their mass,
39 The youthful facial features also occur on early nu-
mismatic representations. C.B. Rose has proposed a third,
posthumous type. According to Rose, this type is charac-
terized by more emphatic signs of aging and a triangular
facial structure, reminiscent of Nero’s type 2. He also sug-
gests that the corona civica is a standard attribute of this type.
However, the coiffure of this type is identical to the main
type, and it should more plausibly be considered a post-
humous redaction of the main type, (1997) 71. Posthumous
images of Augustus were also created which added more
emphatic signs of aging to the three types created during
his lifetime, see infra.
40 Formerly Braccio Nuovo, inv. 2443 (Centrale Mon-
temartini 2.74).
with the left ear now appearing considerably
higher than the right.
In refashioning this portrait, the sculptor has
focused on creating definitive signs of Claudius’s
age as opposed to faithfully rendering the new
princeps’ hairstyle. Vertical and horizontal furrows
on the forehead, bags beneath the eyes, sunken
cheeks, strong naso-labial lines, and a fleshy
underchin help to make the recut portrait a re-
alistic and recognizable likeness of the middle-
aged Claudius, who was almost 51 at the time
of his accession. The unflattering realism of the
head is entirely the result of recarving. The sculp-
tor has attempted to eliminate any lingering trac-
es of Caligula’s facial features in an effort to
strongly differentiate the new portrait of Clau-
dius from the original. Indeed, the classicizing
elements of the Caligulan likeness have been
entirely subsumed in the Claudian image’s em-
phasis on verism. The accentuated signs of ag-
ing in this portrait effectively distinguish the new
likeness of Claudius from the youthful visage of
his overthrown predecessor, and express visual-
ly Claudius’s political and ideological distance
from the unsuccessful regime of Caligula.
A second reworked representation of Claudi-
us in Woburn Abbey is also noteworthy for its
exaggerated signs of aging and its physical anom-
alies are similar to those of the Conservatori like-
ness (cat. no. 1.34; fig. 5). The top of the skull and
forehead, which slopes sharply, are abnormally
large. The face itself is unnaturally flat and does
not project adequately from the mass of the skull.
The mouth is asymmetrical, with the left side
being noticeably longer and lower than the right.
Much of Caligula’s main type hairstyle remains,
including the central part over the forehead.
Nevertheless, the artist has entirely refashioned
the physiognomy, adding conspicuous furrows in
the forehead, vertical creases above the nose,
deep naso-labial lines, sunken cheeks, and fleshy
underchin. Again, these emphatic signs of aging
eradicate all trace of Caligula’s youthful physiog-
nomy and create an image of the new middle-
aged princeps which is visually distinct from those
of his overthrown and condemned predecessor.
Thus, two of the most realistic images of Clau-
dius, which revive many of the features of veris-
 caligula, milonia caesonia and julia drusilla
tic portraits created in the late republican peri-
od, are a direct result of Caligula’s damnatio. The
political implications of such a revival are clear.
Claudius cannot have been unaware that the
Senate had considered abolishing the memory of
all the Julio-Claudians and reestablishing the
Republic after Caligula’s murder. Those images
of Claudius which reference the topographical
realism of late republican portraiture must have
been designed to appeal to just those citizens who
had republican sympathies. The verism of cer-
tain representations of Claudius, which clearly
differentiated him from his Julio-Claudian pre-
decessors prefigures the revival of verism often
noted in portraits of Vespasian, and indeed was
similarly motivated.
Although they do not attain the enhanced
effects of verism present in the Braccio Nuovo
and Woburn Abbey portraits, additional re-
worked examples emphasize similar indications
of aging in Claudius’s physiognomy: Berlin (cat.
no. 1.18),41 Fano (cat. 1.19, fig. 6a-c)42 and
Hannover (cat. 1.21, fig. 7a-b).43 All of the por-
traits are from Italy. The Fano likeness is a co-
lossal statue which portrays the emperor with hip
mantle in the guise of Jupiter. Although the head
is worked for insertion, it appears to belong with
the body and the statue provides important ev-
idence for the reuse of Caligula’s full-length
images. Furthermore, it confirms that divine
representations were created for Caligula during
his principate and that there was no hesitation
in reusing these images as representations of
Claudius.44 Indeed, Caligula is the first living
emperor to be depicted as Jupiter in free stand-
ing sculpture, and he appears to have introduced
what would become the widespread practice of
depicting the reigning princeps in divine guise.45
The bust in Berlin has been cut down from a full-
length statue, which also portrayed the emperor
41 Staatliche Museen, Antiken-Abteilung, inv. 1965.10.
42 Museo Civico.
43 Inv. 1978.15.
44 A statue in Zadar reworked to Augustus provides
additional confirmation for such divine or semi-divine
depictions of Caligula, see cat. 1.15.
45 C.B. Rose (1997) 74-5.
27
in an heroic or divine fashion with a nude tor-
so.46
In addition to the recarved marble portraits
which accentuate realistic elements of Claudius’s
middle-aged appearance, a chalcedony cameo
portrait in Vienna has been reworked with sim-
ilar results (cat. 1.33, fig. 8a-b).47 The Vienna
cameo is rare example of a reconfigured gem
portrait. Indeed, only a very few of cameos or
intaglios appear to have been altered as a result
of condemnations. Caligula was initially repre-
sented, capite velato, wearing a variation of his
main type hairstyle which is retained in the large
middle row of locks over Claudius’s forehead.48
A corona civica now encircles Claudius’s head, but
the veil of the Caligulan portrait from which the
corona has been carved is clearly visible at the
top of the cameo. The artist who recarved this
gem has reduced the size of the forehead by
adding a second smaller row of locks beneath
those of the original Caligulan portrait. Claudi-
us’s age is indicated through the addition of fur-
rows in the forehead, sunken cheeks, and very
strong naso-labial lines. Like the Conservatori,
Woburn Abbey, Berlin, Fano, and Hannover
portraits, the Vienna chalcedony emphasizes
recognizable traits of Claudius’s aged physiogno-
my rather than an orthodox Claudian hairstyle.
The recarving of individual locks of Claudius’s
coiffure may have proved impossible to carry out
on the small, delicate surfaces of the cameo, so
the artist has opted for a practical and workable
alternative.
By no means, however, are all or even a
majority of Claudius’s portraits veristic. Indeed,
many of his images were created in the classiciz-
ing and idealizing style established by Augustus.
As with the veristic portraits, arguably the most
idealizing representation of Claudius has been
reworked from a preexisting likeness of Caligu-
la. This portrait, a colossal head in the Sala
46 For the cutting down of the statue see D. Boschung
(1989) 113 and H. Jucker (1981a)258-60.
47 Kunsthistorisches Museum 18, inv. IX A 23; h. 14.5
cm.; D. Boschung (1989) 51-2, 90, 116, no. 36, sketch 29,
pl. 30.4 (with previous literature); J.J. Herrmann, jr. (1991)
45.
48 D. Boschung (1988) 116.
28 chapter two
Rotonda of the Vatican clearly preserves the
strong classicism and monumentality of the orig-
inal likeness of Caligula (cat. 1.X, fig. 9a-b).49 The
head is worked for insertion and portrays the
princeps wearing the corona civica. The portrait
contains numerous signs of recarving. The size
of the face is significantly smaller than the great
mass of the hair and corona. Although most of the
back of the head is a restoration, when seen in
profile, the face bears no coherent relationship
to the large size of the head. Furthermore, the
neck is too massive for the proportions of the face.
Most importantly, the hairstyle of Caligula’s main
type, with central part, is still discernable in the
upper row of curls above the added locks of
Claudius’s earlier Kassel type which now frame
the forehead. Claudius’s forehead is generally
lower and broader than that of Caligula and the
artist responsible for the recarving of this portrait
has attempted to reduce the height of the fore-
head by adding the lower row of Claudian locks.
The additive technique is the same as that em-
ployed in the refashioning of the Vienna cam-
eo.50 The recarving process has also rendered the
features of the face decidedly asymmetrical,
which are even more exaggerated in the Sala
Rotonda head because of its colossal format.51
While refashioning the image of Caligula, the
artist also added new physiognomic elements,
consisting of superficial signs of aging in the slight-
ly sunken cheeks and the lines around the mouth.
However, the smooth forehead, sharply delineat-
ed brows, aquiline nose with somewhat bulbous
tip, essentially unlined face, narrow chin, and
overall air of classicizing youthfulness are derived
directly from the portraiture of Caligula.
The Sala Rotonda portrait was found in 1779
during the papal excavations of the basilica at
Otricoli where it occupied the central apse.52 The
image was designed as a seated statue, probably
depicting the emperor in the guise of Jupiter
Optimus Maximus Capitolinus, and indeed, frag-
49
No. 551, inv. 242.
50
Kunsthistorisches Museum, inv. IX a 23, cat. 1.33.
51 As, for instance, the colossal portrait of Maxentius
recarved to Constantine in the Cortile of the Palazzo dei
Conservatori, cat.9.4.
52 H. Jucker (1981a) 270; D.Boschung (1988) 113.
ments of a seated figure, “di bello stile,” are noted
in early accounts of the excavations.53 The orig-
inal portrait statue of Caligula, together with a
representation of Drusilla as Venus Genetirx,54
were added to a cycle of Julio-Claudian statuary,
likely commissioned early in the reign of Tiberi-
us, which included an heroic statue of Augustus
as Diomedes;55 a togate statue of Gaius Ceasar;56
a togate statue of a young Julio-Claudian prince
with bulla, perhaps Nero Caesar the son of Ger-
manicus and brother of Caligula;57 and a statue
of Livia.58 The colossal scale of the Caligula in-
dicates that it was intended as the focal point of
this dynastic group, whose other statues are es-
sentially life-sized, or slightly over. Inscriptional
evidence, as well as the architectural plan of the
edifice at Otricoli, indicate that the “basilica” was
likely associated with the worship of both Fortu-
na Augusta and the Gens Augusta.59 Thus, the spec-
ificity of the Sala Rotonda portrait to its ancient
site, its importance as the centerpiece of the stat-
uary cycle, and its association with the imperial
cult, in conjunction with its colossal size, dictat-
ed the image’s reconfiguration, rather than re-
moval or disfigurement.60
The important Julio-Claudian statuary group
discovered in 1966 at the Collegium of the August-
ales of Rusellae also included an image of Clau-
dius transformed from Caligula which presents
53 G. Dareggi (1982) 23, n. 195. H. Jucker (1981a) 267
posits that the portrait may have belonged to an acrolith-
ic statue.
54 Rome, Musei Vaticani, Gabinetto delle Maschere,
no. 429, inv. 816; G. Dareggi (1982) 21-22, figs. 32-33 (with
previous literature); C.B.Rose (1997) 97-8, cat. 25, pl. 93.
55 Rome, Musei Vaticani, Sala a Croce Greca, n. 565,
inv. 181; G. Dareggi (1982) 12-14, no. 1, fig. 19-20 (with
previous bibliography); C.B.Rose (1997) 97-8, cat. 25, pl.
88.
56 Rome, Musei Vaticani, Sala a Croce Greca, no. 597;
inv. 199; G. Dareggi (1982) 14-16, no. 2, figs. 21-4 (with
previous literature); C.B.Rose (1997) 97-8, cat. 25, pl. 90.
57 Rome, Musei Vaticani, Galleria dei Candelabri 4.93,
inv. 2622; G. Dareggi (1982) 16-18, no. 3, figs. 25-29 (with
previous literature); C.B.Rose (1997) 97-8, cat. 25, pl. 91.
58 Rome, Musei Vaticani, Sala dei Busti, 352, inv. 637;
G. Dareggi (1982) 18-21, no. 4, figs. 30-31 (with previous
literature); C.B.Rose (1997) 97-8, cat. 25, pl. 89.
59 G. Dareggi (1992) 12, 26.
60 In addition, the large scale of the head provides an
optimum amount of marble for recutting.
 caligula, milonia caesonia and julia drusilla
compelling parallels to the Sala Rotonda head
(Cat 1.20, fig. 10).61 Inscriptional evidence sug-
gests that this group may have been initiated
during the reign of Augustus with substantial
numbers of portraits added under Caligula and
Claudius, and perhaps a single image of Divus
Claudius added by Nero. The Caligulan addi-
tions encompassed likenesses of his father and
mother, Germanicus and Agrippina Maior, his
brothers Nero Caesar and Drusus Caesar, his
sisters Drusilla (probably as Diva) and Julia Liv-
illa, and his grandmother, Antonia Minor.62 One
of the two preserved representations of Claudi-
us, with corona civica., contains clear indications
that it has been transformed from a pre-existing
image of Caligula.63 Caligula’s main type coiffure,
substantial traces of which remain behind the left
ear and on the right side of the neck, has been
modified into a version of Claudius’s principal
type. Slight signs of aging have been added to
the portrait, including lightly carved horizontal
furrows in the forehead and naso labial lines. Al-
though not as youthful as the Sala Rotonda head,
the portrait has maintained much of the classi-
cizing style of the original likeness.
Another reworked head of Claudius in the
Vatican preserves the youthful and classicizing
air of the original portrait of Caligula (cat. 1.29;
figs. 11a-b).64 The ends of the locks over the
forehead have all been cut back, creating an
unnatural straight line. Nevertheless, Caligula’s
coiffure is still visible in this area. The recarving
of the face has imbued the image with some
indications of aging appropriate for Claudius.
The eyes have been recut to make them slightly
sunken, and pouches of flesh have been added
beneath them. The temples have been more
deeply sculpted in order to accentuate their
hollow quality, while the cheeks have been made
to sag slightly. The chin has been cut back and
reduced in size in order to add a fleshy un-
61 Grosseto, Museo Archeologico e d’Arte della Marem-
ma, inv. 97765.
62 C.B. Rose (1997) 116.
63 H. Jucker (1981a) 266, n. 91; U. Baldini, M. Cristo-
fani, G. Maetzke (1983) fig. 126; R. Amedick (1987) 50-
51; C.B. Rose (1997) 117-8, ns. 8, 15.
64 Magazzini, Inv. 151
29
derchin, clearly visible in profile views. This re-
cutting of the chin has caused it to recede from
the frontal plane of the face, a hallmark of re-
carved portraits. The reduction of the sculptur-
al volume in the head has also caused the ears,
which have not been recut, to be overly large,
as well as noticeably low on the head. The signs
of aging in the Vatican Magazzini head, however,
are superficial, and like the colossal portrait from
Otricoli, an idealized and youthful image of
Claudius is the end result, with crisply delineat-
ed details and smoothly modeled surfaces. The
more youthful features of the Sala Rotonda and
Magazzini heads would have been consonant
with the idealized portraits of Claudius’s earliest
numismatic representations. The importance of
imperial hairstyles as easily recognizable and
epistemological emblems of identity is under-
scored by the recut portraits which are endowed
with recognizable Claudian coiffures rather than
strongly individualized portrait features.
A head of Claudius inserted into a statue rep-
resenting the emperor in the traveling costume
of a Roman general, with long paludamentum
and tunic, now in Aquileia is also remarkable for
the classicizing and youthful elements still present
in the likeness (cat. 1.17; fig. 12).65 The coiffure
has been entirely recut, and the original locks on
the top and back of the head have been chiseled
out and not replaced. The arrangement of hair
over the forehead is an imprecise rendition of
Claudius’s main type. Light horizontal furrows
have been added to the forehead, pouches have
been carved beneath the eyes, and naso-labial
lines indicated. Nevertheless, the crisp delinea-
tion of the upper and lower eye-lids, the handling
of the mouth, and the smooth surfaces of the
flesh, all remnants of the original portrait of
Caligula, endow the likeness with a decidedly
idealized appearance. The head is of white Luna
marble, while the body is thought to be of Greek
marble. If the original Caligulan portrait be-
longed to this body, the statue would provide
important evidence for the production of milita-
ristic images of Caligula.
65 Aquileia, Museo Archeologico, inv. 108.
30 chapter two
A portrait of Claudius as Jupiter from the
theater at Vaison has also been recut from an
image of Caligula’s main type and retains much
of the youthful and idealizing aspects of the orig-
inal likeness (cat. 1.32).66 The statue is a stand-
ing Jupiter type with hip mantel and it provides
further important evidence for the dissemination
of images of Caligula in the guise of Jupiter with
corona civica. The Vaison statue is carved from a
single block of marble, and its recutting has
caused the corona to be much to large in propor-
tion to the head, while the head itself is also too
small in relation to the body. Claudius is repre-
sented with his earlier coiffure and youthful
physiognomy, suggesting that the image was
reworked shortly after his accession.
Numerous other representations of Claudius
which have been refashioned from images of
Caligula retain strong elements of youthful ide-
alization from the original likeness. Among these
are portraits in the Louvre (cat. 1.26),67 Mantua
(cat. 1.24; fig. 13),68 Naples (cat. 1.25; fig. 14),69
Perugia (cat. 1.28; fig. 15a-d),70 and Istanbul (cat.
1.22; fig. 16a-b).71 In the Louvre portrait, rem-
nants of Caligula’s locks are clearly visible be-
neath the Claudian coiffure over the forehead.
Shallow naso-labial lines, light furrows in the
forehead, and the suggestion of pouches beneath
the eyes added to the likeness give only the faint-
est impression of middle age, and the recut im-
age maintains the classicism of the original rep-
resentation of Caligula. Similarly, cursory signs
of aging have been added to the Mantua likeness.
The coiffure of the Naples portrait has also been
recut, and the Caligulan locks on the top and
back of the head have been removed with a flat
chisel and not replaced. Despite the fact that
superficial signs of aging have been added to the
head, including pouches beneath the eyes and
naso-labial lines, the resulting likeness is youth-
ful. Emphatic naso-labial lines in the Perugia
portrait are intended to convey Claudius’s mid-
66 Musée Municipal, inv. 128 B.
67 MA 1219.
68 Palazzo Ducale.
69 Museo Nazionale Archeologico, inv. 150-215.
70 Perugia, Museum.
71 Archaeological Museum, inv. 87.
dle age, but they are the only signs of aging
present in the image and contrast with the
smoothly modeled surfaces of the flesh. Likewise,
the Istanbul portrait contains only minimal in-
dications of aging.
A second reworked likeness in Istanbul retains
many of the characteristics of the original rep-
resentation of Caligula (cat. 1.23).72 This togate
statue exhibits the central part of Caligula’s main
type coiffure. The hair at the back of the neck
has been shortened and the lower sections of the
face substantially recut with the result that the
chin recedes noticeably and the head appears
unnaturally wide in profile. Nevertheless, the
reworking is rather perfunctory and the result-
ing image of Claudius is fairly generic.
Caligula/Augustus
Recutting images of Caligula into youthful and
classicizing representations of Rome’s first em-
peror Augustus did not present the same techni-
cal difficulties as those inherent in reworking
portraits to Claudius. This fact, coupled with the
continued popularity and importance of Augus-
tus as divus accounts for the great number of
Caligulan portraits which have been altered into
likenesses of Augustus. And in fact, thirteen of
these portraits have survived.73
While the recut coiffures are primarily of
Augustus’s most common Prima Porta type, one
example of the later Forbes type is also repre-
sented.74 In most of the portraits, the size of the
72 Archaeological Museum, inv. 4648.
73 D. Boschung (1993a) only recognizes six portraits of
Augustus which are recut from images of Caligula (1993a)
79-80, an additional seven exhibit clear indications that they
also have been reworked from likenesses of Caligula, see
cat. 1.4-15.
74 Copenhagen 611, inv. 746. D. Boschung has pro-
posed a new portrait typology for Augustus which recog-
nizes five types: 1) Typus Béziers-Spoleto, 2) Typus Lucus
Feroniae 3.) Typus Alcuida (essentially the type earlier iden-
tified as the Actium or Octavian type, 4) Typus Louvre MA
1280 (essentially the type earlier identified as the Forbes
type, and 5) Typus Prima Porta, (1993) 11-50. The por-
traits which Boschung identifies as replicas of the Beziers-
Spoleto and Lucus Feroniae types, should be considered
variants of his Alcuida type (the old Actium-Octavian type).
R.R.R. Smith elucidates the problems inherent in Bos-
 caligula, milonia caesonia and julia drusilla
head is generally reduced to give the face a thin-
ner, more Augustan configuration, the chin made
more square, and the mouth recarved in order
to de-emphasize the receding lower lip which was
a recognizably Caligulan trait.75 One of these
recarved likenesses, currently in the Centrale
Montemartini was discovered in 1937 near the
Theater of Marcellus (cat 1.11; fig. 17a-b).76 Pos-
sibly of Parian marble, the head is worked for in-
sertion and is a replica of Augustus’s Prima-Porta
type. The coiffure over the forehead has been ex-
tensively recarved, but the position of the part
over the inner corner of left eye is retained from
Caligula’s main type. The locks themselves have
been deeply undercut and the forehead slopes
back at an unnatural angle. The back of the neck
is very flat where Caligula’s longer locks have
been removed. The top of the head was separate-
ly worked and no longer survives. Although it is
possible that the original portrait of Caligula was
pieced together, it is more likely that the marble
addition was part of the sculptural transforma-
tion of the likeness.
A second likeness of Augustus from Rome, in
the Museo Capitolino, has been similarly re-
worked (cat. 1.10).77 This Prima-Porta type por-
trait includes a corona civica. Again, the position
of the part over the inner corner of the left eye
is a remnant of Caligula’s main type coiffure. The
locks over the forehead themselves have been
recut, making them unusually shallow and short.
The facial features have also been reworked, and
some signs of aging added, including pronounced
naso-labial lines and the suggestion of a double
chin. Such signs of aging occur in posthumous
images of Augustus and may have been added
here to firmly disassociate the reconfigured im-
chung’s expanded typology, (1996) 30-47.
75 The receding lower lip is also a feature of Livia’s
portrait, and it is present in the portraits of her descen-
dants including Tiberius, Drusus, Germanicus, and espe-
cially in Caligula’s sister, Agrippina Minor, and her son
Nero. On the receding lower lip in Agrippina’s portraits
and the orthodontic condition which may underlie it, see
S. Wood (1995) 466-67.
76 Sala degli Orti Mecenaziani 7, inv. 2394 (Centrale
Montemartini 1.61).
77 Scala 7, inv. 230.
31
age from the original youthful representation of
the condemned Caligula.78 The Capitoline and
Montemartini portraits exemplify the recarving
of Caligula’s likenesses into images of Augustus
at the capital and its surroundings.
Also from the environs of Rome is colossal
head of Augustus discovered at Caere which has
been refashioned in much the same way as the
Capitoline and Conservatori images (cat. 1.12;
fig. 18a-b).79 The head, which is worked for in-
sertion, has been reduced in volume and is too
small in proportion to its long, thick neck. The
locks over the forehead have been completely re-
carved into Augustus’s Prima Porta arrangement,
although they are not entirely smooth and trac-
es of the chisel are still very evident. The brows
have been allowed to remain from the original
portrait of Caligula, while the forehead has been
cut back in order to make it commensurate with
the reworked coiffure, occasioning very notice-
able bulges over the eyes.
The Caere head was part of seated image
depicting the emperor in the guise of Jupiter,
fragments of which were also found in the exca-
vations.80 The original image of Caligula formed
part of a cycle of Julio-Claudian portraits deco-
rating Caere’s theater and it would have been
similar to the seated statues of Augustus, Tibe-
rius, and Claudius, all also in the guise of Jupi-
ter, from the same cycle.81 Furthermore, its re-
78 See especially an altar with relief portrait dedicated
to Divus Augustus from Palestrina (Palestrina, Museo Ar-
cheologico Nazionale, inv. 23555; D. Boschung (1993a) 138,
no. 63, pls. 67.1-3, 221.3; N. Agnoli (2002) 243-9, no.III.9,
figs. 9a-f.
79 Museo Gregoriano Profano, inv. 9953.
80 Including a hand, part of an arm, and possibly a knee;
see M. Fuchs in M. Fuchs, P. Liverani, and P. Santoro eds.
(1989) 97, no. 17, and n.1
81 Augustus (Louvre MA 1246; P. Liverani in M. Fuchs,
P. Liverani and P. Santoro eds. [1989] 137-43; C.B. Rose
[1997] 83-6, cat. 5); Tiberius (Musei Vaticani, Museo
Gregoriano Profano inv. 9961; M. Fuchs in M. Fuchs, P.
Liverani and P. Santoro eds. [1989] 58-60, no. 2; C.B. Rose
[1997] 83-6, cat. 5, pls. 71-2); Claudius (Musei Vaticani,
Museo Gregoriano Profano, inv. 9950; M. Fuchs in M.
Fuchs, P. Liverani and P. Santoro eds. [1989] 61-64, no.
3; C.B. Rose [1997] 83-6, cat. 5, pls. 73-74). The torso on
which the head of Claudius is now displayed probably
32 chapter two
carving explains how two representations of
Augustus came to be part of the cycle.82 The
head was discovered with several portrait inscrip-
tions commemorating Augustus, Germanicus (or
Drusus Minor), Agrippina Minor, an unidenti-
fied emperor, and Caligula’s sister, Drusilla. In
Drusilla’s inscription, celebrating her as Diva and
sister of the emperor, Caligula’s name has been
erased.83 In its original incarnation as a colossal
image of Caligula as Jupiter, the Caere portrait
was an impressive monument and again attests
to his innovations in portrait policy through dis-
semination of his own likenesses in divine guise.
Furthermore, like the colossal Caligula/Claudi-
us in the Sala Rotonda of the Vatican, it was site
specific within the context of the theater complex,
a fact which undoubtedly contributed to its re-
configuration, as opposed to wholesale destruc-
tion.84
belongs with the head of Augustus in the Louvre; see M.
Fuchs in M. Fuchs, P. Liverani and P. Santoro eds. (1989)
61-4 and P. in M. Fuchs, P. Liverani and P. Santoro eds.
(1989) 137-43.
82 Louvre MA 1246, cited above; see also, D. Boschung
(1993a) 171, no. 152, pls. 88, 223-4 (with earlier literature);
C.B. Rose (1997) 86.
83 CIL 11.3598; M. Fuchs in M. Fuchs, P. Liverani, and
P. Santoro, eds. (1989) 106, no. 22, with fig. (with earlier
literature); C.B. Rose (1997) 84.
84 C.B. Rose has suggested that the seated statue of
Tiberius from Caere (Museo Gregoriano Profano inv. 9961)
has, in fact, been refashioned from an image of Caligula
(1997) 85. Rose notes that the head is worked for inser-
tion, which is unusual for nude, or partially nude statue
bodies, and that the head and body seem to be of differ-
ent types of marble. Rose suggests that the original statue
was carved from single block of marble, the head of Caligu-
la was removed, a mortis prepared in the body, and a new
head of Tiberius inserted. However, this also would be a
highly unusual form of reuse, and it would be more likely
that the facial features would simply be recut to Tiberius
if the statue was originally of one piece of marble. Delib-
erate damage to the facial features of Rose’s hypothetical
statue of Caligula would make the kind of reuse he posits
necessary, as may have been the case with the Caligula/
Claudius and the Messalina/Agrippina Minor statues at
Velleia (cat.1.27 and 3.4). However, it is important to keep
in mind that the evidence for intentionally mutilated im-
ages of Caligula is fairly limited. The Caere Caligula/
Augustus was also inserted into a Jupiter statue body, so
this kind of piecing may simply be peculiar to the Caere
group. If Rose is correct about the Tiberius being reworked,
it would further mean that there were two images of Caligu-
la as Jupiter from Caere. Although not improbable, this
also seems unlikely.
Details of physiognomy and coiffure present
in a head of Augustus in the J. Paul Getty Mu-
seum betray its origins as a likeness of Caligula
(cat. 1.8; fig. 19a-d).85 The portrait is worked for
insertion into a togate body and was discovered
at Pietrabbondante. Its wide eyes and hollow
temples are clear remnants of the earlier image
of Caligula. In the recarving of the portrait, the
central, signature locks of Augustus’s Prima Porta
hairstyle have been emphasized and deeply un-
dercut, carved back into the existing mass of the
forehead. The reduction of sculptural volume is
especially apparent when the head is viewed in
profile. Although Augustan physiognomic details
have been included in the portrait, it is the
emphatic undercutting of the locks of hair over
the forehead which highlights the Prima Porta
coiffure and provides the recarved image with a
clearly recognizable emblem of its new identity
as a portrait of Augustus. A pronounced horizon-
tal furrow in the forehead, as well as the sugges-
tion of naso-labial lines have also been added to
the portrait. Although subtle, these signs of age-
ing do occur in posthumous images of Augustus
and in recarved portraits like that in the Museo
Capitolino (cat. 1.10). Similarly, a head in
Mantua retains elements of Caligula’s coiffure
and iconography (cat. 1.9).86 While the locks
over the forehead have been reconfigured to
reflect Augustus’s Prima Porta coiffure, the ar-
rangement of the hair on the top and back of the
head has not been altered from the Caligulan
image.
A statue of Augustus in Zadar provides addi-
tional testimony for the reworking of full-length
heroic images of Caligula (cat. 1.15; fig. 20a-d).87
This statue, together with the colossal Caligula/
Claudius in the Sala Rotonda, the statues of
Caligula/Claudius in Vaison and Fano, and the
colossal Caligula Augustus from Caere, reveal the
scope of the heroic and divine images of Caligula
created during his reign. Caligula’s strong em-
phasis on divine imagery may be reflected in
Suetonius’s damaging anecdote (likely apocry-
85 78.AA.261.
86 Palazzo Ducale, inv. 6615.
87 Museum.
 caligula, milonia caesonia and julia drusilla
phal) that the emperor had planned to remove
the heads from famous cult images, including
Phidias’s chryselephantine statue of Zeus at
Olympia, and have them replaced with his own
likeness.88 Significantly, Claudius did not aban-
don his predecessor’s practice of being depicted
with divine or heroic attributes.89 The head of
the Zadar statue has been refashioned into a
replica of Augustus’s Prima Porta type. The piece
is carved from a single block of marble and, as
a result, the recut head is too small in propor-
tion to the body. As was also the case with the
colossal Caligula/Claudius in the Sala Rotonda
of the Vatican and the statue from Vaison, the
corona civica which the emperor wears is too
massive for the face and the forehead is also too
broad. The statue was discovered in 1777 dur-
ing excavations of the Roman Forum at Aenona
in Dalmatia and testifies to the reworking of
Caligula’s likenesses in the provinces. Seven other
images, four female and three male were found
with the Caligula/Augustus, including a togate
portrait of Tiberius.90
Additional provincial representations of Augus-
tus which have been recut from Caligula include
portraits in Condeixa-a-Nova (cat. 1.4),91 Copen-
hagen (cat. 1.5; fig. 21a-d),92 Cuenca (cat. 1.6),93
Lisbon (cat. 1.7),94 Tomar (cat. 1.13),95 and Tunis
(cat. 1.14, fig. 22a-c).96 These portraits cover a
broad geographical spectrum: the Condeixa-a-
Nova, Cuenca, and Tomar portraits testify to the
reconfiguration of Caligula’s images into repre-
88 Calig. 22.2.
89 Divine or heroic images of Claudius created during
his reign include the statue of Claudius as Jupiter from
Lanuvium (Musei Vaticani, Sala Rotonda, no. 550, inv.
243, the bronze nude statue from Herculaneum (Naples,
Museo Nazionale Archeologico) and the Claudius as Jupi-
ter from the Metroon at Olympia (Archaeological Muse-
um 7 125).
90 The whereabouts of the four female statues are no
longer known, C.B. Rose (1997) 135.
91 Museo Monográfico de Conimbriga, inv. 67.388.
92 Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 611, inv. 746.
93 Museo Arquelógico Provincial el Almudi.
94 Museu Nacional de Arquelogia e Etnologia, inv.
21520 A..
95 Convento de Cristo.
96 Musée du Bardo, C 72.
33
sentations of his great grandfather in Spain and
Portugal, while the Copenhagen portrait, which
comes from Sardis, attests to the practice in Asia
Minor, and the Tunis portrait for North Africa.
In addition, the Copenhagen image contains
some signs of aging, including light horizontal
furrows in the forehead and crows feet at the
outer corners of the eyes, like the reconfigured
likenesses in the Museo Capitolino and the Get-
ty. The Lisbon portrait also exhibits indications
of aging in its partially sunken cheeks and slight
naso-labial lines. The Tunis likeness has also been
reconfigured with superficial signs of aging such
as the horizontal furrow in the forehead and
suggestion of sunken cheeks. The Condeixa-a-
Nova head belonged to a togate statue displayed
in the Forum, whose base was discovered with
it and may have represented the emperor capite
velato. The Cuenca portrait was apparently also
publicly displayed in the Roman Theater at
Segobriga, where it was excavated.
Caligula/Tiberius
Only one of Caligula’s images, in Frankfurt97
appears to have been altered retrospectively into
a representation of Tiberius (cat. 1.16). In the
Frankfurt portrait the locks over the forehead
have been entirely recut, but the remnants of
Caligula’s longer locks parted over the inner
corner of the left eye are still clearly visible.
Although the facial features themselves have been
slightly altered, the new image of Tiberius is
remarkably youthful and generic. The portrait is
veiled and originally commemorated Caligula’s
role as pontifex maximus. Undoubtedly Tiberius’s
own posthumous unpopularity accounts for the
fact that this is the only one of Caligula’s por-
traits to be refashioned into a likeness of his uncle
and predecessor.
Caligula/Titus
Two portraits of Caligula which were not re-
carved until the Flavian period provide impor-
97 Frankfurt, Liebieghaus.
34 chapter two
tant physical evidence for the warehousing of
Caligula’s sculpted images. These portraits, in
Arles (cat. 1.35; fig. 23)98 and Athens (cat. 1.36;
fig. 24)99 must have been removed from public
display and stored in secure locations until they
were refashioned into representations of the sec-
ond Flavian emperor.100 The coiffure of the Arles
likeness, with central, part, has been retained
from the original image, a replica of Caligula’s
main type. The chin has been substantially cut
back in order to give the likeness the heavy
underchin which is a prominent feature of Titus’s
portraiture. The Athens portrait was discovered
in Smyrna. The locks over the forehead also
reproduce the arrangement of Caligula’s main
type, with central part. The idealized, classiciz-
ing features of both heads, markedly different
from the more individualized likenesses of Titus,
are remnants of the original portraits. The dis-
parate find spots of these portraits further attest
to the geographical scope of the sculptural trans-
formation of Caligula’s images. Both portraits also
provide critical evidence for the warehousing of
the images of condemned emperors. They are the
first recut likenesses whose reconfigurations were
not carried out for over a generation following
an emperor’s condemnation. The Athens and
Arles portraits were clearly stored, likely in sculp-
tural depots where they were accessible to sculp-
tors for reuse several decades after their remov-
al from public display.
Caligula/Claudius Gothicus(?)
One image of Caligula, now in the Levy-White
collection, was not recarved until the third cen-
tury, when it was refashioned into a soldier
emperor, perhaps Claudius Gothicus (cat. 1.37;
fig. 25a-e).101 The portrait has been substantial-
ly recut, but traces of Caligula’s main type coif-
fure are clearly visible behind both ears. The
locks over the forehead have been entirely refash-
98Musée Réattu, Cellar Depot.
99National Museum, Roman Collection, inv. 348.
100 For a full discussion of Titus’s portrait typology, see
infra.
101 New York, Shelby White and Leon Levy Collection.
ioned, as evidenced by chiseled surfaces directly
below the corona civica. The eyes and facial fea-
tures have also been completely refashioned. A
beard has been carved into the face, an exam-
ple of negative modeling. The reduction of the
volume of the face has caused the corona to be too
large in proportion to the rest of the head. Coins
of Claudius Gothicus depict him with a fuller
coiffure combined with short military beard, as
in the White-Levy head. Physiognomic details,
like the low, broad forehead, shape of the bridge
of the nose, and long thin upper lip combined
with full, receding lower lip present in the White-
Levy portrait also find close parallels in the nu-
mismatic portraits of Claudius Gothicus.102 The
White-Levy head is another important manifes-
tation of the phenomenon of warehousing images
for extended periods, in this case over two cen-
turies, prior to their reconfiguration.
Caligula/Deity
A head in Algiers formerly depicting Caligula is
the only surviving likeness of a condemned em-
peror which seems clearly to have been trans-
formed into the image of a deity (cat. 1.38).103
The head is colossal in scale and most of Caligu-
la’s coiffure has been removed. Nevertheless,
traces of the original hair are still visible on the
nape of the neck. The shape of the mouth and
broad eyes are also Caligulan. The hair around
the face has been drastically worked away and
holes drilled into the head for the attachment of
a wreath or perhaps radiate crown. The head
comes from Iol Caesarea the capital of Mauret-
ania, making it possible that it has been refash-
ioned into a representation of the city’s patron
the sun god, Sol.104
102 RIC 211-37, pl. 5.76-82, pl. 6.83-92.
103 Museum.
104 D. Kreikenbom has suggested that a fragmentary
and badly weathered Julio-Claudian portrait in Sardis
(Depot, NOEX 60.12) may be a private portrait recut from
Caligula. The piece is too poorly preserved to secure an
identification as Caligula, or to be certain that it has, in
fact, been reworked, (1992) 223, no. 4.2.
 caligula, milonia caesonia and julia drusilla
The Removal of Caligula’s Images
Suetonius’s statement that Caligula’s images were
removed on Claudius’s behest finds further sup-
port in surviving unaltered portraits. Many are
well-enough preserved, or have archaeological
contexts which confirm that they were removed
from public display and warehoused as a conse-
quence of the unofficial condemnation. Indeed,
as a group, the unreworked images of Caligula
are astonishingly well-preserved and, ironically,
have largely escaped use as building material or
being burned in medieval lime kilns because of
their burial, disposal, or storage in secure loca-
tions.
The find-spots of two portraits from Cumae,105
as well as North African likenesses in Sabratha106
and Tunis (fig. 26a-b)107 provide archaeological
confirmation for the storage of Caligula’s portraits
following their removal from public display. One
of the heads from Cumae is a replica of Caligu-
la’s main type and was discovered in the “cryp-
ta romana”. The nose of the portrait is missing,
but there is little other damage. The head was
likely detached from its original context, and
stored in the crypta following Caligula’s damna-
tio.108 The other head from Cumae was discov-
ered in 1952 at the south side of the Forum.109
The portrait is worked for insertion into a togate
statue and depicts Caligula with a corona civica.
The likeness is likely to have been displayed in
105 Museo Nazionale Archeologico, inv. 150 226, h.
0.245 m.; D. Boschung (1989) 62, n. 41, 69, 84, 100, 120,
no. ?47, pl. 38.1-4 (with earlier literature).
Antiquario Flegreo, no. 68, h. 40 cm; D. Boschung (1989)
29, note 19, 58-60, 87, note 193, 90, 117, no. 38, sketch
31, pl. 33.1-4 (with earlier literature).
106 Museum, 650, h. O.72 m.; D. Boschung (1989) 29,
note 15, 35-38, 55, 63, 108, no. 6, sketch 6, pl. 6.1-4; D.
Kreikenbom (1992) 195-6, no. 3.57, pl. 13d.
107 Institut National d’Archeologie et d’Art, formerly in
Carthage, h. 0.48 m.; D. Boschung (1989) 29, note 12, 38-
42, 50, 54-57, 110-11, no. 14, pl. 14.1-4 (with earlier lit-
erature).
108 A portrait of Tiberius was also discovered in the
“crypta,” and it is possible that the portrait of this unpop-
ular emperor was also removed from display.
109 M.E. Bertoldi (1973) 42; D. Boschung (1989) 117.
35
the Forum or its environs during Caligula’s prin-
cipate. After his downfall, the head was removed
from its statue and stored in the area of the
Forum. The head from Sabratha is colossal in
scale and was intended for an acrolithic statue,
which formed part of the monumental decora-
tion of the city’s basilica.110 Although the portrait
is badly weathered, it preserves most of its fea-
tures intact, including the nose. The other North
African image was discovered behind the so-
called Temple of Fortuna Augusta at Mustis
(modern El Krib) in the nineteenth century.111
The head is well preserved. The rims of the ears
are broken off, as is the forepart of the nose.
There are some abrasions on the brows, cheeks,
and chin. Ostensibly, the portrait was removed
from the statue into which it was inserted, and
stored or buried in the vicinity of the temple
following Caligula’s overthrow.
An over life-sized togate statue, a replica of
Caligula’s main type from Rome, and now in
Richmond provides additional persuasive evi-
dence for the removal and warehousing of the
emperor’s likenesses.112 The portrait is carved
from a single block of Luna marble and is report-
ed to have been discovered in the vicinity of the
Theater of Marcellus at Rome.113 The head
exhibits very little damage: the rims of both ears
are chipped, the tip of the nose has broken off,
and there are additional chips on the chin. Both
forearms are missing, as is the front of the left
foot. In fact, major damage is limited to the front
of the statue which suggests that the image may
110 The head was discovered during excavations of the
basilica. H. Sichtermann AA (1962) 505-6, 510-11; D. Bos-
chung (1989) 108.
111 D. Boschung (1989) 110.
112 Richmond, Virginia Art Museum, accession no. 71-
20, h. 2.032 m, head, 0.27 m.;.D. Boschung (1989) 29, n.
12, 38, 53-55, 61, 89, 109-10, no. 11, sketch 11, pls. 11.1-
4, 42.1-4, 43 (with earlier literature); H.R. Goette (1989)
32, n. 138, 119, no. 106; N.H. and A. Ramage (1991) 110,
fig. 4.8; The sculpture was on display at the Palazzo Col-
onna in Rome until the end of the nineteenth century and
was purchased by the Virginia Museum in 1971.
113 Although there is a break in the neck, technical
analysis has confirmed that the head does in fact belong
with the body, see, J. Ternbach (1974) 29.
36 chapter two
have been violently overturned, just as Cassius
Dio reports in his account of the general confu-
sion following Caligula’s murder.114 After it was
toppled the portrait must have been removed
from public display and stored while awaiting
some form of reuse.115
A bust in Trieste was originally part of another
togate likeness of Caligula carved from a single
block of marble.116 The portrait belongs to the
emperor’s main portrait type and appears to have
been found in a fragmentary state and cut down
to its current form in the modern period.117 The
likeness may have been found at Aenona, like the
heroic Caligula/Augustus in Zadar reworked to
Augustus (cat. 1.15; fig. 20a-d). The brows are
chipped, the tip of the nose is missing, the lips
are abraded. The chin contains some modern
restorations in plaster and there are chips to the
surfaces of the face and neck. It is possible that
the original statue was toppled, like the Rich-
mond togatus, and this may explain its damaged
and fragmentary state. The fragments of the stat-
ue may then have been stored for eventual re-
use.
11459.30a. See also, H. Jucker (1973) 19.
115In addition to the damage to the front of the stat-
ue, there is a deep chisel gouge where the base of the neck
and upper chest border the toga along the right side as a
result of an attempt in antiquity to separate the neck and
head from the body and thus reuse the statue, see H. Jucker
(1973) 19. The chips along the edges of the break in the
neck, which Jucker identifies as chisel blows, appear much
too fresh to be part of any ancient damage to the statue.
These chips are also fairly random, and are probably in-
cidental damage, and not caused by chisel or hammer
blows. The attempt to reuse the statue may have taken place
in a sculptor’s workshop. And indeed, the reported find-
spot of the piece lies in the Campus Martius, an area of
the city in which has yielded much evidence for sculptors’
workshops, A. Claridge (1998) 180. Most important in the
context of damnatio memoriae is the site of the discovery of
the Cancelleria reliefs, believed by many scholars to be a
sculptors’ or marble masons’ workshop. See F. Magi, (1945)
54. In any event, the attempt to reuse the statue was aban-
doned. Perhaps the damage to the portrait rendered it
unsuitable and impracticable for reworking into a portrait
suitable for the new emperor, Claudius; and so the entire
statue must have been stored to await some other form of
reuse.
116 Museo Civico, inv. 2177, h. 0.52 m.; D. Boschung
(1989) 29, 25, 37, 54-56, 89, 109, no. 9, sketch 9, pls. 9.1-
4, 46.1.
117 D. Boschung (1989) 109.
The fine state of preservation of numerous
other images of Caligula, suggest that they, too,
were removed from public view and ware-
housed.118 This group of portraits consists of busts
in New York119 and Paris;120 heads worked for
insertion and now in, Los Angeles (fig. 27),121
Venice,122 and Worcester (fig. 28);123 and heads
which have been cut or broken in the area of the
neck: in Copenhagen,124 New Haven (fig. 29),125
Paris,126 Schloss Fasanerie (fig. 30),127 and the
118 A portrait from Cártama is so badly weathered that
it is impossible to determine whether the extensive dam-
age to the facial features is the result of deliberate mutila-
tion in antiquity, or simply incidental destruction; Mala-
ga, Museo Arqueológico Provincial, inv. 553, h. 0.34 m.;
D. Boschung (1988) 29, n. 12, 40-41, 52, 55, 57, 111, no.
17, sketch 16, pl. 16.1-3 (with earlier literature).
119 Metropolitan Museum of Art, acc. no. 1914.37,
Rogers Fund, h. 0.51 m.; D. Boschung (1989) 28, 29, 46,
60-62, 86, 119, no. ?46, sketch 36, pls. 37.1-4, 47.1; H.
Meyer (2000) 91, fig. 180.
120 Musée du Louvre, MA 1234, h. 0.47 m.; D. Bos-
chung (1989) 29, 38-39, 54-56, 72, 87, 100, 110, no. 13,
sketch 13, pls. 13.1-4, 46.4 (with previous literature).
121 J. Paul Getty Museum, acc. no. 72 AA 155, h. 0.43.
m.; D. Boschung (1989) 29, note 12, 38-9, 53-57, 90, 110,
no. 12, sketch 12, pl. 12.1-4 (with earlier literature); H. Born
and K. Stemmer (1996) 97, fig. 41; E.R. Varner, ed. (2000)
96-99, cat. 4.
122 Museo Archeologico, inv. 142, h. 0.42 m.; D. Bos-
chung (1989) 28, 32, 36, 46, 53-56, 61, 63, 108, no. 4, pl.
4.1-4 (with earlier literature); I. Favoretto and G.L. Rav-
agna, eds. (1997) 208, no. 76.
123 Worcester Museum of Art, acc. no. 1914.23; h. 0.486
m.; D. Boschung (1989) 29, 43-45, 51, 52, 55-57, 60-61,
72, 90, 112, no. 20, sketch 19, pls. 20, 21.1-4 (with earlier
literature); D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 126, fig. 102; H. Meyer
(2000) 94, figs. 185-86. Although this portrait has been
dated to the Neronian period by Jucker ([1973] 20) its style
is perfectly consonant with other Caligulan pieces, espe-
cially the Getty and Venice heads.
124 Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, 637a, Inv. 2687; h. O.31
m.; D. Boschung (1989) 29, 41-, 51, 52-3, 54-, 60, 86, 100,
111-12, no. 18, sketch 17, pls. 17, 18.1-4 (with earlier lit-
erature); D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 127, fig. 104; F. Johansen
(1994) 1, 136-7, no. 56, (with figs., with previous literature);
H. Meyer (2000) 96, fig. 195.
125 Acc. no. 1987.70.1, h. 0.33 m.; D. Boschung (1989)
29, note 1, 58-60, 116-117, no. 37, sketch 30, pls. 31, 32.1-
3 (with earlier literature); D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 127, fig.
103; E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 96-99, cat. 5.
126 MA 1267, h. 0.33 m.; D. Boschung (1989) 28, note
2, 29, note 11, 32-5, 53-55, 61, 63, 107, no. 2, sketch 2,
pl. 2.1-4. The head is currently mounted on a seated to-
gate statue to which it does not belong.
127 FAS.ARP 21, h. 0.365 m.; D. Boschung (1989) 29,
n. 11, 32-36, 53-55, 60-61, 63, 108, no. 5, sketch 5, pl. 5.1-
 caligula, milonia caesonia and julia drusilla
Villa Albani,128 as well as a miniature bronze bust
depicting the emperor with bare chest and palu-
damentum, atop a globe in Brooklyn (fig. 31)129 and
two miniature bronze heads in the Metropolitan
Museum of Art (figs. 32-33).130 The New York
bust, a version of Caligula’s secondary type was
discovered (together with the head worked for in-
sertion in Worcester [fig. 28]) in an area of im-
perial holdings at Marino near Lake Albano. The
bust is extraordinarily well-preserved, with dam-
age limited to the rim of the left ear. Most of the
ancient surfaces are intact. Likewise, the Worces-
ter head (also a replica of the secondary type ) is
in a similarly fine state of preservation, with
damage essentially limited to the rim of the right
ear.131 Claudius would have had no reason to
continue to display images of Caligula on the
imperial estates. Both portraits may have been
removed and stored together, thus ensuring their
protection. The Louvre bust, a replica of the
main type, is reputedly from Thrace and exhib-
its the light beard of mourning which Caligula
adopted after the death of his sister Drusilla on
6 October 38. Also uncommonly well-preserved,
it is likely to have been removed from public view
and warehoused in a secure location following
Caligula’s assassination.132
Two other heads worked for insertion, now in
Los Angeles and Venice, are also singularly well-
4 (with previous literature). D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 127.
128 Portico, no. 54, h. 0.26 m.; D. Boschung (1989) 111,
no. 15 (with earlier literature). R. Bol (1990) 148-51, no.
192, pls. 86-89.
129 Brooklyn Museum, Department of Ancient Art, acc.
no. 21.479.12, h. 0.142 m.; D. Boschung (1989) 120, no.
?48 (with previous literature); E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 102-
3, cat. 9, with fig.
130 23.162.23, h. 0.255 m.; D. Boschung (1989) 115, no.
31, pls. 28.1-4, 47.2; E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 102-3, no. 7,
with figs.; and 25.78.35, h. 0.068 m.; D. Boschung (1989)
114-15, no. 29, pl. 26.5-8; E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 102-3,
no. 8.
131 D. Boschung sees this portrait as a reflection of the
main type ([1988] 43-5) but it should rather be grouped
with the secondary type, as the part occurs at the far left
of the forehead.
132 There is some damage to the rims of both ears, now
repaired in plaster. A section of the back of the head, at
the left is missing, and may have been worked separately.
The bust is cracked across the upper chest. The drapery
which covered the left shoulder is no longer extant, and
may have been worked separately.
37
preserved. As part of the Grimani bequest of
1586, the Venice portrait is likely to be from
Rome or its vicinity where, judging from its
impressive scale and workmanship, it was an
important public commemoration of Caligula.133
The Malibu likeness, said to be from Asia Mi-
nor, is worked for insertion into a togate image
of the emperor. It, too, is so well preserved that
it must have been removed from its statue body
and warehoused in safe location.134
The portraits in Copenhagen, New Haven,
Paris, and the Schloss Fasanerie are also so well-
preserved that they are likely to have been
warehoused or buried following Caligula’s over-
throw.135 Formerly part of the Campana Collec-
tion, the Paris portrait is said to have come from
Rome. The head in the Schloss Fasanarie is also
from Italy, and its high artistic quality, as well
as that of the Copenhagen portrait, may indicate
a metropolitan Roman provenance for both piec-
es.136 The Copenhagen likeness even preserves
the painted pupils, irises, and lashes of the left
eye, further underscoring the likelihood of its
storage in a protected location following its re-
moval from public display. In contrast, the Yale
head which was discovered near the Ponte Mil-
vio in Rome, is covered by extensive root marks,
suggesting that it may have been buried at some
point after Caligula’s overthrow.137 Although not
as well preserved as the preceding images, a
133 The Venice portrait, currently mounted on a mod-
ern bust, is well over life-sized. Modern restorations to the
head include the rims of the right ear, most of the left ear,
the tip of the nose, and the lower lip. The portrait has also
been subjected to an extensive modern cleaning. The an-
cient sculpture in the Grimani collection was largely ac-
quired in Rome where the family had a vigna and a resi-
dence on the Quirinal, in the vicinity of the later Palazzo
Barberini. Presumably some of the ancient sculpture came
from their vigna. On the Grimani and their collection, see
I. Favoretto (1990) 84-92.
134 The head has suffered very minor damage, includ-
ing chipping of the rims of both ears, and abrasions on the
tip of the nose and chin.
135 The damage to all three portraits is limited in na-
ture; remarkably, as in so many of the warehoused por-
traits of Caligula, the noses are intact.
136 Despite the fact that the Copenhagen piece was
purchased in Istanbul, it has been recognized as a prod-
uct of a metropolitan Roman workshop. See C.C. Vermeule
(1967) 387, no. 2, and F. Johansen (1987) 97.
137 I would like to thank Dr. Susan B. Matheson, Cu-
38 chapter two
portrait in Fossombrone exhibits no signs that it
was intentionally mutilated in antiquity and was
also almost certainly removed from public display
and perhaps warehoused after Caligula’s over-
throw.138 In addition, the miniature bronze bust
in Brooklyn may have originally been displayed
in a public or domestic shrine from which it
certainly would have been removed following the
emperor’s assassination.
The removal of Caligula’s images is also at-
tested at the Julio-Claudian Basilica at Velleia,
where a likeness of Caligula was replaced by one
of Claudius (cat. 1.27; fig. 34a-b).139 The trans-
formation presents a nearly identical scenario to
that of the group dedication at Rusellae. C. B.
Rose has persuasively argued that the Basilica
was originally constructed under Caligula, at
which time portraits of Augustus, Tiberius, Ger-
manicus, Tiberius Gemellus, Caligula, Drusilla,
Agrippina Maior, and Livia were created.140
Drusilla’s statue, apparently posthumous and de-
picting her with a “Demeter/Kore” body type,
is now headless but was accompanied by an in-
scription proclaiming her status as Diva.141 The
rator of Ancient Art of the Yale University Art Gallery for
allowing me access to the file on the Yale Caligula which
includes information on its provenance in correspondence
from the late Frank Brown, the former owner of the por-
trait.
138 Museo, h. 0.33 m.; D. Boschung (1989) 29, n. 12,
38, 58-60, 87, n. 193, 100-101, 117, no. 39, sketch 32, pl.
34.1-4 (with previous literature); D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 127.
139 Parma, Museo Nazionale d’Antichitá, no. 1, inv. 280
(1870), 834 (1952).
140 C.B. Rose (1997) 122-3. An additional togate por-
trait, often identified as L. Calpurnius Piso, also seems to
be part of this initial phase (Parma, Museo Nazionale
d’Antichità, inv. 835). Rose intriguingly suggests that this
portrait may have been recut from a representation of
Drusus Caesar, the son of Germanicus, into Nerva (1997)
124 . However, the coiffure of the portrait exhibits none
of the principal characteristics of Nerva’s hairstyle in iden-
tified original and reworked image. The physiognomy also
exhibits no close parallels to extant portraits, and the shape
of the face of the Velleia portrait is much more square than
most of Nerva’s images. C. Saletti had originally proposed
a Tiberian date for the initial phase of the Basilica (deco-
rated by portraits of Augustus, Tiberius [?], Drusus Maior,
Drusus Minor, Lucius Calpurnius Piso, and Livia), followed
by the addition of three more statues under Caligula
(Caligula, his mother, Agrippina Maior, and his sister,
Drusilla [1968] 87-90).
141 DIVAE DRUSIL [LAE]/GERMANI [CI]/ CAE-
surviving portrait of Claudius is the tallest in the
cycle and exhibits many signs that it is a substi-
tution for an earlier head.142 The tenon of the
current head of Claudius does not fit closely into
the body, leaving a visible gap between neck and
chest. A large chunk of marble which is missing
from the toga at the area of the back of the neck
and the top of the shoulders provides further
crucial evidence; chipping in this area has been
caused by hammer blows, prompting C. Saletti
to conclude that the original portrait was carved
all of one piece of marble and that the head was
knocked from the statue by blows from the
rear.143 This damage is not visible from the front.
All of the portraits from Velleia are very flat and
summarily worked at the back, confirming that
they were not intended to be seen from the rear.
Following Caligula’s death, his portrait was at-
tacked, perhaps disfigured, and eventually the
head was severed from the body and a mortis was
prepared in the chest to receive the new, sepa-
rately worked likeness of Claudius.
In contrast to those portraits whose fine states
of preservation indicate that they were stored in
secure locations, the archaeological find spots of
five images of Caligula suggest that they were
disposed of in a much more violent manner. A
portrait in Huelva was discovered among the
debris of a Roman well in Tharsis.144 The badly
corroded surfaces of the head indicate that it has
suffered long immersion in the water of the well,
SARI [S F](ILIAE), C. Saletti (1968) 68; C.B. Rose (1997)
122.
142 C. Saletti (1968) 45-7; H. Jucker (1973) 19, n. 6.
143 C. Saletti (1968) 46. C.B. Rose has proposed that
the head itself has in fact been recut from Caligula into
Claudius (1997) 122. He bases this on the “proportions of
the head and relative placement of the facial features
(which) match the portraits of Caligula (while) the bangs,
lips, nose and forehead have been recut to conform to the
physiognomy of his successor.” However, I can see no overt
signs that the head has been recut (there, are, for instance
no discernible traces of Caligula’s coiffure) and while the
smaller proportions of the head would support Rose’s ar-
gument, it seems more likely, given the poor fit of the tenon
and mortis and the high join between the sections of veil
at the left, that Saletti and Jucker are correct and the head
is an ex novo creation for a statue that was originally carved
from a single block of marble.
144 Museo Provincial, h. 0.402 m.; D. Boschung (1989)
 caligula, milonia caesonia and julia drusilla
into which it may have been thrown as an act
of denigration against the overthrown princeps.
Similarly, four miniature images of Caligula are
said to have come from the Tiber and they may
have been hurled into the river in order to de-
fame Caligula’s memory. The deliberately dam-
aged cuirassed bust, discussed above, is report-
ed to have been discovered in the Tiber, as is also
the case with a bronze bust which portrays the
emperor with bare chest and paludamentum, (fig.
35)145 The disposal of these busts in the Tiber is
a forceful statement of denigration rendered that
much more dramatic by the fact that the bronze
from which they were fashioned was inherently
valuable and it would certainly have been more
practical and economical to melt them down. A
fourth miniature bust, also with bare chest and
paludamentum, but in marble, was found in the
Tiber in 1886 during construction of the river’s
embankments (fig. 36).146 The small scale of this
bust, with little available marble for recarving,
may also account for its having been discarded
rather than reused.
It is certainly significant that almost half of
Caligula’s surviving miniature portraits are reput-
edly from the Tiber. On account of their minia-
ture format, many of these busts can be associ-
ated with sacra privata, as decoration for household
lararia, or with sacra publica, as part of the wor-
ship of the emperor’s genius.147 As such, these
miniature images are powerful symbols imbued
29, note 12, 40-41, 52, 55-56, 90, 111, no. 16, sketch 15,
pl. 15.1-4; M. Donderer (1991-2) 264, no. 9.
145 New York, White Levy Collection (formerly Zurich,
Coll. R. Schinz-Rüesch); H. 0.199 m.; D. Boschung (1989)
29, 46, 48-9, 54-57, 60 72, 92, 93, 100, 114, no. 27, sketch,
27, pls. 25.1-4, 46.2 (with previous literature).
146 Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Massi-
mo alle Terme, inv. 4256, h. 0.16. m.; B. Di Leo, Mus-
NazRom I.9.1 141-43, no. R98; D. Boschung (1989) 41-44,
51, 54-57, 60, 72, 86, 92, 100, 112, no. 19, pls. 19.1-4, 46.3
(with previous literature); M. Donderer (1991-2) 222, n. 126;
B. Germini in A. La Regina, ed. (1998) 48 (with fig.).
The treatment of the facial features, especially in the de-
tails of the narrow pointed chin and shape of the mouth
the mouth with overbite are nearly identical to a minia-
ture bronze bust of Caligula’s sister, Agrippina Minor,
created during the reign of Claudius (Chieti, Museo, with-
out inv. no.).
147 B. di Leo, MusNazRom 9.1, 143. For the association
of miniature busts with sacra publica see B. Schneider (1979)
39
with religious meaning. Following his downfall in
41, it would no longer have been permissible or
even desirable to display portraits of Caligula in
either sacra privata or sacra publica.148 The act of
hurling images of Caligula into the Tiber was a
demonstrative way of blackening the murdered
princeps’ memory, canceling any devotional as-
pects of the portrait, and at the same time ex-
pressing loyalty to Claudius and his new regime.
Furthermore, the violent disposal of these busts
is charged with overtones of poena post mortem,
associated with the disposal (and denial of prop-
er burial) of the corpses of capital offenders, noxii
killed in the arena, and later, even certain con-
demned emperors.149 Water also functioned as a
traditional place for the disposal of polluted or
threatening objects rejected by society; further-
more, salt water was held to have properties es-
pecially efficacious in purifying accursed objects,
and, as D.G. Kyle notes, the Tiber eventually
deposited any items thrown into it in the sea.150
As is the case with the miniature busts and the
head in Huelva, the weathered states of portraits
in Athens151 and Málaga152 suggests that they
31. For the association of miniature busts with sacra privata
see L. Polacco (1955) 185.
148 In addition, H. Jucker has suggested that the small
bronze cuirassed bust which has been deliberately attacked
with a hammer, may have originally topped a legionary
standard (cat. 1.3). As such, it may have been damaged and
thrown into the Tiber during the demonstrations which
occurred in the brief period of disquiet preceding the ac-
clamation of Claudius, H. Jucker (1982)113.
149 On the disposal of corpses of dead noxii and capital
offenders in the Tiber, see D.G. Kyle (1993) 306; D.G. Kyle
(1998) 213-28. After Ceasar’s assassination, certain Sena-
tors wished to have his body dragged through the streets
and thrown in the Tiber (Suet. Iul. 82.4). Following the
death of Tiberius, the disaffected common people of Rome
wanted to throw his body into the Tiber, shouting “Tibe-
rium in Tiberim” (Suet.Tib. 75.1). Vitellius’s corpse was, in
fact thrown in the Tiber and there was an unsuccessful
attempt to do the same thing with the body of Commo-
dus after his murder (Suet. Vit. 17.2; HA. Comm. 18-19, and
infra.). The remains of Elagabalus were dragged through
the Circus Maximus and the streets of Rome and ultimately
stuffed into the sewers which emptied into the Tiber (HA.
Elag. 17.6, and infra.).
150 D.G. Kyle (1998) 214.
151 National Museum, Warehouse, inv. 3590, h. 0.26
m.; D. Boschung (1989) 35, 37-39, 53-55, 109, no. 10,
sketch 10, pl. 10.1-4 (with earlier literature).
152 Museo Arqueológico Provincial, inv. 553, h. 0.34 m.;
40 chapter two
were not stored in secure locations, but discard-
ed in a more summary fashion following Caligu-
la’s death, The Athens head is broken off at the
area of the chin and there is further damage to
the forehead, brows, nose, cheeks and lips. The
facial features of the head in Málaga, discovered
at Cártama, have been substantially obliterated
through weathering.
A representation of Caligula in relief, now in
Trieste, has also survived.153 The fragmentary
relief, from Kula in East Lydia, depicts Caligula
on a rearing horse and a standing figure of
Germania. The inscription reads:
'"4\å 'gD:"<46è "ÛJ@- 'gD:"<\"
6DVJ@D4 5"\F"D4 6"2g4gDäJ"4
B"¯ H Ò *0:`F4H J`B@H
The relief attests to Caligula’s commemoration
in the remote provinces. As the inscription is not
erased, it is likely that the relief was removed from
display following his overthrow. A pharaonic
image of Caligula and accompanying cartouche
have also survived at Dendera.154
In addition to the surviving images in marble
and bronze, at least fourteen cameo or intaglio
portraits of Caligula are extant. The gems depict
Caligula in a variety of attributes and attire
including the laurel crown of the triumphator,155
cuirass and laurel crown,156 and capite velato with
scepter.157 These glyptic likenesses may survive
D. Boschung (1989) 29, n. 12, 40-41, 52, 55, 57, 111, no.
17, sketch 16, pl. 16.1-3 (with earlier literature).
153 Museo Civico, inv. 2228, 0.63 x 0.60 m.; D. Bos-
chung (1989) 92, 120-21, no. 51, pl. 40.3 (with earlier lit-
erature).
154 D. Boschung (1989) 92-121, no. 52 (with earlier lit-
erature).
155 Florence, Museo Archeologico, onyx, inv. 14539; A.
Giuliano (1989) 239, no. 165, with figs.; Florence, Museo
Archeologico, inv. 14540, onyx, A. Giuliano (1989) 239,
no. 166, with figs.; Ionides Collection, onyx, 0.013 x 0.011
m.; Boschung (1989) 116, no. 35, pl. 30.3; and Switzerland,
Private Collection, sardonyx, h. 0.02 m.; Boschung (1989)
117-8, no. 41.
156 New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 11.195.7,
onyx, 0.043 x 0.0305 m.; Boschung (1989) 115, no. 32, pl.
29.1-2, E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 112-13, cat. 13.
157 Musei Vaticani, Biblioteca, inv. 5268, sardonyx,
as a result of their value as gems, which precluded
them from being destroyed, as well as the diffi-
culty inherent in recutting them as attested by the
Caligula/Claudius chalcedony cameo in Vienna
(cat. 1.33). Imperial portrait gems functioned as
presentation pieces, and it is possible that the gem
portraits of Caligula remained in private collec-
tions and perhaps were even valued as curiosi-
ties or souvenirs of an unpopular and infamous
reign.158 A chalcedony cameo of Caligula en-
throned with the goddess Roma (or possibly
Drusilla in the guise of Roma) in Vienna159 ap-
pears to have been copied in antiquity as evi-
denced by a blue glass cameo in the Dumbarton
Oaks Collection (fig. 39).160 Boyhood likenesses
of Caligula are also presumably preserved on the
blue glass phalerae distributed to the troops of his
father Germanicus. The phalerae depict bust
length portraits of Germanicus, together with
small busts of three children, likely including
Caligula.161 As the primary honorand in these
phalerae is Germanicus, the three children with
Germanicus are generic, often indistinguishable
in terms of gender and coiffure, and thus it is not
surprising that there has been no attempt to
destroy them our cancel out the representations
of Caligula.162 However, more mature portraits
0.049 x 0.038 m.; Boschung (1989) 115-6, no. 33, pl. 29.3.
158 On gem collecting in Rome, see Pliny, NH 37.11;
J.M. Padgett (1995) 3-22.
159 Kunsthistorisches Museum, inv. IX a 59, h. 11 cm.,
w. 10 cm.; D. Boschung (1989) 29, n. 12, 51-2, 69, 72, 87-
88, 92, 95-6, 100, 116, no. 34, pl. 30.1-2 (with previous
literature); T. Mickoki (1995) 184, no. 226, pl. 23; H. Meyer
(2000) 67, 81, figs. 130, 164, 169; S. Walker and P. Higgs,
eds. (2000) 186-7, no. 3.45 (with figs) (with earlier litera-
ture).
160 Acc. no. 46.10, H. 14 cm.; G.M.A. Richter (1956)
66-9, no. 47, pl. 23.a (probably ancient); F. Eichler (1970)
71; H. Kyrieleis (1970) 492-8, figs. 2 & 7 (ancient); G.M.A.
Richter (1971) 101, no. 485; W.R. Megow (1987) 185; D.
Boschung (1989) 121, no. *55 (not ancient); E.R.Varner,
ed. (2000) 112-3, no. 14, with fig.
161 For example, London, British Museum, PRB 1870.2-
24.2 and Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, inv. AS XI
B8; D. Boschung (1987) 248-54, nos. 35-42, figs. 7-9, 11-
12, 83-91; C.B. Rose (1997) 24, pl. 16.
162 Although D. Boschung has suggested that these
phalerae depict Claudius with his three children, they rath-
er appear to represent Germanicus, probably with his three
sons, Nero and Drusus Caesar, and Caligula, (1987) 248-
54.
 caligula, milonia caesonia and julia drusilla
of Caligula do survive on at least two phalerae
created during his reign.163 They lack secure
archaeological contexts, but they may have sim-
ply been discarded after his overthrow. A min-
iature seated cuirassed statue in green chalcedony
may also have originally represented Caligula,
judging from its style and the type of cuirass with
cingulum.164 The image is headless and lacks its
lower legs and arms. If it indeed depicted Caligu-
la, some of the statuette’s damage may have been
the result of intentional disfigurement at the time
of the damnatio.
Caligula’s name was erased in inscriptions,
canceling his epigraphic identity in a manner
analogous to the removal of his portraits from
public display. Claudius removed his predeces-
sor’s name from the Theater of Pompey, whose
restoration had been completed under Caligu-
la.165 In one instance, Caligula’s name and titles
were even replaced by those of Claudius (just as
his sculpted portraits were replaced by, or re-
carved to, images of Claudius): on an inscription
from an arch at Thugga in North Africa, con-
structed to honor Caligula, his name and titles
have been replaced by those of Claudius.166 The
re-inscription was executed so hastily that Clau-
dius is given the praenomen Imperator which he
never actually used.167 Other erased inscriptions
are known from Milan, Bologna, Pompeii, Dal-
matia, Samos, Alexandria, and Cyzicus.168 A very
163 London, British Museum, 1972.1-26-1; inv. PS
284008, diam. 3.7 cm. D. Boschung (1987) 243-5, no. 26,
figs. 72-3; C.B. Rose 35, pl. 23; Mainz, Romanisch-Ger-
manisches Zentral Museum, B. 30431, diam. 3.8 cm.; D.
Boschung (1987) 243-5, no. 37, fig 74 (from south Nori-
cum or north Pannonia?.
164 The Art Museum, Princeton University, Loan ; J.M.
Padgett (1995) 9, fig. 7; H. Meyer (2000) 88-91.
165 In A.D. 21, the theater was burned (Heiron. a.
Abr.2037); restoration was begun by Tiberius (Tac.Ann 3.72;
Vell.Pat. 2.130.1); Caligula completed the restoration (Suet.
Calig. 21) and Claudius dedicated it (Suet. Claud.21.1; Dio
60.6.8); Dio (60.6.8) reports that Claudius placed the name
of Pompey once again upon the theater, which suggests that
Caligula replaced Pompey’s name with his own when he
completed the restoration. see also, A. Barrett (1989)178
and L. Richardson, jr. (1992), “Theatrum Pompeii,” 384.
166 L. Poinsott (1913) 45, n. 35; A. Barrett (1989)178,
n. 31.
167 M. Stuart (1939) 611.
168 A. Barrett (1989)178, note 31; Milan (ILS 194),
Bologna (ILS 5674), Pompeii (ILS 6396), Dalmatia (ILS
41
unusual example of the erasure and recutting of
a Caligulan inscription was discovered at the
Theater at Thera.169 The inscription, belonging
to statue base apparently from the theater’s scaenae
frons, has been erased and recut in honor of Ves-
pasian. The Caligulan statue base was original-
ly part of a group dedication which included the
emperor’s parents, Germanicus and Agrippina
Maior.170 Caligula’s name is not erased on their
statue bases and the erasure of his own inscrip-
tion (and removal of the accompanying portrait?)
may not have occurred immediately after Caligu-
la’s overthrow, and perhaps not until Vespasian’s
principate.171 Caligula’s name is allowed to re-
main in certain other inscriptions as well, includ-
ing the epitaph of Agrippina Maior from the
Mausoleum of Augustus, which suggests that the
excision of his name was not always a necessary
component of the condemnation.172 Two bound-
ary tones from Dalmatia illustrate the ambigu-
ous treatment of Caligula’s inscriptional identi-
ty: in one his name has been erased,173 and in
the other it has been left intact.174 The rather
sparse evidence for epigraphic erasure further un-
derscores the fact that Caligula’s portraits were
the primary targets of the damnatio.
Other forms of denigration included Claudi-
us’s refusal to complete some of Caligula’s build-
ing products, such as the amphitheater begun
near the Saepta Julia in Rome.175 Claudius also
piously discontinued the Caligula’s purported use
of the Temple of Castor and Pollux as a vesti-
bule or annex which allowed access from the
Forum to the imperial buildings on the Pa-
latine.176 Claudius repaired the Aqua Virgo,
5948); Samos (IGR 4.1721), Alexandria (IGR 1.1057), and
Cyzicus (IGR 4.146).
169 IG 12.3, suppl. 1294; C.B. Rose (1997) 160-1, cat.
97.
170 IG 12.3 suppl. 1392-3; C.B. Rose (1997) 160.
171 C.B. Rose (1997) 160.
172 CIL 6.886.
173 CIL 3.8472 = ILS 5948; C.W. Hedrick (2000) 112.
174 CIL 3.9832 = ILS 5949; C.W. Hedrick (2000) 112.
175 Suet. Calig. 21; E.S. Ramage (1983) 205; L. Rich-
ardson, jr. (1992) 6-7.
176 Dio.60.6.8; Recent archaeological excavation in the
area of S. Maria Antiqua seems to confirm this; see: H.
Hurst, G. Morganti, and F. Scoppola (1986) 470-78; H.
Hurst (1988) 13-17; A. Barrett (1989) 209, n. 57; H. Hurst
42 chapter two
which was claimed to have fallen into disrepair
under Caligula, a fact explicitly mentioned in an
inscription commemorating the Claudian repairs:
Aquae Virginis disturbatos per C. Caesarem.177 Ancient
authors such as Suetonius generally classify
Caligula’s building projects as tyrannical excesses.
For instance, Suetonius’s accounts of Caligula’s
sacrilegious remodeling of the Temple of Castor
and Pollux in the Forum Romanum as a vesti-
bule for his Palace on the Palatine, or the bridge
he constructed to link the residences on the
Palatine with the Temple of Jupiter Optimus
Maximus on the Capitoline may be intentional-
ly distorted or misinterpreted to reflect Caligu-
la’s tyrannical nature.178 In addition, Claudius’s
own choice of coin types may have been subtly
designed to defame the memory of Caligula.179
The Continued Display of Caligula’s Images
In stark contrast to those portraits of Caligula
which were mutilated, recut, or warehoused as
a result of his overthrow, the archaeological con-
text of certain images strongly suggests that they
were allowed to remain on public view in group
dedications. One of these likenesses, now in Iesi
(fig. 40)180 formed part of Caligulan dynastic
commemoration at ancient Aesis, which includ-
ed representations of Augustus181 and Tiberius.182
The portraits, worked for insertion, were discov-
ered in 1784 in the courtyard of the Convento
di S. Floriano together with fragments of five
togate statues, 2 draped female statues, and sev-
in E. M. Steinby, ed. (1995) 106-8 (Domus Gai).
177 ILS 205, E.M. Smallwood (1967) 83, no. 308 b, and
E.S. Ramage (1983) 205, and A. Barrett (1989) 178.
178 Suet. Calig. 22.2. C. Edwards (1993) 146-7; see also
Suet.Calig. 37.2-3 for Caligula’s other extravagant build-
ing programs.
179 E.S. Ramage (1983) 202-6.
180 Palazzo della Signoria, h. 0.34 m.; D. Boschung
(1989) 29, n. 14, 35-6; 54-56, 63, 89, 96, 108-9, no. 7, sketch
7, pl. 7.1-4 (with earlier literature);C.B. Rose (1997) 81, cat.
1, pl. 57.
181 D. Boschung (1993a) 40, 47-8, 66, 72, 154, no. 105,
pl. 86, 149.1; C.B. Rose (1997) 81, cat. 1, pl. 55.
182 C.B. Rose (1997) 81, cat. 1, pl. 56; see also H. Jucker
(1981a) 262-66.
eral inscriptions.183 Although the portrait of
Caligula is broken into two pieces and a large
chunk of marble is missing from the left side of
the head, the facial features are entirely intact and
the image has not been intentionally disfigured.
The flat back of the head indicates that it orig-
inally depicted the emperor capite velato in his role
as pontifex maximus.
A second image of Caligula, from Gortyna on
Crete also formed part of a dynastic group and
appears to have remained on public view.184 The
head, worked for insertion into a draped statue
capite velato, was discovered during the excavations
of the Agora at Gortyna, carried out by the
Archaeological Institute of America in 1893-94
in the area of the “Great Inscription.” It was
found with representation of Tiberius,185 Livia186
and Gaius Caesar,187 all similarly worked for
insertion. The portraits are remarkably well-pre-
served and essentially intact. The fine state of
preservation of the Caligulan likeness and its
discovery together with the other Julio-Claudi-
an portraits, indicates that it, like the Iesi image,
is unlikely to have been removed at the time of
Caligula’s damnatio. The entire group is Caligu-
lan in date and must have decorated the agora
or an adjacent public building.188
183 CIL 11.6199-6202.
184 Heraklion, Archaeological Museum, no. 64, h. 0.393
m.; D. Boschung (1989) 29, 32-6, 52-57; 61, 63, 89, 98-
99, 107, no. 1, sketch 1, pl. 1.1-4 (with earlier literature);
H.R. Goette (1989) 34, n. 147c; Rose (1997) 152-3, cat.
no. 85, pl. 194.
185 Heraklion, Archaeological Museum, no. 65, h. 0.43
m.; D. Boschung (1989) 107; Rose (1997) 152-3, cat. 85,
pl. 195.
186 Heraklion, Archaeological Museum, no. 67, h. 0.40
m.; D. Boschung (1989) 107; Rose (1997) 152-3, cat. 85,
pl. 196.
187 Heraklion, Archaeological Museum, no. 66, h. 0.442
m.; D. Boschung (1989) 98-99, 107; Rose (1997) 152-3, cat.
85, pl. 197.
188 L. Fabbrini (1966-7) 142. According to Fabbrini, the
original statue body for which the head of Caligula was
intended may also have been discovered at Gortyna. The
rear portion of a togate statue, whose size and style are
comparable to the portrait of Caligula, and three cuirassed
torsos of Julio-Claudian date are known from old photo-
graphs once belonging to R. Paribeni. (1966-67) n. 55. The
head of Gaius appears to be Augustan in date, but trans-
formed in the Caligulan period into a veiled portrait to con-
 caligula, milonia caesonia and julia drusilla 43

The Agora at Gortyna also yielded another
well preserved image of Caligula, a full length
veiled togate portrait.189 A replica of the main
type, the Gortyna statue is carved from a single
block of marble and exhibits very little damage.
Much of the nose, which was worked a
family with portrait dedications on their own
initiative.
A portrait of Caligula discovered at ancient
Luna in Italy together with a representation of
a Julio-Claudian female presents more ambigu-