Late Antique Mythological Sculpture — In Search of a Chronology

Introduction
Late Antique Mythological Sculpture
In Search of a Chronology
Niels HANNESTAD
In the past twenty years, scholars have gained a greater understanding of the final stage of
the type of sculpture labeled ,mythological‘ or ,ideal‘. The production of this type of sculpture
did not cease during the Severan period, as stated in the handbooks, but much later.
Several questions nevertheless still remain open, not least concerning the chronology of
this art form. Elaine GAZDA (1981) as well as Charlotte ROUECHÉ (1982 – together with
Kenan ERIM) have independently done pioneering work in this area. One could say that
time was ripe for revision. While the former worked along art historical lines, the latter, an
epigraphist, bluntly stated that the chronology established by the archaeologists did not
work. In different ways, they each laid the groundwork for future studies. 1
GAZDA published a marble statuette of Ganymede and the Eagle that was found in several
pieces in 1977 in a cistern under the ,House of the Greek Charioteers‘ in Carthage. When
restored it appeared to measure 0.49 m in height. The author notes that the sculpture had
been broken and repaired in antiquity, which happens to be a characteristic trait of late antique
sculpture despite its brief existence. 2 GAZDA connects the acquisition of this sculpture
to the renovation of the house during the early part of the fifth century. It is presumed
that the house was destroyed during the Byzantine re-conquest of the city in 533, and later
when the area was cleared the battered sculpture ended up in the cistern. In her meticulous
stylistic and typological studies relating to other small and full-scale marble statuary, and
including other media such as ivory and silver, GAZDA fits the Ganymede group into a still
vital sculptural tradition. She is also the person who introduced us to the fundamentalist
Syrian bishop Theodoret, who complained about pagan sculpture still being produced and
displayed in public. This very detailed and vivid account, probably written at the same time
that the Ganymede group was carved, gives the clear impression that sculptural decor was
still an important part of civic life during this period. 3 GAZDA’s study soon resulted in similar
small-scale pieces being added to the corpus. 4 Consequently, it had to be accepted that
being a Christian (or a Jew) did not in itself prevent wealthy people from embellishing their
1 For a survey of the situation that led to a new understanding of the final stage of this type of sculpture,
see Hannestad 2002a, 270–274 and J. Meischner, Gymnasium 100, 2003, 402f. (review of Bergmann
1999).
2 Hannestad 1994, 155. This may be due to the increase in transport of finished sculptures compared to
previous periods.
3 Theoderet of Cyrrhus, Curatio affectionum graecarum 3, 79–84. This long passage is referred to in
Gazda 1981, 167. This was the period when a major transfer of pagan sculpture to the public baths
began: Hannestad 2001a. As bishop, Theodoret himself was a great builder of baths but they were hardly
embellished with sculpture.
4 E.g. by Bonfante – Carter 1987.

276
Niels Hannestad
homes with traditional or pagan pieces in the form of two-dimensional art or luxury craft,
but also with sculptures, in particular small-scale ones. 5
Based on her epigraphic work at Aphrodisias, ROUECHÉ demonstrated that the so-called
Esquiline group from Rome, now kept in Copenhagen, was probably not produced in the
mid-second century but almost two hundred years later. 6 On display in Copenhagen are
five nearly full-size figures, and several fragments are in storage including parts of two
inscribed plinths. 7 The inscriptions on the plinths give the names of two Aphrodisian
sculptors (or studio owners) also active in their home city and well documented there. The
form of the letters further supports such a late dating. Among the well-preserved pieces of
the Esquiline group is a Satyr almost dancing forward in a very affected manner while
carrying the infant Dionysos on his left shoulder. Two exact copies in different sizes have
been excavated in a workshop in Aphrodisias along with four unfinished fragments of the
same type. 8 The workshop presumably came to a sudden end owing to an earthquake, and
the latest datable find is an unfinished portrait statue of the mid/late fourth century. A
small-scale Hercules was also found in the workshop and some sculptures from the
Hadrianic baths have convincingly been attributed to the same workshop: the head of a
Satyr blowing a double flute and a replica of the ‚Old Fisherman‘, the latter also a very
popular figure in late antiquity. 9 The torso of the Fisherman is now in Berlin and its head
was recovered during the 1989 excavations. That brings the amount of statues that can
reasonably be attributed to this one workshop up to seven or eight, but as stated by R. R. R
SMITH (1998a), it is a heavy task to put all the pieces together for the purpose of
establishing the exact context of the finds, which were made by his predecessor at the site
who was little concerned about such details as stratigraphy. Despite the fact that SMITH is
hesitant about absolute dating, 10 the similarities in style and typology of the individual
pieces is overwhelming, and the link to the Esquline group seems tight. This group itself,
however, is more varied in style and type, which could be explained by the place of
production — namely Rome — where the workshops employed sculptors trained in
different traditions. Based on these results — the dating of a small-scale group of mythological
statuary and of a full-scale group in the same genre — more work has been done on
5 For further details on Christians, Jews and pagan sculpture, see Hannestad 1999. For the continuing
vitality of the sculptural tradition, see Hannestad 2001b; for a more general account, see Hannestad
2002b. The fundamental work on small-scale sculpture is now Stirling 2005, which appeared too late to
be taken into consideration here.
6 Roueché – Erim 1982, 107, narrowing down the date to c. 325–350.
7 A final publication with high-quality plates is Moltesen 2000. The inscribed plinths are discussed ibid.
122–124. Moltesen also mentions the problem that part of an inscribed plinth (fig. 12) which seems to
belong to the group was found reused in the walls of a bath building that can presumably be dated to the
Tetrarchic period. However, this inscribed fragment, now lost, was not found under ideal conditions and
several epigraphists agree that the inscriptions on the plinths in Copenhagen should be dated to some
time between the late Constantinian period and the mid fourth century; see also Coates-Stephens 2001,
219. 236 and eund., in this volume xxx–xxx. The fragment of the plinth may have been reused in a later
phase of the building if the find spot was correctly reported.
8 Rockwell 1991; cf. also Hannestad 2001a, 139 n. 18f. The complexity of the situation is stressed by Smith
1998a, 258f.
9 See Smith, in this volume xxx–xxx and xxx–xxx cat. A 26–27.
10 Cf. also Smith, in this volume xxx–xxx.

Late Antique Mythological Sculpture — In Search of a Chronology
the sculpture of the period. 11 It now seems possible to define criteria of style, technique,
and typology that establish a piece of marble sculpture as late antique, and, despite
occasional disagreements, consensus prevails. However, when it comes to relative or
definite chronology we often find ourselves on thin ice. We have hardly even defined the
outer chronological limits of the period in question: When does it start? When does it end?
New Research on the Chronology of Late Antique Sculpture
Establishing a chronology based on style and typology alone can be compared to building a
house of cards; for a lasting structure more secure contexts and dated material are needed.
The peculiar late antique tradition in the Levant of very narrowly dated mosaic floors does
not apply to sculpture. A rare exception is a small group of very homogenous sculptures
from an otherwise unknown Mithraeum in Sidon, now in the Louvre. Owing to a
dedicatory inscription, the statuette of the Hekate Triformis can be dated to 389. With
good reason, Marianne BERGMANN makes this sculpture a crucial part of her discussion,
just as it has been taken into account by Elaine GAZDA and Lea STIRLING as essential for
the discussion concerning absolute dates. 12 Looking for fixed points of dating, the
sanctuary of Asclepios in Epidauros offers another piece of relevance (figs. 1a–b): 13 a
statuette measuring 0.69 m in height and dedicated by the high priest Plutarchos, as the
inscription on the front of the moulded base informs us; hence, it may be dated to the early
fourth century, even reasonably narrowed down to AD 308/09. The statuette carved from
Pentelic marble is fairly intact despite the fact that it has been reassembled from eight
fragments. The figure is slightly disproportionate with a rather big head, elongated torso,
and short legs. The drapery is highly abstract and unrealistic, particularly the part covering
the right hip and the belly. It moves in irregular waves, rather a bit like cream being
whipped. The irises of the eyes are discretely carved with the edge of a chisel. The locks of
the hair and beard are separated by very deep and crudely drilled grooves. By comparison
the Asclepios tondo in Chiragan exhibits a more refined version of this type of drilling to
separate locks. 14 The Asclepios statuette from Epidauros is of local production, for which
we do not have much comparanda so far, but the stylistic traits conform to the date
mentioned in the inscription.
Reference material with similar characteristic traits may offer some help. Portraits are the
most useful because this material is vast and its development according to style and type
generally accepted. Occasionally, portraits raise the same problems as those we face with
11 The major contributions in this field have been Hannestad 1994; Kiilerich – Torp 1994; Bergmann 1999;
Stirling 1996a and 2005 (for a discussion of chronology, see ibid. 91–137).
12 Bergmann 1999, 24f. with references to the basic publications; see also Gazda 1981, 145 and Stirling
1996, 109–111.
13 The National Archaeological Museum, Athens inv. NM 264. In the comprehensive study by Katake
2002, the statuette is cat. 81 with pls. 26a–d and 27a–d (written in Greek, the book is not as widely read
as it deserves to be). I wish to thank Konstantin Kitsais-Jørgensen for translating the text for me. I am
also indebted to the vice-director of the Danish Institute in Athens, Jesper Jensen, and two members of
the staff at the museum, Eleni Kalavria and Chrysanthi Tsouli, for assistance in identifying the figure and
providing me with information and photographs.
14 Hannestad 1994, figs. 93–94.
277

278
Niels Hannestad
respect to mythological sculpture. The most obvious problem is the dependence on old
styles and types. More than in most previous periods such elements are re-cycled in such a
way that genuine ‚pastiches‘ appear — not to be mixed up with real ‚copies‘, which become
very rare in the late period — or various stylistic and typological traits divided by long time
spans are combined in a rather confusing way. An example of this is the Hercules of the
Esquiline group which has no plastic eye rendering. This particular sculpture would hardly
have been dated to the fourth century had it been without a context, and for this reason the
context is extremely important when working with sculpture of the late period.
There are other examples of sculpture that could be misdated by a hundred-odd years if
one does not resolutely aim for the latest trait to be sorted out. Among portraits the
likeness of Julianus is an obvious case in point, with its beard, Trajanic hairstyle, and the
absence of any plastic rendering of irises and pupils. He is deliberately made to imitate his
predecessors from an era he so eagerly wanted to reintroduce. A thorough analysis of
details, such as the inorganic shape of the upper torso and neck, particularly obvious when
seen in profile, the lack of plasticity in the hands, and the crude drilling of the hair partly
damaging the diadem, ensures a late dating 15 For the same reasons, some late antique ladies
have wrongly been dated to the Trajanic-Hadrianic period because they revive the coiffure
of that earlier period, rightly considered to encompass the peak of power and wealth of the
Empire.
A few examples of mythological sculpture should also be discussed, such as the notorious
young togatus from Aphrodisias, a 2.15 m tall statue found in 1983 and illustrated in Erim
1986, but only in three frontal views. 16 It has been dated to the High Empire, a date that is
still maintained by the excavators. 17 The young man (whoever he might be – a genius is one
possibility) is dressed in an Augustan toga, with curly hair framing his face and no plastic
rendering of irises and pupils. However, looking at the sculpture in profile the bald skull
immediately stands out, placing the piece in the context of male portraits in Asia Minor of
AD 400–450 or even later. 18 The execution of the young togatus is excellent but several
traits point in the same direction as the bald skull: the plank-like shape of the body is
without any plasticity; and the drapery rendered in a mannered way is very similar to an
ivory diptych of a poet and his muse in the Tesoro del Duomo in Monza, dated to the late
fifth century by ivory specialists. 19
15 The generally accepted iconography of Julian has recently been questioned by Fittschen 1997; see,
however, Hannestad 1994, 153 n. 261.
16 Erim 1986, 129; for more illustrations, see Hannestad 1994, figs. 103–105 and Hannestad 2002b, Abb.
5a–b and frontpage.
17 Cf. Smith – Ratte 1997, 20–22 and Smith 1998b, 69 n. 68.
18 For some reason this strange tonsure-like coiffure is most common in Asia Minor. The most superb
example, now in Brussels, comes from Aphrodisias; see Inan – Alföldi-Rosenbaum 1979, 232-234 cat.
204. The next entry (234 no. 205; Aphrodisias) gives references for this peculiar hairstyle. The authors
date the majority of these portraits to c. AD 450, but some are considered to be even later. The late
antique dating of the Aphrodisias togatus has been accepted by Bergmann 1999, 41. 64. A similar
combination of a tonsure-like hairstyle and the absence of a plastic rendering of the iris and pupil occurs
on the head of a philosopher dated to the late fourth century, now in the Vatican: Stadler 1995, Taf. 1007
(inv. XXIII 14).
19 Lavizzari Pedrazzini et al. 1990, 341f. cat. 5b.1d. For a comparison of sculpture and ivory diptychs, see
Hannestad 2002b, Abb. 4 and 5.

Late Antique Mythological Sculpture — In Search of a Chronology
Presumably the latest genuine copy of a classical masterpiece ever produced is a full-scale
head of the Ares Borghese type (fig. 2) from a collection of sculptures in Antioch,
originally published by Dericksen BRINKERHOFF as a mid-third century piece. 20 Most
recently it has been dated by Jutta MEISCHNER to AD 420/40. MEISCHNER ends her entry
with the following remark: „Die vielfach vertretene Ansicht, daß großformatige Idealplastik
im 3. Jahrhundert n. Chr. ihr definitives Ende gefunden habe, ist nicht zutreffend“. 21
Despite the helmet and the staring, almost Byzantine eyes, the flat skull leaves no doubt
about a very late date.
Back in the mid-1970s, the head of a muse in Chania with no provenance caught my
attention because of the discrepancy between its overall features and the rendering of the
eyes (figs. 3a-b). The piece is delicately carved in bluish Aphrodisian marble but the
rendering of the extremely pronounced tear ducts and a deeply carved groove for the iris
and pupil points to a rather late date. It has been suggested that the eyes were reworked in
late antiquity but this is not the case. 22 The closest parallels I have been able to find for this
rendering of the eyes is a colossal head of an emperor of the Valentinian dynasty in the
Musei Capitolini 23 and a heavily restored male portrait in the Louvre convincingly dated by
Marianne BERGMANN to the late fourth century. 24 A close examination of the hair of the
muse reveals some oddities partly obscured by the bad condition of the protruding areas.
On the well-preserved skull the individual locks have no clear texture and in the curly mass
of hair at the front and temples some deep and rudely executed channels were made by
drilling. This pattern is very similar to the rendering of the hair of the Poseidon of the
Esquiline group. 25 In fact, these parts of the hair could have been made by the same hand,
which is of course unlikely, but this in turn points to one of the problems concerning late
antique sculpture: very similar traits may be exhibited by individual pieces that are
otherwise stylistically quite different.
The Situation in the Third Century — Monumental Sarcophagi as ,Missing Link‘?
Muses happen to be a favourite theme in late antiquity, in some media lasting to the very
end of antiquity. The main groups of sculptural representation are to be found on
sarcophagi. Guntram KOCH (1993) estimates the total number of sarcophagi with
representations of muses predominantly produced in Rome at nearly 300. 26 In the volume
on Die antiken Sarkophagreliefs: Die Musensarkophage, Max WEGNER considers the Porto
Torres sarcophagus to be the latest piece, dated to c. AD 315, 27 which fits well into the
chronology put forward by KOCH. However, an examination of the chronology of
sarcophagi as established by the present generation of scholars casts doubt on some of the
conclusions reached earlier. Apparently, there has not been much cooperation between the
20 Brinkerhoff 1970, 32f.
21 Meischner 2003, 314f. cat. 17; cf. Hannestad 1994, 119, who suggests an even later dating.
22 Hannestad 2002b, 639f. Abb. 9a–b.
23 Fittschen – Zanker 1985, 158f. cat. 126.
24 Kersauson 1996, 517 cat. 247 (dated 275–85); M. Bergmann, in: Ensoli – La Rocca 2000, 545 cat. 194.
25 Cf. Moltesen 2000, Taf. 79a.
26 Koch 1993, 82f.
27 Wegner 1966, 162.
279

280
Niels Hannestad
closely knit group of scholars working on sarcophagi and others studying sculpture in
general, although it is true that the media are different, just as the private and the sepulchral
spheres are different. A wealthy Christian may, for instance, have embellished his home
with pagan sculpture but would hardly have chosen a pagan sarcophagus for his burial.
Unfortunately, we know very little about the stately home and its accompanying graveyard.
The generally accepted idea that the monumental mythological sarcophagi came to an end
shortly after 300 may well represent the overall pattern. Their successors were the Christian
sarcophagi, and in his Hermengallerie von Welschbillig, Henning WREDE already pointed to
such sarcophagi for dating evidence. 28 The largest sarcophagus ever produced in Rome and
actually featuring muses is presumably also the latest. Very fragmented, it is now in the
Getty Museum and was published by KOCH with superb illustrations. 29 Owing to the now
predominant trend of identifying the Gallienic period as the culmination for the production
of monumental sarcophagi, it is dated to the reign of the Emperor Gallienus, but nothing
indicates such a date. The faces of Melpomene and Terpsichore, shown in great detail in
the publication, closely resemble the face of the seated young Christ in the Museo
Nazionale Romano, 30 which accordingly pushes the date forward by about a hundred years
to c. AD 360. Nothing contradicts such a late dating; on the contrary, it is supported by the
lack of plasticity in the hands and in particular the drapery of Euterpe and Melpomene with
the long, deeply carved and nearly parallel furrows of the lower part of their chitons.
The vast number of sarcophagi of the third century may in some way represent a link
between the production of sculpture in the High Empire and that of late antiquity. But as
WEGNER already noticed in his final chapter on chronology, 31 with the disappearance of
state reliefs throughout most of the third century we lack closely dated comparanda.
However, in several cases we still have the portraits. Sadly, this dating evidence, which is
the best available, has not been treated according to its potential by some scholars engaged
in the project Die antiken Sarkophagenreliefs. The sudden disappearance of the state reliefs
after the dedication of the last great monument in AD 203, the Arch of Septimius Severus
in the Forum Romanum, must have had its impact on the sculptural production in Rome. 32
Furthermore, no state commissions were carried out throughout the Empire after this date.
The Severan Arch itself tells us something about what was going to happen. The great
reliefs in the grand ‚tradition‘ with themes closely related to the mythological sarcophagi are
gone, replaced by four panels characterised to a greater extent by the narrative tradition as
represented in the Column of Marcus Aurelius. The triumphal procession normally
encircling the arch is made up of four similar sequences of a depressingly poor quality. 33 It
is particularly relevant to compare the reliefs of the pedestals supporting the freestanding
columns with the sarcophagi: 34 various workshops produced sculptural work very different
28 Wrede 1972, e.g. 81f.: Venus from Saint-George-de-Montagne, now in the Louvre. In his study he
includes several other examples.
29 Koch 1988, 50–57 cat. 18; Ewald 1999,140 cat. A 12 (who accepts Koch’s dating).
30 Now in the Palazzo Massimo. For fine illustrations, see Sapelli 1998, 43 no. 19 and Bergmann 1999, Taf.
40, 1–2. The identification has (for no good reason) been disputed; see Hannestad 1999, 174f. and figs.
1–2.
31 Wegner 1966, 147–161.
32 The basic publication is Brilliant 1967.
33 It is not a continuous frieze as stated by Kleiner 1992, 331.
34 Brilliant 1967, 151–165.

Late Antique Mythological Sculpture — In Search of a Chronology
in style and quality. Had the reliefs of the Arch been separated, the dating would have
ranged from mid/late Antonine to the mid Severan period, spanning approximately forty
years. The heterogeneity in the sculptural ornamentation of the Arch is striking: the best
parts match the fine sarcophagi of the period but most of it is rather poor work. The odd,
small-scale state relief of unknown origin now in the Palazzo Sacchetti 35 has the same size
as the front of a major sarcophagus, but the poor quality is again alarming.
The discrepancies between state reliefs and high-quality sarcophagi of the third century can
hardly be explained otherwise than by the fact that the state no longer had the resources to
pay for high-quality products or that it used compulsion, as it did in many other cases, to
get sculptural work done, which was obviously not the best way to achieve quality. 36 The
‚Arch of the Argentarii‘ demonstrates through its decor, again of mediocre quality, how the
state could have had art produced for its own benefit but paid for by private citizens. The
only other state relief preserved from the period before the Tetrarchy depicts a state
sacrifice presumably carried out by Emperor Claudius Gothicus. The size is that of a major
sarcophagus, but the quality is so poor that the Museo Nazionale Romano now considers it
to be private, which is hardly possible. 37 When it comes to other types of sculpture, such as
imperial portraits in the round, the regime (till then) still maintained the quality and
quantity of production.
It is hard not to see a coincidence between the disappearance of the state reliefs and the
rise in production of monumental sarcophagi, although the latter were not a new
phenomenon. Crucial to this discussion is the front of a lion-hunt sarcophagus embedded
in the wall of the courtyard of the Palazzo Mattei in Rome, henceforth termed Mattei I. In
his pioneering article from 1936, Gerhart RODENWALDT dated this piece to c. AD 220
according to the portrait of the main figure which bears a resemblance to Caracalla due to
similar furrows on the forehead and the representation of the hair and beard. 38 The date
could be pushed back further on the basis of this same comparison, and RODENWALDT
also pointed to a private bust in the Museo Nazionale Romano that could represent the
same person and would definitely support a mid-Severan dating. 39 One could reasonably
include one more figure depicted on the sarcophagus for dating: the fallen attendant
protecting himself with a shield against the attacking lion, his fear vividly expressed by his
horrified grimace. 40 The very expressive face is so much like the head of a Roman soldier
on the great panel IV of the Severan arch that one could assume that the same workshop if
35 Budde 1955.
36 Cf. Hannestad 1986, 269f.
37 Sapelli 1998, 40f. no. 16; the quality is not inferior to the reliefs of the Tetrarchic decennalia base and it is
unlikely that a private individual had himself represented such a traditional scheme during that period
when the Emperor himself was the guarantee for preserving the tradition. Cf. Hannestad 1986, 299f.; for
a detailed discussion, see Giuliano 1985, 288–294 no. VI 12 (A. Ambrogi).
38 Rodenwaldt 1936, Taf. 2, Abb. 1; cf. Andreae 1980, Taf. 32, 2–3.
39 Rodenwaldt 1936, Abb. 2, Feletti Maj 1953, 116f. no. 230, Giuliano 1983, 211 no. 92.
40 Rodenwaldt 1936, Taf. 2 and Abb. 4; cf. Andreae 1980, Taf. 32, 6 and 9.
281

282
Niels Hannestad
not the same hand was involved. 41 The unmilitary look of the man is striking. He is so
distinct from the other soldiers that he appears to represent a mark on state art made by a
producer of private art perhaps not entirely content with the task.
Despite the fact that a rather secure dating of Mattei I should therefore be unproblematic,
in Die römischen Jagdsarkophage Bernhard ANDREAE moved its date up to AD 270–80, 42 thus
making it contemporary with the so-called Plotinus sarcophagus in the Vatican (fig. 4). 43
The dating of the latter has not been questioned since RODENWALDT placed it as the
second latest in his chronological table. 44 Both sarcophagi are high-quality works but very
different according to style, and both can be securely dated by their portraits. The level of
abstraction certainly increased over nearly three generations, a development which also
occurred in portraiture. And abstraction is one of the traits that became increasingly
predominant over the years in the sculptural production of the late antique period. The
portrait of Socrates to the far left of the Plotinus sarcophagus foreshadows the
forthcoming style of the tetrarchic period. 45 The rather square forehead and the stern
expression on his face cause it to resemble the scene of St. Peter arrested by two
policemen, as represented on a sarcophagus of the late Constantine period. 46 The strange
flat head of a toga-clad attendant addressing the main person, the amateur philosopher, is
almost ornamental. A notable detail of the sarcophagus is the shape of the central folds in
the drapery of the toga between the legs of the seated main figure, a detail found in a
similar form in marble sculpture of the later part of the next century and on ivory
diptychs. 47
It is thus certain that juxtaposing these two sarcophagi within the same chronological
framework would suggest that something is totally wrong. It becomes clear that part of the
Sarkophagforschung is moving on the wrong track. Making portraits a secondary dating
criterion is a dangerous business, especially in this complicated period, and the results are
worrying. The present school of research has virtually created a gap in the production of
monumental sarcophagi in the still stable mid and late Severan period by postulating a peak
under Gallienus, when Roman society was almost collapsing. Discussions are based on the
never-defined concept of the ‚Prunksarkophag‘ first used by ANDREAE and JUNG when
41 Brilliant 1967, Panel IV Scene B (pls. 92a-b). The similiarity has been pointed out by Stine Toft Birk in
her unpublished MA thesis, Byromerske sarkofager – med interagerende portrætpersoner fra severisk til tetrarkisk tid
med særlig vægt på perioden 240-280, Aarhus Universitet 2004, 63f. I am much indebted to Stine Birk Toft
for valuable discussions concerning in particular the chronology of the monumental sarcophagi. Her
results will be published in a forthcoming article.
42 Andreae 1980, 166 cat. 126.
43 Wegner 1966, 64f. cat. 116: „Spätes drittes Viertel des dritten Jahrhunderts“.
44 Rodenwaldt 1936, 113.
45 See details in Ewald 1999, Taf. 43, 1–2. For a general discussion of this topic, cf. Zanker 1995. A great
number of portraits of Socrates are in fact late antique: Hannestad 1999, 196f.
46 Bovini – Brandenburg 1967, 317–319 no. 771; Sapelli 1998, 46f. no. 21: sarcophagus of the vir
perfectissimus Marcus Claudianus dated to AD 330–35 and looking almost sub-tetrarchic.
47 Cf. Bergmann 1999, Taf. 64–65 (Aphrodite of Aphrodisias in Athens). 71, 1 and 3 (Artemis from St.-
Georges-de-Montagne in Bordeaux). Taf. 71, 2 (Amazone, relief from Chiragan in Tolouse). The
Euterpe on the Getty sarcophagus has some similar folds; cf. Koch 1988, left fig. on p. 53. This
mannered pattern is represented in an extreme form in the ivory diptych of Severus cos. 470: Delbrueck,
1929, 99 no. 5.

Late Antique Mythological Sculpture — In Search of a Chronology
listing 250 numbers in the Archäologischer Anzeiger of 1977. 48 One can only hope for a return
to the chronological foundations laid by previous scholars working on the basis of more
clearly defined concepts. This may come with the renewed interest in monumental
sarcophagi in recent years, resulting in three major books basically dealing with
iconography. 49 Not surprisingly, none of them discusses the crucial Mattei I.
Finally I would like to emphasize a feature well-illustrated in the volume dealing with the
hunting sarcophagi: the renderings of the eyes of the minor characters, which are either
mythological beings or attendants of various types. Their irises and pupils are rendered as
in portraiture. On the Mattei I we see a discrete sculpting of the iris alone as a semicircle,
which also occurs in portraits of the late third century. 50 The Dioscuri on the highly
fragmented hunting sarcophagus in the Catacombe di Prestestato have two parallel
semicircles, similar to the Constantine period. 51 In the corpus this piece is dated by
ANDREAE to the same period as Mattei I (or the ‚Plotinus‘ sarcophagus, i.e.
„spätgallienisch-aurelianisch“). In the basic publication of Margarete GÜTSCHOW, however,
the sarcophagus had been dated to AD 220–30, 52 whereas Alessandra VACCARO MELUCCO
suggests a date of 240–50. 53 Unfortunately, the head of the main figure, the hunter, is lost,
but he is accompanied by a personification of Virtus, which is a portrait figure and
presumably his wife. The head bears a close resemblance to a female head in the Musei
Capitolini dated by Klaus FITTSCHEN and Paul ZANKER to the 240s. 54 A dating to around
240 would therefore be plausible. During the third century a simple hole for the iris and
pupil occurs more frequently, which constitutes the latest stage in the development of eye
rendering in late Roman sculpture. 55 It thus seems that after having been introduced,
various renderings of the eye could recur later, sometimes accompanied by no eyerendering
at all, as shown in the Esquiline group, presenting difficulties for a scholar
working with these criteria for dating. It is a puzzling fact that we can follow the
development of eye-rendering on the sarcophagi of the third century and that the types
found there often foreshadow the development which later takes place in portraiture. This
may be an indication of the dominant role of sarcophagi as the main medium of sculptural
production in this period, which also supports the idea that they served as a link for artistic
traditions between the High Empire and late antiquity.
On the other hand, it has to be noted that compared with the later Empire the third
century was a rather dark period. State art nearly disappeared and with it went the imperial
portrait. Klaus FITTSCHEN underlines this drastic reduction by pointing to the declining
number of portraits of successive rulers that have survived to this day: 56 Septimius Severus
48 Andreae – Jung 1977, 432–436. In a later article, Andreae (1981, 15) elaborated these dating criteria. See
also the discussion on chronology in McCann 1978, 103–106.
49 Ewald 1999; Wrede 2001; Zanker – Ewald 2004.
50 See details in Andreae 1989, Taf. 32–33.
51 Andreae 1980, 160 cat. 86. Cf. the excellent details of the heads in Gütschow 1938, Taf. VII 1–2.
52 Gütschow 1938, 74f.
53 Vaccaro Melucco 1966, 16 no.4.
54 Fittschen – Zanker 1983, 110 cat. 164 („nachseverisch“). For an excellent illustration of the Virtus, see
Gütschow 1938, Taf. VII 4.
55 This applies to a sarcophagus in Vienna (Andreae 1980, 184f. cat. 274), dated to the Gallienic period. It
seems to be from a later period but since the portraits are not finished the dating is not certain.
56 Fittschen 1975; Wegner 1979. Cf. also Borg, in this volume xxx–xxx.
283

284
Niels Hannestad
ruled for 19 years and 140 of his portraits have survived. For later emperors we have the
following numbers: Caracalla: 20 years (including his period as crown prince) – 100
portraits; Severus Alexander: 13 years – 22 portraits; Gallienus: 15 years – 16 portraits.
Most emperors are represented with just a few portraits, and Aurelian, the saviour of the
empire, who reigned for five years, is only known from his likeness on coins.
However, in the same period private portraiture flourished. 57 A single piece should be
noted: a full-size huntsman in the Musei Capitolini holding up his catch, a hare (fig. 11). 58
The heavily restored statue was found in 1747 near the Porta Latina. It can be dated to the
Gallienic period and could have belonged to a suburban villa. It is significant in that it
anticipates the late antique lattice-work composition but in full size: with its height of 2.52
m the tree trunk seems tremendous, more suitable for supporting a lion than a hare. The
stately home of the hunter must have been adorned either with ancient mythological
statuary or new pieces produced for this house. The well-known three statues of the same
man now in the Villa Doria Pamphili, likewise dated to the Gallienic period, may also have
been surrounded by statuary from the same period. 59 A hypothetical question that could be
asked in this context is whether mythological sculpture produced in the Gallienic period
would be correctly dated if found out of context.
The Beginnings of Late Antique Sculpture: Small-Scale Statues
Looking at the situation in the third century as described above, it should come as no
surprise that the first group of genuine late antique sculptures that can be defined as such,
the Jonah group, is much indebted to sarcophagi, which further stresses their importance
and in particular makes clear that a securely established chronology is a sine qua non when
studying the rhythms of sculptural production and its stylistic development. The Jonah
group, now in the Cleveland Museum of Art, consists of three pairs of portrait busts of a
married couple and five small-scale statues with Christian subjects: four rendering the
narrative of Jonah, hence the name, and the Good Shepherd (figs. 5–9). The portraits are
on average c. 0.33 m high, and the statuettes are on the same scale as the Ganymede group
in Carthage. Acquired in New York in 1965, they were reportedly found together in a huge
pithos in Phrygia, Western Asia Minor. They were preliminarily but well published, and
soon came under discussion, but have not been much in the focus of scholarly debate for
the last decades. 60 The sculptures, all carved from the same type of marble, perhaps the
same block, may originate from the quarries of Dokimeion, which delivered great quantities
of material for sculpture, including sarcophagi. The portraits have been dated to c. 270–90
by Jale INAN and Elisabeth ALFÖLDI-ROSENBAUM. 61 The male portrait of a younger,
57 For an overview, see Meischner 2001.
58 Inv. 645, Salone no. 27; cf. Wood 1986, 111 figs. 79–80. Enough has been preserved to make the
restorations credible.
59 Wood 1986, 108–110; Meischner 2001, 52.
60 Wixom 1967; Weitzmann 1979, 406–411 nos. 362–368; Provoost 1994.
61 Inan – Alföldi-Rosenbaum 1979, 323–327 nos. 320–325.

Late Antique Mythological Sculpture — In Search of a Chronology
middle-aged man with short hair and a curly beard resembles the portrait of Carinus 62 and
the portrait on the ‚Plotinus‘ sarcophagus. The female companion, who is of the same age,
has the ‚Scheitelzopf‘ coiffure, which points to the tetrarchic period. Both have a mild or
‚soft‘, un-tetrarchic expression. 63
The small-scale sculptures datable to the same period may also be described as ,soft‘. The
Good Shepherd is iconographically based on the figure of the young Christ, a model
drawing on Alexander the Great. He is dressed in an oversized, belted tunic while moving
forwards in a classical contraposto position on the ground, as evidenced by the shape of
the base. His left hand holds the four legs of a ram in a firm grip, and he supports himself
with a heavy walking stick. On the ground are three small rams. The same ground is also
the base for three of the figures of Jonah: swallowed and vomited up by the whale in the
shape of a rather boar-like ketos. A fringe of his garment is still visible after he has been
swallowed but he reappears naked, the ketos having apparently digested his tunic. In the
two other sculptures, where he is sleeping under the gourd vine and praying, he wears
different types of tunics. The praying scene apparently does not take place in nature as he is
standing on a moulded base with a profile similar to the one used for the six busts. The
model for Jonah with the long untidy hair and beard seems to be the migrant Cynic
philosopher, but it should be noted that a Hercules struggling with a huge centaur Nessos
on an ossuary from Dokimeion also bears a close resemblance to Jonah. 64
These sculptures are quite unique. Neither several pairs of busts nor sculptures in the
round with biblical themes are otherwise attested. The motif of Jonah swallowed and cast
up is fairly common on early Christian sarcophagi, and one may assume that the entire
ensemble was created for a family mausoleum. In several traits the sculptures are still
rooted in the Hellenistic-Roman tradition in the same way as the mythological sarcophagi
were. For example, the sculpture depicting Jonah swallowed by the sea monster and thus
showing him bottom up with his genitals exposed is rather burlesque. Despite such traits
the Jonah sculptures and the accompanying Good Shepherd all have the genuine marks of
late antique sculpture. Their surfaces are highly polished except for details such as the hair.
They have the numerous struts which combined with the composition create a lattice-work
in marble. The many struts and small connections may have originally been intended to
make the sculptures more stable and thus fit for transport. However, they soon developed
into a sort of mannerism, as also seen in full-scale sculpture. For example, the struts under
the heels of the Esquiline Satyr and the one on the back of his right calf are utterly
unnecessary. 65 A certain abstraction is already felt but definitely not to the same degree as
in the Ganymede group and related sculpture. Abstraction then became predominant in the
62 Cf. Fittschen – Zanker 1985, 141f. no. 117. The identification of this colossal head, the only one
preserved (0.42 m), can hardly be doubted considering the coin evidence; see also Wegner 1979, 157–
159.
63 Which may be the reason why Kitzinger 1977, 27 compared the male heads in Cleveland with that of St.
Peter arrested on the Junius Bassus sarcophagus.
64 Waelkens 1982, 53 no. 7 Taf. 17, 1. The piece, now in Athens, is dated to c. AD 160. It should be noted,
however, that the author follows the prevailing German chronology, consequently arguing for a closure
of the workshop around AD 260 because sculptors in great numbers went to Rome to carve the
monumental sarcophagi that have been dated to this period. However, several of the quarries were in use
throughout antiquity: Röder 1971.
65 Excellently illustrated in Moltesen 2000, Taf. 70–71; cf. also Hannestad 2002a, 272 fig. 4.
285

286
Niels Hannestad
final stage of late antique sculpture, as in the several representations of Orpheus taming the
beasts, definitely the most popular proto-Christian myth featured in several media (fig. 10).
By this time the relief had also become so flat that it is almost two-dimensional. The
Orpheus illustrated was found in the Theatre Baths of Sabratha, indicating a late transfer
from a private house. 66 It has been suggested that the piece was imported from
Aphrodisias and that this city may be one of the places of sculptural production continuing
to the very end of the classical world. 67 One other Orpheus has been found in the busy
port of Aquileia and the remaining, a total of ten, in the East Mediterranean, which also
points to a late dating. 68 They constitute a rather homogeneous group and have been
identified variously as table supports (trapezophora) or candelabra. 69 Stylistically they are
related to the vast group of late antique table supports but their design is so fragile that
they can hardly have carried any heavy weight, and the one from Byblos, now in Beirut, has
no conical top, indicating that it was not designed to carry anything.
It should be noted that the Jonah sculptures are not flat like those of the Ganymede group
from Carthage or the closely connected hunting Artemis from Saint-Georges-de-
Montagne. 70 According to style and composition, the Jonah group fits perfectly with the
dating established by the portraits, and it may very well have been carved in a workshop
normally producing sarcophagi. In her discussion of the Ganymede group, Elaine GAZDA
stresses the connection between it and the sarcophagi with respect to some of the
individual scenes of the lower architectonical frieze on the sarcophagus of Junius Bassus. 71
A superb example of a lattice-work composition is seen on an Endymion sarcophagus in
the Getty Museum, dated by Guntram KOCH to c. AD 210, which is definitely much too
early. 72 Concerning small-scale sculpture it should then be possible to establish an overall
chronological development from the Cleveland sculptures (c. AD 280) to the Asclepios
from Epidauros (AD 308/09), the Junius Bassus sarcophagus (AD 359), the sculptures
from the Mithraeum in Sidon (AD 389), the Ganymede group (early fifth century), and
finally the Orpheus pieces, none of which have been found in a datable context, 73 but
which may be dated to the mid or late fifth century.
This development may be described as a movement away from the Greek canon. In sum:
there was a growing tendency towards abstraction and a declining interest in the organic
66 Hannestad 2001b.
67 Squarciapino 1941; two small statuettes of Asclepios and Cybele inserted into an oval base and found in
Aphrodisias must belong to this final phase of production, dated by the excavator to the fifth century
AD (Erim 1990, 27 fig. 30); since they are rendered in an entirely abstract manner with no plasticity left.
A dating at the end of the fifth century is thus possible.
68 Michaelides 1989, 152 no. 13. and id. 1992; LIMC VII 2 (Orpheus 143). Wixom 1967, 88–88e fig. 48–50
discusses the group and illustrates the pieces from Sabratha and Beirut from the back to demonstrate the
reinforcement not visible from the front.
69 Michaelides 1992, 241 divides the Orpheus statues into two distinct groups but attributes them to a
single workshop located in Asia Minor. Aphrodiasias may be the best guess for this. None of the statues
has been found in a securely datable context
70 Well illustrated in Bergmann 1999, Taf. 26–27.
71 Gazda 1981, 150; she also briefly mentions the Cleveland marbles as somewhat less intricate. On the
iconography of the sarcophagus of Junius Bassus, see Malbon 1990.
72 Koch 1988, 32–35 no. 12 (with excellent illustrations). Sichtermann 1992, 122f. no. 65 is a little hesitant
about the early dating.
73 Michaelides 1992.

Late Antique Mythological Sculpture — In Search of a Chronology
entity of the body represented and its proportions, ‚ornamental‘ and ‚mannered‘ being
keywords here. The composition of complicated groups was dominated by the many
interconnected parts of the sculpture including countless struts, creating an appearance of
lattice-work in marble. Often the supports of the statues have become very dominating.
The surface is highly polished but parts may be unfinished, especially the hair and of course
the back. The hair may be done by drilling with no intention to work the drill holes over.
In most cases there is no clear distinction between hair or skin and drapery. The same is
true for the many statuettes of Hercules leaning on his club, the upper end placed in his
armpit, club and body blending together. But there are also pieces where the drapery is
windblown and the hair bouffant, as in two very similar heads: one representing Helios in
Aphrodisias 74 and another showing Meleager (or Alexander) in Milan. 75 The general
impression is that the sculpture is made of a very soft material such as soap, bringing to
mind rubber dolls. However, this impression does not always present itself. The headless
fisherman in black marble from the villa at Chiragan, brought in from Aphrodisias semimanufactured
because the stone splits very easily (see below, n. 128), demonstrates an
exaggerated rendering of muscles and veins, just as on the Satyr in Copenhagen and some
of the pieces from the sculptors’ workshop in Aphrodisias. 76 Similar traits occur in other
versions of the fisherman in full scale. 77 The so-called school of Aphrodisias had its own
peculiar brand but not all pieces made in Aphrodisias or by Aphrodisian sculptors followed
this trademark. The complicated, delicately carved groups were the highlights of late
antique sculpture, but most pieces are still fairly densely composed, as had always been the
case. 78
The Development of Full-Scale Sculpture
Full-scale sculpture, which was no longer as frequently carved as before, did not follow
exactly the same path as small-scale sculpture. Mutual influences can be traced, but fullscale
sculpture was in general more firmly rooted in the tradition of ‚copies‘. Abstraction
was less predominant in full-scale sculpture and the influence from portraiture is clearly
felt. Basically the entire idea of providing mythological statuary with sculpted irises and
pupils stemmed from the field of portraiture. Concerning full-scale sculpture, portraiture
will therefore often make the best comparanda. The young togatus from Aphrodisias
mentioned above has his bald skull from contemporary portraiture. And the latest copy
known, the head of an Ares Borghese (fig. 2), has the same trembling and worried
expression as the bust of a sage found in Istanbul and dated to the Theodosian period. 79
The rendering of his hair at the front is similar but the locks at his temples are carved more
crudely, and the deep holes for the pupils indicate a later dating. It would be interesting to
know whether the preserved head was originally part of a statue.
74 Bergmann 1999, 15. 19. 54 Taf. 21, 4.
75 Lavizzari Pedrazzini et al. 1990, 326f. cat. 5a.1f (with an illustration of the entire figure); Bergmann 1999,
49 (with a detail of the head on Taf. 42, 4).
76 Well illustrated in Bergmann 1999, Taf. 18–19.
77 E.g. Giuliano 1981, 295–297 cat. 16; Hannestad 1999, 200 fig. 9.
78 Cf. Bartman 1992.
79 Inan – Alföldi-Rosenbaum 1979, 282–286 no. 274; Hannestad 1999, 196.
287

288
Niels Hannestad
Apparently, it was preferred to produce some subjects on either small or full scale. On the
One hand, there are numerous, mostly mature, Asclepios statuettes all over the empire but
hardly any full-scale Asclepios statues from late antiquity. On the other hand, the many
representations of city goddesses are full scale, often in the shape of tondo busts, which
became quite popular during this period. Several of these bear the mark of the ,School of
Aphrodisias‘. Genuine copies became rare but appear in both sizes, such as the Ares
Borghese head or an unfinished small-scale Diskophoros of Polykleitos found in the
workshop in Aphrodisias and carved from front to back using the same technique as for
reliefs, 80 which also indicates a working method related to the production of sarcophagi.
The flatness of the Ganymede group and the hunting Artemis may originate in such a
working process. This way of production also allowed the workshop to create semimanufactured
sculptures, as evidenced in the small fisherman from the Chiragan villa. A
unique piece is the full-scale Daidalos group found in the garden of an otherwise unknown
suburban villa in Amman, featuring the desperate Daidalos carrying the body of Ikaros. 81
The group was made piecemeal in Aphrodisias to be reassembled at its destination,
indicating that transport had become a serious problem and that taste was not the only
reason for preferring small-scale sculpture. As noted above, much sculpture presumably
broke while being transported, such as the left foot of Daidalos, repaired by an iron dowel.
Sculpture in Houses of the Third and Fourth Centuries on Cyprus and in Greece
Well-protected Cyprus was one of the flourishing regions of the later Roman Empire. Two
late houses are of particular interest due to their sculptural decoration: the ,House of the
Gladiators‘ in Kourion and the so-called ‚House of Theseus‘ in Nea Paphos. 82 A
devastating earthquake affected most of southern Cyprus in AD 365, destroying the ,House
of the Gladiators‘. It was only partly rebuilt afterwards, and the sculpture found there is
linked to the period when the complex was originally constructed. The excavators date this
phase to the late third century. 83 Ten marble statues derive from the house. 84 In her
overview of Roman sculpture in Cyprus, Jane FEJFER draws particular attention to an
Asclepios and a Hermes, both of which are three quarters their normal size. They are
carved in large-crystal white marble with black veins. Both are highly polished on the front
while the back is left unfinished. The Asclepios is not shaped but almost flat while the back
of the Hermes is shaped, but rude marks of the roundel or bull-nosed chisel remain. 85
Remarkably, this tool was preferred over the usual claw chisel in some workshops of Asia
Minor. A headless Hercules dated to the Severan period, now in the museum in Burdur,
80 Rockwell 1991, 134 figs. 11–12.
81 Hannestad 2001d.
82 The sculptural evidence of both houses is thoroughly discussed by Jane Fejfer in her survey of sculpture
in Roman Cyprus: Fejfer, forthcoming. I am most grateful to Jane Fejfer for having been permitted to
see the manuscript and for valuable discussions with her about the subject.
83 Loulloupis 1971.
84 Fejfer, forthcoming n. 115 with references. For the following remarks I rely on the work of Jane Fejfer
including her photographs, as I only saw the sculptures briefly in 1988.
85 Loulloupis 1971, pl. XXVIII, 5.

Late Antique Mythological Sculpture — In Search of a Chronology
was entirely shaped by this tool, as evidenced by tool marks on the back. 86 The Asclepius
was reworked at some point during late antiquity. The stick with the curled snake was
probably cut away to trans-form the figure into a representation of Christ. The first type of
Christ is modeled on the image of Asclepius and a parallel for this is the reworking of a
second-century head of Asclepius found in a palaeo-Christian basilica in Gerasa. 87 The
house in Kourion also yielded two full-size statues of a Dioscur and a Dionysos that —
owing to the similar pose of their bodies — could have formed a pair. A (later) third century
dating of these statues seems likely as stylistically they appear to be post-Severan. The
Dionysos is supported by a tree trunk of an irregular shape, separated from the leg by an
odd-looking, deep and curving groove.
The house in Nea Paphos is quite different. Totally reconstructed after the earthquake of
AD 365, the design of the complex is that of the late fourth century. At least 21 sculptures
have been unearthed, among them a statue of Aphrodite slightly less than life-size and a
full-size head of Isis. The rest are statuettes, for the most part a little less than half a metre
in height. 88 They were in storage when the house came to an end, apparently ready to end
up in a cache, as is seen so often in the final stage of a sumptuous house in late antiquity
(see below). The excavation and the sculptural setting are still not thoroughly published,
but some of the sculptures have already been discussed in detail. The general opinion has
been that the sculptures were produced in the High Empire to be re-used in late antiquity,
which is also claimed for many similar sculptural settings. 89 The average quality of the
craftsmanship is not high, and some pieces are poorly carved, but a single one stands out
for its high degree of perfection: an Asclepios of the so-called Giustini type. Owing to its
quality it has been argued that it was produced in Alexandria. 90 However, such an
assumption cannot be confirmed, as we know very little about the production of marble
sculpture in this city during the imperial period. The best evidence we have is the content
of a late antique sculptural cache from a suburban villa east of the city to be discussed
below. The highly polished surface and schematic rendering of the folds in the drapery
indicate a late date for the Asclepios — the high quality as such should not rule out such a
dating. A statuette with a more elaborate rendering of the hair in the Musei Capitolini
(Museo Nuovo) appears to be closely related. 91 Within the group of very small statuettes
from Asia Minor recently published by Axel FILGES there are two more similar pieces, but
being smaller in size they have been more swiftly crafted. 92 As mentioned above, the other
86 The traces resulting from this tool are explained in Rockwell 1993, 43 (photo 8). On the Hercules with
the pointing marks still preserved on the back, see LIMC IV 1 Herakles no. 355; Martin 1987 91f. Taf.
10a–b. His genitals have been chiseled away, so he was presumably found in a bath; cf. Hannestad
2001b. The roundel was also used for shaping parts of the unfinished Dacian quarried in Docimeion,
now in the Vatican: Rockwell 1993, photo 18.
87 LIMC II 1 Asklepios 888 no. 352 (B. Holtzmann).
88 Listed by Fejfer, forthcoming n. 96.
89 In some areas with plenty of ancient sculpture, the re-use of older sculpture was common, for instance in
late antique Ostia: Hannestad 1994, 103f.; an entire Ostian insula and its sculpture is discussed in
Boersma 1985. Cf. also Stirling, in this volume xxx–xxx.
90 Grimm 1989 – illustrations and texts of figs. 1. 2 and 4 have been mixed up; replicas are listed in notes
10–23.
91 LIMC II 1 Asklepios 880 no. 177 (B. Holtzmann); Mustilli 1938, 146f. cat. 11 (inv. 1448) listing forty-one
copies of this type.
92 Filges 1999, 428, no. 19 Taf. 37.4 (Ankara; H: 0.28 m). In the same showroom three more statuettes of
289

290
Niels Hannestad
statuettes from the ‚House of Theseus‘, including one headless Asclepios, are average to
mediocre in execution. The proportions are often distorted and some have an almost
unfinished appearance, which makes it difficult to accept the idea that all of the statuettes
were carved in the second century to be re-used two centuries later. Drilling has not been
used very much. Two rather similar fragments of female heads have bean-shaped pupils. A
seated Demeter has sculpted irises, but otherwise there is no plastic eye-rendering among
these pieces. Both of Demeter’s arms were added separately. A headless Dionysos has the
same drilled groove separating its right leg and the supporting trunk as the larger one from
Kourion. The right arm has been broken and repaired. The sculptures bear no resemblance
to Aphrodisian craftsmanship, and it may be assumed that a local workshop provided the
wealthy houses with such small-scale sculpture carved in marble from Asia Minor. The only
hint of origin are two statuettes, one white and one black, on a common base in white
marble said to represent Demeter and Persephone, but the simultaneous use of white and
black marble was not an Aphrodisian prerogative. 93
In 1999, the excavators of a Roman domus situated in the Panayia Field southeast of the
Forum at Corinth discovered a cache of marble statuettes. 94 The construction of the
building may be dated to the Gallienic period due to the coin finds, and the excavators
suggest that it was destroyed only a hundred years later by a fire caused by the earthquake
of either AD 365 or 370. At that time the sculptures had been moved to a storeroom
looking like a corridor, and had presumably been placed on shelves. All metal attachments
were removed and there can be no doubt that the statuettes were ready to be dumped.
They are very well preserved, some still covered with gold leaf and large expanses of the
red adhesive used to attach it. The sculptures consist of nine statuettes representing
Asclepios (twice), Artemis, Aphrodite, a seated Roma with several struts, Hercules Farnese,
Dionysos, Pan and a cloaked woman of the Aspasia/Europa type. The Aphrodite and the
Roma appear to have been made in the same workshop. On all pieces the pupils and irises
are marked in paint. Like the Paphos material, they cannot be related to any identified
workshop, and the Corinthian sculptures may have been produced in Corinth itself or in
Athens.
The houses in Kourion and Corinth are extremely important in establishing a sculptural
link between the High Empire and late antiquity. There could have been more rich domus of
Asclepios in various sizes are on display besides several other small mythological statuettes deriving from
the modern urbanization of the hills around Ankara, which is the area where the wealthy citizens lived in
antiquity (cf. Filges 1999, 424f.). See further ibid., 430, no. 40 Taf. 39.4: Asclepios on a base along with a
Hygieia (Sotheby’s NY; from Asia Minor; H: 0.26 m). Filges provides very important reference material
but some problems should be pointed out. The statuettes under discussion are very small and for this
reason their details are treated in a very cursory manner. The lack of contexts may weaken any argument
put forward concerning the chronology of this material. Several are composed with the lattice-work
characteristic of small-scale late antique statuary. Compared to the Jonah group most of the material
presented by Filges appears to be of a later date, but it is very difficult to say for sure whether such small
pieces are from the late second or the third and even the fourth century.
93 In Maier – Karageorghis 1984, 226 fig. 238, they are both considered to be Aphrodite. On the question
whether they are imported pieces or of local production, see Daszewski 1994.
94 Sanders 2001 contains a preliminary report. The group will be published by Lea Stirling (in Hesperia). I
am most indebted to Lea Stirling for valuable discussions in connection with the guest lecture she
delivered on this material in Aarhus in November 2004. The following discussion relies heavily on her
lecture.

Late Antique Mythological Sculpture — In Search of a Chronology
the third century decorated with contemporary sculpture, and some late antique villas may
contain sculptures of that period that have not yet been correctly dated. However,
mythological sculpture can only rarely be dated by its internal style (Zeitstil). A unique
example for this is a colossal head of Hercules (H: 0.65 m) found in the large villa of Piazza
Armerina, Sicily (fig. 12). It was placed in the apsis of the imperial reception hall, certainly
the most important location in the entire palace. The shoulders are shaped in a way that
indicates that the piece is a bust rather than a head to be inserted in a statue. The brow is
wrinkled, contributing to an overall impression of a cubic and brutish head perfectly in
accordance with the mosaic portrait in the same villa of a man overlooking a hunt for wild
animals in North Africa. After Jupiter, the king of the gods, Hercules was the most
important god in the tetrarchic regime. The head of Hercules was definitely influenced by
the portraits of the tetrarchic rulers, thus underlining the importance of portraiture as an
inspiration for full-scale mythological sculpture in late antiquity.
Sculpture in Pagan Sanctuaries
Continuity may best be demonstrated by looking to pagan sanctuaries still in use at the end
of antiquity. In the city of Rome, the pagan resistance to the rise of Christianity was
connected with such places of worship, especially those for oriental cults. Despite imperial
edicts and local harassment pagan activities did not cease. The most notable shrine, the old
Iseum and Serapaeum at the Campus Martius, continued to exist during the fifth century. 95
With regard to sculptural finds, two minor complexes are highly relevant in this context:
the sanctuary of Jupiter Dolichenus on the Aventine Hill 96 and a private shrine, part of a
domus, on the Esquiline Hill: the so-called Larario di San Martino, which was a sanctuary of
Isis. 97 Both areas were favoured by the upper class as locations for their richly decorated
houses. The sanctuary of Jupiter came to a close towards the mid fourth century, 98 whereas
the ‚Larario‘ functioned from the second to the fourth century. A selection of the
sculptural finds is well illustrated in the exhibition catalogue Aurea Roma, but here every
single piece of sculpture, except for an Egyptian stele of Harpocrates, is dated to the
second century (so that the statues could hardly have been relevant for the exhibition!). 99
However, a closer look reveals that several pieces actually must belong to a later period,
thus helping to bridge the supposed gap between the latest sculptures dedicated in these
buildings and the end of the sanctuaries. Some sculptures have been misdated owing to the
generally misleading fact that high polish can be found both in the Antonine period and in
late antiquity. The quality of both collections is rather uneven, ranging from high to
mediocre, and the subjects are very mixed. As is to be expected, some pieces are related to
95 Ensoli – La Rocca 2000, 281. For a general discussion of the situation in Rome, see ibid. chap. 2 („Una
religione multiculturale“). For an overview of the whole Empire, see MacMullen 1997.
96 L. Chioffi, in: LTUR III, 133f.; P. Chini, in: Ensoli – La Rocca 2000, 288–294.
97 J. Calzini Gysens, in: LTUR III, 115; S. Ensoli, in: Ensoli – La Rocca 2000, 280f.
98 Although there was perhaps another, very late phase indicated by Ostrogothic coins: Chini 1996, 335.
99 S. Ensoli, in: Ensoli – La Rocca 2000, 526–530 cat. nos. 166-172 (Sanctuary of Jupiter Dolichenus) and
M.P. del Moro, in: ibid. 518–524 nos. 147–160 (Larario, Sanctuary of Isis). For more detailed studies of
the Jupiter sanctuary, see Chini 1996 on the structures, Sorrenti 1996 on the sculptures, and Velestino
1993, 196–201 for the sculptures of the Larario, Enzoli Vittozzi 1993, 221–243.
291

292
Niels Hannestad
the cult while others could just as well have been exhibited in a private house. Most are
sculptures in the round but there are also reliefs, altars and table supports. From the public
sanctuary of Jupiter Dolichenus 55 pieces of sculpture have survived, while the private
‚Larario‘ in the shape of a small chapel only contained 21 pieces. The sculptures are very
different in size from the only full-scale (H: 1.88 m) group of Artemis with the hind and
Iphigenia from the sanctuary of Jupiter Dolichenus. This group has a large number of
struts and interconnections and the hair drilled with ‚bridges‘ indicates a Severan date.
Interconnections, struts and in some cases lattice-work compositions seen in many pieces
in both collections point to features that became predominant in late antique sculpture, and
the entire collection of material deserves to be reinvestigated in order to sort out pieces
that do not belong to the second century. A similar approach should be taken to shrines all
over the empire, where cults continued to the very end of the ancient world.
Sculpture in Late Antique domus and villae
Owing to the reconstruction of the Empire by the Tetrarchs and the stable Constantinian
period that followed, Roman society regained its economic strength after the turmoil of the
third century. Recently Richard ALSTON, focusing on the East, has argued that the period
from c. AD 300 to at least 540 was a relatively stable and prosperous despite the collapse of
the central power in some parts of the West. 100 Aristocratic residences — both domus in the
cities and villae in the countryside — were either built anew or restored. From c. 320 to 380
in particular, the construction or refurbishing of such residences boomed, resulting in
perfect settings for sculpture and consequently in a growing demand for statues. 101
The nobility who owned these houses was still immensely rich. The splendour of the late
antique upper classes thrived in such residences: both new structures and rebuilt mansions
were embellished with niches as an innovative architectural concept, and the floors were
covered with slabs of coloured marble or mosaics, often presenting mythological motifs.
The great mass of late antique silver plate was also on display in this context. A striking
feature of these elite houses is their cultural homogeneity, which must refer to a common
cultural background of their owners. Just as the decor drew on classical sources, reciting
the old literary masters became part of this aristocrat way of life. Intellectual life was thus
nourished in these surroundings. Lea STIRLING has therefore aptly named her recent book
The Learned Collector. The reception areas of these houses were an especially important part
of their mental and physical structure. In the words of Peter Brown: „the forum was made
private”. 102 The nobility often owned land in various parts of the Empire. Consequently,
the patterns of embellishment could be very similar in different parts of the Empire and, as
regards sculpture, the suppliers were often the same. The ,School of Aphrodisias‘ may have
played a dominant role but other workshops were also active in this field.
100 Alston 2004, 130 argues that late antique economic activities were much more dynamic than previously
believed.
101 Arce 1997; Christie 2004; Scott 2004. On the domus in particular, see Baldini Lippolis 2001; on governors’
palaces, see Lavan 1999.
102 Brown 1987, 274.

Late Antique Mythological Sculpture — In Search of a Chronology
How long these luxurious residences lasted in their splendour is a matter of debate. The
period of decline is difficult to date in most cases and there were certainly chronological
differences across the Empire. However, it is certain that houses of this kind lasted longer
in the East than in the West. As stressed by Javier ARCE, numerous villas underwent great
changes from the fifth to the seventh century. In such dwellings parts of the building were
transformed to accommodate small industries. 103 Along the north-western frontiers
‚barbarian‘ new-comers often moved in, occupying only a few rooms. During these
alterations the buildings must have been cleared of sculpture, but, for some reason, the
pieces in question were not broken up but merely buried (often in a sort of ‚dump‘). In
some areas houses fell into disrepair due to earthquakes, fire, or simple neglect. Parts of
buildings may have been restored and old sculptures filled into basins and water channels.
The final clear-out of sculpture appears to have taken place around AD 500–525, which
correlates to the end of the Ganymede group in Carthage (c. AD 533). In Athens, where an
intensive period of building activity followed the Herulian invasion, a series of private
houses on the Areopagos flourished until c. AD 530, when the ownership changed and the
domestic sculptures were dumped in nearby wells. 104 The closing of the pagan schools by
Justinian in AD 529 may have been the trigger for this change. Athens and subsequently
Gaza were among the last strongholds of pagan learning. In nearby Corinth the Panagyia
house had been emptied of sculpture when destroyed in AD 365/70. The chronological
differences evident in these examples may be explained by the owners’ different attitudes
or tastes. The Christian poet Prudentius who wrote proudly about the sculptural splendour
of ancient Rome, and the bishop Theodoret who condemned this sort of ‚luxury‘, both
shared the same Christian belief, but their attitude to pagan sculpture could hardly have
been more divergent.
It is generally accepted that sculpture found in Delian or Pompeian houses or in first and
second century Roman villas is contemporary with the architecture surrounding it. It is
believed, however, that this was not the case in late antique houses, though no convincing
arguments for this have ever been brought forward. There has been much focus on the late
antique house in recent years, on its function, design and décor. However, sculptures have
not been given the same attention unless they were found in great numbers. Individual
pieces were usually considered stray finds, leftovers from the High Empire. It certainly is a
problem that much sculpture has been found outside the buildings, buried in dumps, with
no evidence such as coins or ceramics on which to base the dating. Sometimes only the
sculpture itself is found, not the houses from whence it came. But the sculptural content of
such a cache or of stray finds from inside the building can very well represent different
periods of manufacturing. Some pieces were indeed quite old when buried, some may have
been fine collectors’ pieces repaired and cared for, but many sculptures may have been
made afresh especially for the new setting. The larger the house, the more reason there is to
believe that the sculptural programme was part of a major plan to be influential on the
design of the building itself.
103 Arce 1997; Scott 2004, 55–58; on the case of Hispania, see Chavarría Arnau 2004. Cf. also Ellis 1988 and
id. 1997; Percival 1992; as well as the various contributions in: Isager – Poulsen 1997.
104 Frantz 1988, 34-48. 87–90; Karivieri 1994.
293

294
Niels Hannestad
Not surprisingly, there tend to be different profiles of sculpture depending on where in the
Empire the collection was assembled. It also made a difference whether it was a modest
establishment or a great estate that had to be embellished. As might be expected, the
houses of late antique Ostia have a large proportion of re-used sculpture, and the same is
true for the houses in Athens mentioned above. The first collection of sculpture from a late
antique context to be properly published was a cache from Antioch (fig. 13). 105 It was
found in a back room of a small suburban villa and it has been suggested that the find spot
is not the original place of display. The collection may have been on view until the seventh
century. However, the only dating evidence we have is the style and type of the pieces, as
we do not know the house itself and the excavators paid little attention to the ceramics
found along with the sculpture. 106 In his excellent publication, BRINKERHOFF uses material
definitely dated to late antiquity for comparanda, but he does not draw the obvious
conclusion based on his own observations. One could say that the time was not yet ripe for
such far-reaching conclusions. 107 The collection is very heterogeneous, with portraits of different
ages and mythological statuary, statuettes and statues of various motifs. Apparently
no idea of a planned programme lay behind this accumulated collection, which may span
about 250 years of manufacture. I have (on the basis of BRINKERHOFF’s comparative material)
suggested that the mythological sculpture should be dated much later. 108 But in her
recent catalogue, Jutta MEISCHNER has moved the material back in time again except for
the Ares Borghese head. 109 This discussion warns us against relying on criteria of style
alone.
Another collection that has been much discussed in recent years was found in a suburban
villa at the bottom of the Golden Horn outside Constantinople in the modern locality of
Silahtarağa. 110 An important part of the otherwise little-known house is a nymphaeum with
its sculptural setting. Except for some old pieces, the sculptures are rather homogeneous
and were in all likelihood executed by Aphrodisian sculptors. It is possible to restore the
setting in parts, as has been done in the museum in Istanbul. 111 The tondo busts and a
group of giants in black marble on white bases and showing them throwing stones in vain
against the gods have a definite Aphrodisian brand. Had the villa been better excavated we
would presumably know when the refurbishing, including the new sculptural setting, had
taken place. There are several repairs that can hardly have been caused by transport and
some pieces may have been re-used. Whereas the first editors preferred a conventional
105 Brinkerhoff 1970, 3–5 (introduction and circumstances of the find); the sculptures are also listed in
Stillwell 1938, 171f. cats. 121–142 pls. 3–8.
106 On the excavation photo (fig. 13) potsherds are scattered around the sculptures including an amphora
with one handle intact.
107 Hannestad 2002a, 274.
108 Hannestad 1994, 118-120.
109 Meischner 2003, 314f. cat. 17. Unfortunately, the sculptures from the cache do not have successive
numbers or any indication of find spot. Ibid. 301f. cat. 9 (not belonging to the cache) is a torso of
Artemis, correctly pointed out as closely related to the Artemis from the villa at Saint-Georges-de-
Montagne; de-spite this fact, the dating Meischner gives is „1. Jahrhundert v. Chr“ (ibid. 302).
110 The basic publication is Chaisemartin – Örgen 1984; for a discussion of the material with new
suggestions for dating, see R. Fleischer’s review: Gnomon 60, 1988, 61-65, Kiilerich – Torp 1994, 314–
316; and Bergmann 1999, esp. 17–20.
111 Hannestad 2002b, fig. 14.

Late Antique Mythological Sculpture — In Search of a Chronology
early date for the sculptures, it has since then been moved upwards to the late fourth
century by other scholars. 112
Just east of ancient Alexandria in a locality named Sidi Bishr a cache of sculpture was found
in 1973 during the urban expansion of the modern city. 113 A pit yielded thirteen pieces of
sculpture, but whether any ceramics were found along with the sculptures has not been
mentioned. A female portrait statue (H: 1.74 m) in the retrospective ‚Antonine‘ style is the
only large piece from what must have been the sculptural décor of a late antique seashore
villa. A related portrait has been found, but the rest of the material consists of small-scale
mythological sculpture. An Asclepios (H: 1.19 m) and his consort Hygieia (H: 1.14 m) on
coarse cubic bases are rather similar in style and were produced by the same workshop. 114
The difference in size was achieved by doubling the height of the base of Asclepios.
Accompanying them is a small, delicately carved Harpocrates (H: 0.62 m) on a round
moulded base. The soft, soap-like carving resembles the Mithras relief from Sidon, thus
suggesting a different workshop than the one that produced the Asclepios and Hygieia. An
infant Dionysos with a tiny panther could come from the same workshop as the
Harpocrates. He has been encircled by a lattice-work construction growing from the tree
trunk support behind his back. Again we see similarities to a figure like the often-referredto
Artemis from Saint-George-de Montagne, but the moulded base is square and the
composition has more depth, perhaps indicating that it was not transported a long way
from the atelier. There are several rather insignificant statuettes in this collection: a
headless, swaying female, her right arm attached; a well-preserved young Mars; a broken
and restored torso of an old fisherman; two reclining statuettes, apparently from a
nymphaeum; and a female personification reclining on a Sphinx and juxtaposed with the
Nile itself. The finest piece of the collection is a statuette of Venus (H: 1.03 m) removing
her sandal while resting her left arm on a putto standing on a water jar partly covered by
drapery. This complicated group is held together by several struts and interconnections.
The base is moulded on the front but not on the back, much like the Artemis from Saint-
Georges-de-Montagne. The sculpture is, however, worked out on the back and not flat in
composition, which could again indicate a short distance between producer and customer.
All the details are very refined, the marble highly polished, and the rather fanciful central
strut connecting the putto and the Aphrodite appears to be twisted. The hair of the
Aphrodite is elaborately drilled with bridges resembling the head of a nymph from the
collection in Antioch and, on a larger scale, a Cybele from one of the tondi in the villa at
Chiragan. 115 The Alexandrian villa has thus been supplied with mythological sculpture from
various workshops. There is no reason to believe that these were not located in the city
itself, which was after all second only to Rome. Only the sculpture of the fisherman looks
worn, the neck having been broken and repaired. Otherwise the conditions of the surfaces
are fine on all the pieces. Despite differences in quality and style they could belong to a
single commission, which must have taken place late in the fourth century. If we knew the
house and the time of the burial we would be much better off concerning the chronology
112 For a discussion of the dating problems, see Bergmann 1999, 18–20.
113 Gassowska 1975; Hannestad 1994, 123–126.
114 Illustrated in Grimm 1989, figs. 2 (wrong text) and 3.
115 For the head of the nymph, see Brinkerhoff 1970, fig. 59; for the Cybele, see Bergmann 1999, Taf. 6.3–4.
295

296
Niels Hannestad
of this remarkable collection of late antique sculpture.
The sculptural decor of a unique octagonal building at Valdetorres de Jarama east of
Madrid has been preserved together with the building. 116 Owing to the thin layer of soil,
ploughing has been very destructive to the floors of the building, so among the finds are
broken-up pieces of the floor mosaics. In this case, ceramic finds date the building to
around AD 400. There are a few fairly well-preserved, small-scale pieces, among these a
headless Asclepios in white marble supported by his staff on his left side (an Asclepios of
the so-called Pitti type), estimated to have been 0.72 m high and beautifully carved but very
flat on the back. 117 The excavators rightly attribute it to the school of Aphrodisias, and one
should note the characteristic and very abstract final fold of the himation hanging down
between the body of Asclepios and his staff, linking the figure to other marble sculptures
of the period (see above, n. 47). There must also have been a Ganymede group in white
marble: small fragments of feathered wings have been found along with a head of an eagle
holding a piece of drapery in its beak. 118 Several other fragments in white marble are rather
difficult to interpret. Most surprising are the many sculptural fragments in black marble.
There is a fairly well-preserved headless giant which was mounted on a base of white
marble, similar in size and type to the one in the suburban villa at Silahtarağa. 119 There are
more such bases indicating that the entire sculptural decor was made by Aphrodisian
artists. The black marble splits very easily, undoubtedly presenting a challenge to the
restorers. It is surprising to find sculpture carved of this stone in such a remote place. No
piece seems to have been sent there semi-manufactured like the black fisherman in
Chiragan (see below, n. 128). Some of the pieces seem rather odd: there is a head of a
negro and a group of the killing of the Niobids as interpreted by the excavators — a male
and a female archer identified as Apollo and Artemis were found with one of their victims,
a collapsing rider. 120 The choice of the fragile black stone for such delicate details as the
arches is extraordinary. There are even struts between the fingers and repairs. According to
the two different types of stone used, the pieces in black marble have been dated to the
second century and the pieces in white to the second or third century, and it has been
suggested that all the pieces were bought second-hand in Rome and re-used in Valdetorres.
One of the excavators, Javier ARCE, however, disagrees on this point, considering all the
statuary to be contemporary with the building. 121 Nothing seems to contradict such a
simple explanation, making the material highly important for establishing dating criteria. It
is therefore all the more unfortunate that the sculptures are so badly preserved.
With about 200 pieces of sculpture, the villa at Chiragan, a vast complex situated about
fifty kilometres southwest of Toulouse, has yielded by far the largest and most complex
116 Puerta – Elvira – Artigas 1994, Hannestad 1994, 127; Bergmann 1999, 21; Hannestad 2002b, 643 Abb.
12–13.
117 Puerta – Elvira – Artigas 1994, 191–193 no. 9.
118 Puerta – Elvira – Artigas 1994; Hannestad 2002b, Abb. 12.
119 De Nuccio – Ungaro 2002, 305 no. 7. Despite the fact that the left arm has long since been restored, the
figure is still illustrated with no arms.
120 Puerta – Elvira – Artigas 1994, nos. 2–3. The collapsing Niobid is illustrated in De Nuccio – Ungaro
2002, 305 no. 6.
121 Oral communication; see also Bergmann 1999, 21 with references.

Late Antique Mythological Sculpture — In Search of a Chronology
collection from a late antique context. 122 In Chiragan we find a large group of small-scale
mythological sculptures, seven to eight genuine copies of old masterpieces, the twelve
labours of Hercules in full scale reliefs and a series of tondo busts that may correspond to
the reliefs. There are also some late female portraits, but most crucial to the discussion on
dating problems is a series of portrait busts, about twenty-five imperial and thirty private
ones. It has previously been agreed that the collection was accumulated over the years
because the family owning it was related to the imperial house and continuously acquired
portraits of the reigning emperor. The profile, however, is very odd. So in 1994 I suggested
that the portraits were part of an overall sculptural embellishment of the villa in the fourth
century and that the imperial portraits were acquired at this point from a by-then outdated
Augusteum, or a depot of old sculptures to be restored in Chiragan before being put on
display there. I shall briefly repeat some of my most important arguments. 123 The series of
emperors range from Augustus to the Severans, and there may be some minor characters
from the third century. They are all male except for a bust of Sabina, and they have all been
restored according to the same technique applied to the genuine copies. The late antique
restoration technique is very characteristic and not to be found in any other period. 124 It
cannot be confused with the restorations carried out in the 1820s. Some of the busts were
re-cut from statues because the owner obviously wanted a gallery of busts for his villa.
Some pieces have been made from parts not originally belonging together, such as a bust of
Septimius Severus (one of four) that is at first glance a unified sculpture but has been
assembled out of three different parts. 125 The restoration technique is most clearly
demonstrated by the material in the storerooms of the museum in Toulouse, where several
sculptures have been dismantled and the plaster restoration removed. 126 In conclusion, it is
hard to accept that the portraits (and the copies) would have been maltreated to this extent
had they been in the same house for centuries, since no destruction layers from the
intervening period have been attested. Finally, three emperors are missing: Hadrian, the
adult Marcus Aurelius, and the adult Caracalla; instead pastiches in a coarse-grained marblelike
stone have been produced to complete the collection.
The Hercules reliefs and the tondos are made of the local marble of St. Beat, while the
small-scale mythological statuary is carved in a creamy white, presumably Aphrodisian,
marble. Not every piece is equally well finished: the often-illustrated Dionysos has very
rough hair, 127 and a small fisherman was sent there semi-manufactured, as evidenced from
122 The basic publication of the sculptures is still Joulin 1901 accompanied by Espérendieu 1908 as a
reference work. For recent discussions, see Hannestad 1994, 127–41 and id. 1999, 187–191; Bergmann
1999, esp. 26–43; Stirling 2005, esp. 49–82.
123 Hannestad 1994, 129–133 and id. 1999, 187–189. Against this view, see Bergmann 1999, 31; her review
of Hannestad 1994 (Gnomon 73, 2001, 63f.) and especially her contribution to this volume: pp. xxx–xxx.
124 For obvious reasons restoration was widespread in late antiquity, even extending to the most notable
imperial monuments in Rome. I shall not further discuss the suggested reworking of the Ara Pacis here;
cf. Hannestad 2000.
125 Hannestad 1994, 131f. figs. 83–84. This fact has not been noted in Cazes 1995, 123 (by J.C. Balty). The
exhibited bust of Septimius Severus (Espérandieu 1908, 74f. no. 975) is a very unhappy example of bits
and pieces joined together.
126 E.g., Hannestad 1994, fig. 85, on the restoration technique see ibid. 129–133.
127 Bergmann 1999, Taf. 45.1–2. 52.1. 54.1; Hannestad 2002b, Abb. 17.
297

298
Niels Hannestad
his unfinished back where the drapery is not even in agreement with that of the front. 128
For future work on chronology it would be very important to establish whether the
sculptural collection of the Chiragan villa was accumulated over a long period or rather
belongs to one single commission.
A promising new find has been made at the long-known villa at Quinta das Longas near
Elvas in Portugal. In a debris layer from the 18 th century a cache of sculpture was excavated
on the 30 th of August 2000. 129 The sculptures, originally placed in the nymphaeum of the
villa, can be attributed to the third and final phase of the villa, covering the period from the
end of the third to the early fifth century. In the 18 th century the villa was pillaged in a
search for building material, but the peasants took no interest in the sculptures. Two years
after their discovery the sculptures were exhibited at the Museu Nacional de Arqueologia in
Lisbon. 130 They are all carved in a creamy white marble, still not identified. The best
preserved one is a triton that may more exactly be regarded as a giant (H: 0.54 m). His head
is turned up with great emotion, and both arms are missing. The rendering of the eyes, with
deep grooves between the irises and pupils, is not seen elsewhere in sculpture of this size.
There is a torso of Aphrodite tying a sandal, a female head with no or very slight rendering
of the eyes, and fragments of hands holding various objects: one hand holds a globe and a
pair of hands belonging to the same person are folded around an object. A rudder and
small fragments of animals have also been preserved. The sculptures have been compared
to the marble sculptures from Valdetorres de Jarama (see above) and consequently dated to
the third century. A somewhat later date may be suggested, corresponding with the
construction of the nymphaeum, but it is difficult to find comparanda in any other known
collection of sculpture. The female head comes closest to what is found in Chiragan and
other places. There are no traces of lattice-work in the composition. One hand holds a
conical object that has been broken and repaired by an iron dowel, indicating that it was
transported some distance from the workshop. Future studies on the sculptures may show
whether it is possible to relate the workshop providing this wealthy but remote area with
sculpture to the production of any other artistic circle.
Conclusion
As noted in the beginning of this paper, in the last decades we have gained a much better
understanding of late antique sculpture labeled ‚mythological‘ or ‚ideal‘. Much sculpture is,
however, still conventionally and wrongly dated to the second century — in particular to
the Antonine period — because some scholars consider high polish to be prevalent only in
this age. But it is now possible to establish new criteria of style, technique, and typology to
identify a piece of marble sculpture as late antique, and — as my personal experience
shows — these criteria can also be used by colleagues and students not familiar with the
128 Hannestad 1994, figs. 90–92 and id. 2002b, Abb. 18a–b.
129 Nogales Basarrate – Carvalho – de Almeida 2002. I am most grateful to Dr. António Carvalho for
sending me the astonishing photographs of the find and for informing me about the condition of the
find and the chronology of the villa. Furthermore he has drawn my attention to the recent publication of
the excavation (Nogales Bassarate – Carvalho – de Almeida 2004), which has, however, appeared too late
to be taken into consideration here.
130 Cardim Ribeiro 2002, 497–502 nos. 181–193.

Late Antique Mythological Sculpture — In Search of a Chronology
material. We are dealing with a period spanning at least 250 years, from the early/mid third
century to the mid/late fifth century. The late antique sculptural tradition emerged in the
course of the third century in the context of two branches: small-scale statuary indebted to
the production of sarcophagus reliefs and large-scale statuary, among which genuine copies
were still produced, but which was first of all influenced by portraiture. Both branches
mutually influenced each other. Some general tendencies can be established, such as a
growing trend towards abstraction, leading to a loss of interest in three-dimensional
representation and in the rendering of organic forms. In the third century we already see a
prelude to this increasing degree of abstraction in both portraits and sarcophagi. Later on,
two-dimensional art became predominant and the production and collecting of sculpture
came to an end. 131
Chronologically, the majority of the late production may coincide with the ‚villa boom‘ of
AD 320–80, which was followed by the revival of state art during the so-called ‚Theodosian
renaissance‘. In current research much mythological sculpture has been squeezed into the
late fourth and early fifth century. 132 It is true that a peak of production may have occurred
at this time, but other periods have undoubtedly also produced some sculpture. To fill the
gaps and thereby create a lasting picture of the final stage of ancient sculptural production,
we need to search contexts in ancient collections and individual finds datable through
external evidence. Every single upper class mansion of late antiquity containing sculpture
might contribute a piece to the jigsaw puzzle, and the long-lasting sanctuaries should also
not be forgotten. The evidence we may find here should be processed by our traditional
tools such as criteria of style, typology, and technique, a knowledge of other art media, and
epigraphical evidence. By organizing the material it may also be possible to sort out more
workshops, so that we do not have to cling to the ‚School of Aphrodisias‘ alone. The
material that a generation ago was barely acknowledged is now vast and rapidly growing,
and can hardly be embraced any longer by a single individual. The time may be ripe for
teamwork and open databases.
131 In Constantinople, however, some collections still existed for the Crusaders to plunder in 1204. The
main reference to the collections and sculptural décor of the city in late antiquity is now Bassett 2004.
132 E.g., Stirling 2005, 136: „Stylistic analysis of late mythological statuettes gives strong evidence for a date
in the late fourth or early fifth century“. This statement is highly representative for the communis opinio in
this field of studies.
299

300
Abstract
Niels Hannestad
In the past twenty years a greater understanding of the final stage of sculpture labeled
‚mythological‘ or ‚ideal‘ has been achieved. Production did not stop around AD 220/30 as
has commonly been supposed. In fact, it did not come to an end until the later fifth century.
By now it seems possible to define criteria of style, technique and typology by which a
marble sculpture can be classified as late antique, and despite casual disagreement within
the small group of scholars working with this material, consensus prevails. However, when
it comes to relative or absolute chronology, we are still on thin ice. My contribution is an
attempt to establish some secure dating marks on which we can base a chronological
framework.
Bibliography
Alston 2004 R. Alston, The Economic History for the Late Antique East, Ancient
West & East 3/1, 2004, 124–136.
Andreae 1980 B. Andreae, Die römischen Jagdsarkophage; Die antiken Sarkophagreliefs
I 2 (1980).
Andreae 1981 B. Andreae, Sarkophagforschung nach Rodenwaldt, in: Aufstieg und
Niedergang der römischen Welt II 12, 2 (1981) 3–64.
Andreae – Jung 1977 B. Andreae – H. Jung, Vorläufige tabellarische Übersicht über die Zeitstellung
und Werkstattzugehörigheit von 250 römischen Prunksarkophagen
des 3. Jhs. n. Chr., Archäologischer Anzeiger 1977, 432–
436.
Arce 1997 J. Arce, Otium et negotium: the Great Estates, 4th-7th Century, in: L.
Webster – M. Brown (eds.), The Transformation of the Roman World,
AD 400-900 (1997) 19–32.
Baldini Lippolis 2001 I. Baldini Lippolis, La domus tardoantica. Forme e rappresentazioni dello
spazio domestico nelle città del mediterraneo (2001).
Bartman 1992 E. Bartman, Ancient Sculptural Copies in Miniature (1992).
Bassett 2004 S. Bassett, The Urban Image of Late Antique Constantinople (2004).
Bellini – Bianchi 1996 G. M. Bellini – U. Bianchi (eds.), Orientalia Sacra Urbis Romae. Dolichena et
Heliopolitana. Recueil d’études archéologiques et historico-religieuses sur
les cultes cosmopolites d’origine commagénienne et syrienne (1996).
Bergmann 1999 M. Bergmann, Chiragan, Aphrodisias, Konstantinopel. Zur mythologyschen
Skulptur der Spätantike; Palilia 7 (1999).
Boersma 1985 J. S. Boersma, Amoenissima civitas. Block V.ii at Ostia: Description and
Analysis of its Visible Remains (1985).
Bonfante – Carter 1987 L. Bonfante – C. Carter, An Absent Herakles and a Hesperid: A Late
Antique Marble Group in New York, American Journal of Archaeology
91, 1987, 247–257.

Late Antique Mythological Sculpture — In Search of a Chronology
Bovini – Brandenburg 1967
G. Bovini – H. Brandenburg, Repertorium der christlich-antiken
Sarkophage I. Rom und Ostia (1967).
Brilliant 1967 R. Brilliant, The Arch of Septimius Severus in the Forum Romanum;
Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome XXIX (1967).
Brinkerhoff 1970 D. M. Brinkerhoff, A Collection of Sculpture in Classical and Early
Christian Antioch (1970).
Brown 1987 P. Brown, Late Antiquity, in: P. Veyne (ed.), A History of Private Life I.
From Pagan Rome to Byzantium (1987) 235–297.
Budde 1955 L. Budde, Severisches Relief im Palazzo Sacchetti; Jahrbuch des
Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 18. Ergänzungsheft (1955).
Cardim Ribeiro 2002 J. Cardim Ribeiro (ed.), Loquuntur saxa. Religiões da Lusitania;
Exhibition Catalogue Lisboa (2002).
Cazes 1995 D. Cazes (ed.), Le regard de Rome. Portraits romains des musées de
Mèrida, Toulouse et Tarragona (1995).
Chaisemartin – Örgen 1984
N. de Chaisemartin – E. Örgen, Les documents sculptés de Silahtarağa
(1984).
Chavarría Arnau 2004 A. Chavarría Arnau, Interpreting the Transformation of Late Roman
Villas: the Case of Hispania, in: N. Christie (ed.), Landscapes of Change.
Rural Evolutions in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (2004)
67–102.
Chini 1996 P. Chini, Le Dolichenum de l’Aventin: interprétation des structures, in:
Bellini – Bianchi 1996, 329–347.
Christie 2004 N. Christie, Landscapes of Change in Late Antiquity and the Early
Middle Ages: Themes, Directions and Problems, in: N. Christie (ed.),
Landscapes of Change. Rural Evolutions in Late Antiquity and the
Early Middle Ages (2004) 1–37.
Coates-Stephens 2001 R. Coates-Stephens, Muri dei bassi secoli in Rome: Observations on the
Re-Use of Statuary in Walls found on the Esquiline and Caelian after
1870, Journal of Roman Archaeology 14, 2001, 217–238.
Daszewski 1994 W. A. Daszewski, Marble Sculptures in Nea Paphos, Cypriote or Imported,
in: R. Laffineur – F. Vandenabeele (eds.), Cypriote Stone
Sculpture. Proceedings of the Second International Conference of
Cypriote Studies, Bruxelles – Liège 1993 (1994) 153–160.
Delbrueck 1929 R. Delbrueck, Die Consulardiptychen und verwandte Denkmäler
(1929).
De Nuccio – Ungaro 2002 M. de Nuccio – L.Ungaro (eds.), I marmi colorati della Roma imperiale
(2002).
Ellis 1988 S. P. Ellis, The End of the Roman House, American Journal of
Archaeology 92, 1988, 565–576.
Ellis 1997 S. P. Ellis, Late Antique Houses in Asia Minor, in: Isager – Poulsen
1997, 38–50.
301

302
Niels Hannestad
Ensoli – La Rocca 2000 S. Ensoli – E. la Rocca (eds.), Aurea Roma. Dalla città pagana alla città
cristiana (2000).
Enzoli Vitozzi 1993 S. Enzoli Vittozo, Le sculture del ‚larario‘ di S. Martino ai Monti. Un
contesto recuperato, Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica
Comunale di Roma 95, 1993, 221–243.
Erim 1986 K. T. Erim, Aphrodisias. City of Venus Aphrodite (1986).
Erim 1990 K. T. Erim, Recent Work at Aphrodisias 1986–1988, in: C. Roueché –
K. T. Erim (eds.), Aphrodisias Papers: Recent Work on Architecture
and Sculpture. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 1
(1990) 9–36.
Espérandieu 1908 E. Espérandieu, Recuil géneral des bas-reliefs de la Gaule romaine II.
Aquitaine (1908).
Ewald 1999 B. C. Ewald, Der Philosoph als Leitbild. Ikonographische Untersuchungen
an römischen Sarkophagreliefs; Römische Mitteilungen 34.
Ergänzungsheft (1999).
Fejfer, forthcoming J. Fejfer, Sculpture in Roman Cyprus, in: L. Wriedt Sørensen – K.
Winther Jacobsen (eds.), Panayia Amathousa II. Political, Cultural,
Ethnic and Social Relations in Cyprus; Monographs of the Danish
Institute in Athens 6.2; forthcoming.
Feletti Maj 1953 B. M. Feletti Maj, Museo Nazionale Romano. I ritratti (1953).
Filges 1999 A. Filges, Marmorstatuetten aus Kleinasien. Zu Ikonographie, Funktion
und Produktion antoninischer, severischer und späterer Idealplastik,
Istanbuler Mitteilungen 49, 1999, 377-430.
Fittschen 1975 K. Fittschen, Der Krise des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. im Spiegel der
Kunst in: G. Alfödy – F. Seibt – A. Timm (eds.), Krisen in der Antike –
Bewußtsein und Bewältigung (1975) 133–144.
Fittschen 1997 K. Fittschen, Privatporträts hadrianischer Zeit, in: J. Bouzek – I.
Ondrejová (eds.), Roman Portraits. Artistic and Literary. Acts of the
Third International Conference on the Roman Portraits, Prague 1989
(1997) 32–36.
Fittschen – Zanker 1983 K. Fittschen – P. Zanker, Katalog der römischen Porträts in den
Capitolinischen Museen und anderen kommunalen Sammlungen der
Stadt Rom III. Kaiserinnen- und Prinzessinnenbildnisse, Frauenporträts
(1983).
Fittschen – Zanker 1985 K. Fittschen – P. Zanker, Katalog der römischen Porträts in den
Capitolinischen Museen und anderen kommunalen Sammlungen der
Stadt Rom I. Kaiser- und Prinzenbildnisse (1985).
Frantz 1988 A. Frantz, The Athenian Agora XXIV. Late Antiquity, A. D. 267–700
(1988).
Gassowska 1975 B. Gassowska, Depozyt rzezb z Sidi Bishr w Aleksandrii, in: Starozytna
Alexandria w badaniach polskich-Materiaty Sesji Naukowej zorganizowanej
przez Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Jagiellonskiego Krakow
1975 (1977) 99–118.

Late Antique Mythological Sculpture — In Search of a Chronology
Gazda 1981 E. Gazda, A Marble Group of Ganymede and the Eagle from the Age
of Augustin, in: J.H. Humphrey (ed.), Excavations at Carthage 1977
Conducted by the University of Michigan VI (1981) 125–178.
Giuliano 1981 A. Giuliano (ed.), Museo Nazionale Romano. Le sculture I 2 (1981).
Giuliano 1983 A. Giuliano (ed.), Museo Nazionale Romano. Le sculture I 5. I marmi
Ludovisi (1983).
Giuliano 1985 A. Giuliano (ed.). Museo Nazionale Romano. Le sculture I 8, Parte 1
(1985).
Grimm 1989 G. Grimm, Alexander the False Prophet and his Good Asclepius
Glychon – Remarks Concerning the Representation of Asclepius with
an Egg, in: V. Tatton-Brown (ed.), Cyprus and the East Mediterranean
in the Iron Age; Proceedings of the 7th British Museum Classical
Colloquium 1988 (1989) 168–173.
Gütschow 1938 M. Gütschow, Das Museum der Prätextat-Katakombe; Atti della
Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia, ser. III, Memorie vol.
IV(1938).
Hannestad 1986 N. Hannestad, Roman Art and Imperial Policy (1986).
Hannestad 1994 N. Hannestad, Tradition in Late Antique Sculpture. Conservation,
Modernization, Production (1994).
Hannestad 1999 N. Hannestad, How Did Rising Christianity Cope with Pagan
Sculpture?, in: E. Chrysos – I. Wood (eds.), East and West: Modes of
Communication. Proceedings of the First Plenary Conference at Mérida
(1999) 173–203.
Hannestad 2000 N. Hannestad, Late-Antique Reworking of the Ara Pacis?, Journal of
Roman Archaeology 13, 2000, 311–318.
Hannestad 2001a N. Hannestad, Sculptural Genres in Late Antiquity – Continuity or
Discontinuity?, in: C. Reusser (ed.), Griechenland in der Kaiserzeit.
Neue Forschungen zu Skulptur, Architektur und Topographie; Hefte
des Archäologischen Seminars der Universität Bern, Beiheft 4 (2001)
137–145.
Hannestad 2001b N. Hannestad, Castration in the Baths, in: N. Birkle (ed.), Macellum.
Culinaria Archaeologica Robert Fleischer zum 60. Geburtstag von
Kollegen, Freunden und Schülern (2001) 67–77.
Hannestad 2001c N. Hannestad, The Ruler Image of the Fourth Century: Innovation or
Tradition, in: J. R. Brandt – O. Steen (eds.), Imperial Art as Christian
Art – Christian Art as Imperial Art; Acta ad Archaeologiam et Artium
Historiam Pertinenia 15, N.S. 1 (2001) 93–107.
Hannestad 2001d N. Hannestad, The Marble Group of Daidalos, in: The 7th International
Conference on the History and Archeology of Jordan; Studies in the
History and Archaeology of Jordan VII (2001) 513–520.
Hannestad 2002a N. Hannestad, My Best Ideas – I Got them from Others, in: Ancient
History Matters. Studies Presented to J. E. Skydsgaard on his Seventieth
Birthday; Analecta Romani Instituti Danici Suppl. 30 (2002) 267–276.
303

304
Niels Hannestad
Hannestad 2002b N. Hannestad, Das Ende der antiken Idealstatue. Heidnische Skulptur
in christlichen Häusern? Antike Welt 33/6, 2002, 635–647.
Inan – Alföldi-Rosenbaum 1979
J. Inan – E. Alföldi-Rosenbaum, Römische und frühbyzantinische
Porträtplastik aus der Türkei. Neue Funde (1979).
Isager – Poulsen 1997 S. Isager – B. Poulsen (eds.), Patrons and Pavements in Late Antiquity;
Halicarnassian Studies 2 (1997).
Joulin 1901 L. Joulin, Les établissement gallo-romains de la plaine de Martres-
Tolosanes, Mémoires présentés par divers savants à l’Académie des
Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres X 1, 1901, 219–516.
Kähler 1973 H. Kähler, Die Villa des Maxentius bei Piazza Armerina; Monumenta
Artis Romanae XII (1973).
Katake 2002 S. E. Katake, Epidauros. Ta glypta ton romaikon chronon apo to hiero
tou Apollonos Maleata kai tou Asklepiou I–II (2002).
Karivieri 1994 A. Karivieri, The ,House of Proclus‘ on the Southern Slope of the
Acropolis: A Contribution, in: P. Castreen (ed.), Post-Herulian Athens.
Aspects of Life and Culture in Athens AD 267–529 (1994) 89–139.
Kersauson 1996 K. de Kersauson, Musée du Louvre – Catalogue des portraits romains II
(1996)
Kiilerich – Torp 1994 B. Kiilerich – H. Torp, Mythological Sculpture in the Fourth Century A.
D: the Esquiline Group and the Silahtarağa Statues, Istanbuler
Mitteilungen 44, 1994, 307–316.
Kitzinger 1977 E. Kitzinger, Byzantine Art in the Making. Main Lines of Stylistic
Development in Mediterranean Art, 3rd–7th century (1977).
Kleiner 1992 D. E. E. Kleiner, Roman Sculpture (1992).
Koch 1988 G. Koch, The John Paul Getty Museum: Roman Funerary Sculpture.
Catalogue of the Collections (1988).
Koch 1993 G. Koch, Sarkophage der römischen Kaiserzeit (1993).
Lavan 1999 L. Lavan, Late-Antique Governors’ Palaces: a Gazetteer, Antiquité
Tardive 7, 1999, 135–167
Lavizzari Pedrazzini et al. 1990
M. P. Lavizzari Pedrazzini et al. (eds.), Milano capitale dell’Impero
Romano, 286–402 d.C. (1990).
Loulloupis 1971 M. C. Loulloupis, Excavations in Kourion 1967–70 (in Greek), Report
of the Department of Antiquities Cyprus, 1971, 86–116.
MacMullen 1997 R. MacMullen, Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eight
Centuries (1997).
Maier – Karageorghis 1984
F. G. Maier – V. Karageorghis, Paphos. History and Archaeology
(1984).
Malbon 1990 E. S. Malbon, The Iconography of the Sarcophagus of Junius Bassus
(1990).
Martin 1987 H. G. Martin, Römische Tempelkultbilder. Eine archäologische
Untersuchung zur späten Republik (1987).

Late Antique Mythological Sculpture — In Search of a Chronology
McCann 1978 A. M. McCann, Roman Sarcophagi in the Metropolitan Museum of Art
(1978).
Meischner 2001 J. Meischner, Bildnisse der Spätantike 193–500. Problemfelder. Die
Privatporträts (2001).
Meischner 2003 J. Meischner, Die Skulpturen des Hatay-Museums von Antakya,
Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 118, 2003, 285–384.
Michaelides 1989 D. Michaelides, A Trapezophoron with a Representation of Hercules
from Nea Paphos, Reports of the Department of Antiquities Cyprus,
1989, 151–155.
Michaelides 1992 D. Michaelides, A Statue of Orpheus in Paphos Museum, in: S.
Jakobielsky – J. Karkowski (eds.), 50 Years of Polish Excavations in
Egypt and the Near East. Acts of the Symposium at the Warsaw
University 1986 (1992) 234–244.
Moltesen 2000 M. Moltesen, The Esquiline Group: Aphrodisian Sculptures in the Ny
Carlsberg Glyptotek, in: Antike Plastik 27 (2000) 111–131.
Mustilli 1939 D. Mustilli, Il Museo Mussolini (1939).
Nogales Basarrate – Carvalho – de Almeida 2002
T. Nogales Basarrate – A. Carvalho – M.J. de Almeida, O grupo
escultórico da villa romana da Quinta das Longas (São Vicento e
Ventosa, Elvas), in: Cardim Ribeiro 2002, 297–299.
Nogales Basarrate – Carvalho – de Almeida 2004
T. Nogales Basarrate – A. Carvelho – M.J. de Almeida, El programa
decorativo de la Quinta das Longas (Elvas, Portugal): un modelo
excepcional de las uillae de la Lusitania, in: Actas de la IV Reunión sobre
la escultura romana en Hispania, Lisboa 2002 (2004) 103–156.
Percival 1992 J. Percival, The Fifth-Century Villa: New Life or Death Postponed, in: J.
Drinkwater and H. Elton (eds.), Fifth-Century Gaul: a Crisis of
Identity? (1992) 156–166.
Puerta – Elvira – Artigas 1994
C. Puerta – M.A. Elvira – T. Artigas, La colección de esculturas hallada
en Valdetorres de Jarama, Archivo Español de Arqueología 67, 1994,
179–200.
Provoost 1994 A. Provoost, De Cleveland-beeldengroep: bestemd voor een graftuin,
Boreas 17, 1994, 187–201.
Rockwell 1991 P. Rockwell, Unfinished Statuary Associated with a Sculptor’s Studio in:
K. T. Erim – R. R. R. Smith (eds.), Aphrodisias Papers 2: The Theatre, a
Sculptor’s Workshop, Philosophers, and Coin Types. Journal of Roman
Archaeology Supplementary Series 2 (1991) 127–143.
Rockwell 1993 P. Rockwell, The Art of Stoneworking: a Reference Guide (1993).
Rodenwaldt 1936 G. Rodenwaldt, Zur Kunstgeschichte der Jahre 220 bis 270, Jahrbuch
des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 51, 1936, 82–113.
Röder 1971 J. Röder, Marmor Phrygium. Die antiken Marmorbrüche von Ischehisar in
Westanatolien, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 86,
1971, 253–312.
305

306
Niels Hannestad
Roueché – Erim 1982 C. Roueché – K. T. Erim, Sculptors from Aphrodisias: Some New
Inscriptions, Papers of the British School at Rome 50, 1982, 102–115.
Sapelli 1998 M. Sapelli, Museo Nazionale Romano. Arte tardoantica in Palazzo
Massimo alle Terme (1998).
Sanders 2001 G. D. R Sanders, Corinth excavations focus on the Panayia field,
American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Newsletter 45 (Winter
2001) 1,5.
Scott 2004 S. Scott, Elites, Exhibitionism and the Society of the Late Roman Villa,
in: N. Christie (ed.), Landscapes of Change. Rural Evolutions in Late
Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (2004) 39–65.
Sichtermann 1992 H. Sichtermann, Die mythologische Sarkophage II. Apollon bis
Grazien; Die antiken Sarkophagreliefs XII 2 (1992).
Smith 1998a R. R. R. Smith, Hellenistic Sculpture under the Roman Empire:
Fischermen and Satyrs at Aphrodisias, in: O. Palagia – W. Coulson
(eds.), Regional Schools in Hellenistic Sculpture. Proceedings of an
International Conference held at the American School of Classical
Studies at Athens 1996 (1998) 253–260.
Smith 1998b R. R. R. Smith, Cultural Choice and Political Identity in Honorific
Portrait Statues in the Greek East in the Second Century AD, Journal of
Roman Studies 88, 1998, 56–93.
Smith – Ratté 1997 R. R. R Smith – C. Ratté, Archaeological Research at Aphrodisias in
Caria 1995, American Journal of Archaeology 101, 1997, 1–22.
Sorrenti 1996 S. Sorrenti, Les représentations figurées de Jupiter Dolichénien à Rome,
in: Bellini – Bianchi 1996, 367–431.
Squarciapino 1941 M. Squarciapino, Un gruppo di Orfeo tra le Fiere del Museo di
Sabratha, Bullettino del Museo dell’Impero Romano 12, 1941, 61–79.
Stadler 1995 M. Stadler, Bildkatalog der Skulpturen des Vatikanischen Museums I.
Museo Chiramonti 3 (1995).
Stillwell 1938 R. Stillwell (ed.), Antioch-on-the-Orontes II. The Excavations 1933–
1936 (1938).
Stirling 1996a L. M. Stirling, Mythological Statuary in Late Antiquity: A Case Study of
Villa Decoration in Southwest Gaul; Diss. Univ. of Michigan 1994
(1996).
Stirling 1996b L. M. Stirling, Divinities and Heroes in the Age of Ausonius: a Late-
Antique Villa and Sculptural Collection at Saint-George-de Montagne
(Gironde), Revue Archéologique 1996, 103–143.
Stirling 2005 L. M. Stirling, The Learned Collector. Mythological Statuettes and
Classical Taste in Late Antique Gaul (2005).
Vaccaro Melucco 1966 A. Vaccaro Melucco, Sarcofagi romani di caccia al leone; Studi
Miscellanei 11 (1966).
Velestino 1993 D. Velestino, Restauro del gruppo di Giove Dolicheno sul toro,
Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma 95,
1993, 196–201.

Late Antique Mythological Sculpture — In Search of a Chronology
Waelkens 1982 M. Waelkens, Dokimeion. Die Werkstatt der repräsentativen kleinasiatischen
Sarkophage. Chronologie und Typologie ihrer Produktion;
Archäologische Forschungen 2 (1982).
Wegner 1966 M. Wegner, Die Musensarkophage; Die antiken Sarkophagreliefs V 3
(1966).
Wegner 1979 M. Wegner (with J. Bracker and W. Real), Gordianus bis Carinus; Das
römische Herrscherbild III 3 (1979).
Weitzmann 1979 K. Weitzmann (ed.), Age of Spirituality. Late Antique and Early
Christian Art, 3rd to 7th Century; Exhibition Catalogue Metropolitan
Museum New York (1979).
Wixom 1967 W. D. Wixom, Early Christian Sculptures at Cleveland, The Bulletin of
the Cleveland Museum of Art 54, 1967, 67–88k.
Wood 1986 S. Wood, Roman Portrait Sculpture 217–260 A. D. The Transformation
of an Artistic Tradition; Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 12
(1986).
Wrede 1972 H. Wrede, Die spätantike Hermengallerie von Welschbillig; Römisch-
Germanische Forschung 32 (1972).
Wrede 2001 H. Wrede, Senatorische Sarkophage Roms. Der Beitrag des Senatorenstandes
zur römischen Kunst der hohen und späten Kaiserzeit;
Monumenta Artis Romanae 29 (2001).
Zanker 1995 P. Zanker, Die Maske des Sokrates. Das Bild des Intellektuellen in der
antiken Kunst (1995).
Zanker – Ewald 2004 P. Zanker – B.C. Ewald, Mit Mythen leben. Die Bilderwelt der
römischen Sarkophage (2004).
Credits:
Figs. 1a–b: National Archaeological Museum, Athens; fig. 2: DAI Istanbul Neg. R28741 (D.
Johannes); figs. 3–4. 10: Author; figs. 5–9: The Cleveland Museum of Art; fig. 11: Rome, Musei
Capitolini; fig. 12: Istituto Centrale per il Catalogo e la Documentazione, neg. E10285; fig. 13:
Brinkerhoff (1970) fig. 1.
307