At the end of the third century BCE a vast amount of spoils came from Sicily to Rome.1 The most notorious example is the war booty from the conquered city of Syracuse, which included a large number of Greek statues that were transported to Rome.2 These objects had an impact on their new contexts and on the city of Rome as the literary sources suggest.3 Would it be possible to trace this impact from an archaeological perspective through a particular object?
In this chapter I analyze the Ludovisi Acrolith as an example of an object coming from Sicily which had an impact on Rome and its inhabitants. In order to do so I will firstly (I) introduce Marcellus’ spoils from Syracuse and determine whether we can trace these in the archaeological record. As this will prove to be challenging, the second part of the chapter (II) will offer an exploration of the Ludovisi Acrolith as an example of the transfer of objects and cults from Sicily to Rome, looking at the role of acroliths in the Greek world and investigating how these came to be used in a Roman context. Finally (III), this chapter aims to shed light on the process of the transference of cult and cult-statues to Rome itself, and the role of objects in the changes in Rome that followed the introduction of the spoils of Sicily.
1 Introduction: The Spoils of Syracuse
The Roman conquest of the island of Sicily climaxed with the sack of Syracuse in 212 BCE, after which the city – as well as other parts of the island – was thoroughly plundered by the Romans. Literary accounts provide some information on the Syracusan spoils and their introduction in Rome. Livy notes the ‘greatness’ of the spoils and states that ‘there were heaps of silver and bronze artifacts as well as furniture, precious clothing, and many famous statues [nobilia signa], with which Syracuse had been one of the most richly endowed among Greek cities’.4 Polybius suggests that the introduction of the spoils was one of the first occasions when Rome was confronted with ‘that kind of artwork’, and that the Romans had not previously relied on ‘such things’ for the advancement of their country. His account is a rather negative response to both the looting practices and the adorning of Rome with these spoils, and one of the few relatively contemporary testimonials. He writes that the Romans could have left everything that would not have contributed to their strength and should have chosen not to adorn the city of Rome with paintings and sculpture from Sicily.5 By appropriating the spoils from Sicily the Romans had abandoned their own ‘habits of the victors’ and started to imitate the habits of the conquered Greek world, which points at a noticeable change in the city of Rome and the mentality of the Romans after the introduction of spoils. The difference between what was known before and what was newly introduced by the spoils was also emphasized in Plutarch’s biography of Marcus Claudius Marcellus. It notes that he took the majority of the most beautiful dedications from Syracuse to grace his triumphal procession and adorn Rome.6 This subtle and graceful art had not previously been known – and therefore was not yet loved; till then Rome had been filled with ‘barbaric arms and bloody spoils’. Plutarch states that Marcellus won the favor of the people because he ‘adorned the city with objects that had Hellenic grace and charm and fidelity’.7
The ancient sources thus suggest a change in the Roman objectscape at the turn of the third and second century BCE.8 It is these changes that I aim to investigate from an archaeological perspective in this chapter. To understand the possible innovations that followed the introduction of the spoils of Sicily, we should first look at what the objectscape of Rome looked like before the end of the third century BCE.
The traditional material of the early Republic was terracotta for adornments and sculpture, e.g. architectural elements as well as statues and reliefs, while temple roofs were decorated with terracotta or gilded bronzes in Etruscan styles. Wood was a common medium for sculpture as well, especially for cult-statues. Although there is only limited archaeological evidence from early Republican Rome, there are a few illustrative examples of its material culture, like the terracotta Hercules and Athena from the Sant’Omobono area and the terracotta ‘warrior’ from the Esquiline hill.9 These rare archaeological remains are quite early – end of sixth/beginning of fifth century BCE – but we may assume that the use of these artworks continued, as some works were still visible to Pliny the Elder in the first century CE. Pliny even proclaims that these clay pediments should be valued and respected because they were more ‘innocent’ than golden statues.10
While the Romans had certainly encountered artworks like those from Sicily in Rome before the end of the third century BCE,11 these would be particular instances concerning individual statues of which we have no direct archaeological evidence. It was through the spoils of Marcellus in 211 BCE that Rome was suddenly confronted with an unprecedented mass of Greek art such as marble statues.12
1.1 After the Triumph: The Looted Statues of M. Claudius Marcellus
The spoils of Sicily, including the vast number of statues, made their entrance into the city by means of a triumphal procession – in the case of Marcellus in the lesser form of an ovatio13 – according to a traditional Roman ritual.14 Roman triumphs were presentations of ‘us’ versus ‘them’, two clearly defined and recognizable groups of victors and conquered that performed a contrast of ‘Roman’ and ‘Other’.15 It was important for the Roman citizens to see the Other, that what was unknown and perhaps feared was chained and controlled in this staged spectacle which strengthened Roman identity. The triumph was a constructive performance, a means of bringing what was outside into Rome through a controlled ritual.16 The spoils and looted statues were presented to the city in the procession. In the triumphal procession the statues were paraded through the city on wagons, placed before the captive peoples who usually came last.17
For some of the triumphs there is even information on the number of statues in the processions: M. Fulvius Nobilior is said to have paraded 285 bronze statues and 230 marble sculptures in 187 BCE. In 168, Aemilius Paullus’ triumph would have consisted of 250 wagons of statues and artworks.18 Interestingly, the written sources only note the material of the artworks, whilst the aesthetic/artistic value or subject is almost never mentioned in the context of triumph.
Many studies view the triumphal procession and the objects in it as a representation of the non-Roman, the Other, and of military and Roman power, much like previous studies have tried to understand the display of Greek art in the Republic. The triumph was a transformative moment in the life of the object but also for the spectator, a ritual that provided the Romans with the possibility of introducing the spoils in a controlled manner and for the looted objects to become Roman.19 The triumphal processions ended in the ceremonious dedication of the spoils to Jupiter on the Capitol, after which they could be put on display in various public contexts and become part of the objectscape of Rome. The manner in which the spoils were appropriated through triumph already testifies to their impact. But what happened to these objects after the necessary ritual of the triumphal procession? How were they displayed in their new Roman contexts?
In 222 BCE Marcellus had already vowed a temple to Honos and Virtus, and it was this building that became the backdrop to his spoils from Syracuse after 211 BCE. Cicero tells us that Marcellus transported objects to Rome that could be an ornament to the city and that ‘the things which were transported to Rome we see before the temples of Honour and of Virtue, and also in other places’.20 Livy mentions the spoils as well, in the temples dedicated by Marcellus close to the Porta Capena that ‘… used to be visited by foreigners for their outstanding artworks of this kind’.21
The site on which Marcellus commissioned his complex enclosed an earlier temple to Honos that was renovated and to which a second temple – to Virtus – was added.22 But in what manner, in this newly renovated complex, could the vast amount of statues and other spoils from Syracuse have been displayed? Although no archaeological evidence remains of the building complex, scholars have speculated on the layout and the placement of the artworks.23 Cicero writes that the statues were displayed ‘… ad aedem Honoris et Virtutis’ and based on this, Amy Russell suggests that the statues should have been placed in the ‘forecourt’ of the temples:24
We must imagine a forest of statues in the area surrounding the two temples – a new Area Capitolina, but marked by stylistic coherence and all under the aegis of a single patron. They would have marked the space as different from other open spaces and created an overwhelming viewing experience.25
The renovated temple complex of Marcellus still referred to familiar Republican practices. Russell notes that the double temples have various parallels in early Republican architecture, and as the message of Marcellus’ victory and piety was very standard, so was his choice to construct a votive temple and use art to adorn his monumental complex.26 The temple complex, according to Russell, thus followed and improved on Republican standards while the display of a large number of ‘Greek’ statues and artworks surrounding the complex ‘created a new type of viewing experience’.27 If this is true it says a lot about the impact of the spoils from Sicily.
But the temple of Honos and Virtus was not the first temple where booty had been on display in Rome. After the sack of Volsinii in 264 BCE, 2,000 statues were said to have been looted and dedicated by the victor M. Fulvius Flaccus as votive gifts to the goddesses Mater Matuta and Fortuna.28 In front of the temples of these goddesses on the Forum Boarium in Rome, two rectangular bases and one circular base are found that have sometimes been connected to the spoils from Volsinii. The bases show ‘footprints’ – attachment points – of bronze statues, and would have displayed almost 30 small statues. Whether or not these bases are connected to Flaccus’ dedications, they do give an insight into the display of a multitude of dedicated statues in the forecourt of these temples already in the third century BCE.29
However, Alessandra Bravi argues that if we compare the spoils of Volsinii and their display to the spoils of Syracuse, it appears that there is a very different system of value for the latter. According to Bravi, the ‘Greek’ statues from Syracuse are ornamenta urbis, while the statues from Volsinii are signa.30 She argues that the statues from Volsinii only stood out because of their large number while nothing is said about their meaning or appearance. The statues from Syracuse on the other hand
bezogen die römischen Betrachter mit ein und führten sie zu einer bis dahin unbekannten Sehweise. Plutarch schätzt später den Eindruck, den die Vorführung dieser Kunstwerke machte, als äußerst einschneidend ein. Sie habe grundsätzliche Veränderungen an Mentalität und Habitus der Römer bewirkt, die zum ersten Mal griechische Kunstwerke vor die Augen bekamen.31
Bravi explains this difference as being due to the fact that ornamenta indicates an aesthetic quality of objects in relation to the space they adorn. All statues and paintings in a temple that had no direct function in ritual belonged to the category of ornamenta, a category that had a different function and value than the category of votive instrumenta.32 It is in their role as ornamenta, becoming more than usable instrumenta, that the statues from Syracuse surpass earlier displays of spoils like those from Volsinii.
The statues of Syracuse thus did something different. They were different in material and style from earlier Italic spoils, and there were so many of them that they overshadowed all previous experiences with Greek artworks in Rome. The display of these novel, Greek objects, anchored in a temple complex that in many ways followed the ‘Republican’ standards, provided the Roman viewer with a familiar context that enabled them to engage in a whole new mode of viewing statues and artworks.
2 The Ludovisi Acrolith and the Transfer of Objects and Cults
In the archaeological record, no statues or other artworks found in Rome can be directly related to the sack of Syracuse, which is challenging for our understanding of how the objects themselves played a role in the dynamics which the introduction of the spoils in the second century BCE brought about.33 There is, however, one single object that might be related to the spoils from Sicily: the Ludovisi Acrolith, now in the Palazzo Altemps in Rome. Although this sculpture is commonly considered a Greek original from Sicily or Magna Graecia, there are no hard data on how and when the object came to Rome. In order to attempt to document the impact of an object that (possibly) came to Rome from Sicily in the Republican period and thus formed a comparandum with the objects brought by Marcellus, I will explore the following questions: (1) What was the acrolith’s original function in the Greek world? (2) How was the object re-used in a Roman context? (3) What processes and rituals can be recognized that enabled the successful transfer of the acrolith to Rome? And finally (4) how was this sculpture anchored within the objectscape of Rome?
The Ludovisi Acrolith is a marble head of 83 cm in height that was once part of a large acrolithic statue of which the body was executed in a different material, most likely wood (fig. 8.1 a–d).34 The face has an oval shape with a wide forehead and almond-shaped eyes with ridged eyelids. The nose is pronounced, with little distance between the nostrils and well-formed lips pressed together in a distinct ‘archaic’ smile, set in a heavy, round chin. The face is framed with a thick roll of hair composed of small curls. A hairband is sculpted around the head and the remainder of the hair flows down the neck, abstractly sculpted as an independent entity with carved waves. The ears are visible and the lobes have been pierced for the attachment of (metal) jewellery. There are several other holes in the sculpture: along the line of the neck and the hair, on top of the head on the line of the sculpted headband, and along the forehead. The latter holes likely held bronze or gilded curls; two longer individual locks of hair were attached to the holes at the side of the face, under the ears. The holes on top of the head suggest the attachment of a veil or headdress.35 The sculpture is generally dated to 480–460 BCE, and interpreted as a depiction of the goddess Aphrodite or Venus.36 Based on stylistic analysis the acrolith is thought to have originated on Sicily or in Magna Graecia.37 A recent archaeometrical study has shown that the marble originates from the open quarries of Lakkoi on the island of Paros. This type of marble is well known and frequently used on Sicily which, according to the authors, supports the hypothesis of a ‘West-Greek’ origin of the acrolith.38 Although not much is known about the original context of the acrolith, in order to discuss how a statue like this was appropriated by Rome and how its meaning and function may have changed, it is essential to explore first its hypothetical context before its transfer to Rome.
The Ludovisi Acrolith in Palazzo Altemps (Museo Nazionale Romano), Rome
Photos by Author
2.1 The Ludovisi Acrolith in the Greek World
The term acrolith or acrolithic sculpture derives from the Greek akrolithos ‘with extremities (limbs) in stone’ and refers to statues that are constructed out of multiple materials, generally a combination of stone head, hands, and feet attached to a wooden body. The related category of pseudo-acroliths comprises statues that combine different stones, usually with the limbs in white marble and a body executed in limestone.39 The earliest known acroliths in the Mediterranean are the Demeter and Kore from Morgantina, Sicily, dated to 520–530 BCE. The heads, hands, and feet of these statues are made out of marble from the isle of Thasos. Although no other parts of the statue bodies remain, they have been reconstructed in a sitting pose and some evidence suggests the existence of elaborately decorated terracotta thrones that complemented these figures.40 The majority of acroliths from the late sixth till the early fourth century BCE are from Magna Graecia, with only a few examples from the Greek east.41 For pseudo-acrolithic sculpture almost all known examples are from Sicily.42
It has been suggested that acrolithic sculpture developed from the chryselephantine technique already known from the Greek east by the mid-sixth century BCE. However, the production of larger-than-life chryselephantine statues became most valued in the classical period. Pheidias, who had already produced acrolithic statues, adopted these techniques in the third quarter of the fifth century BCE to create his celebrated Athena Parthenos in ivory and gold. Lapatin convincingly argues that acrolithic sculpture was a more economical alternative for chryselephantine statues that required rare materials, while still enabling monumental scale and effect.43 It is generally thought that all acrolithic statues functioned as cult-images, an idea based mainly on the descriptions in the ancient literary sources.44 However, some descriptions can be interpreted as ‘in the context’ of a temple rather than ‘in’ the temple, and in the archaeological record there are a few examples of acroliths being found outside of a sanctuary as well.45 Aware of the exceptions, it seems probable that the Ludovisi Acrolith functioned in the context of a temple, likely as a cult-statue.
So, what would the statue have looked like in this period? As touched upon in the description given earlier, the head itself would already have been an assemblage of different elements and materials: gilded curls would frame the face, jewellery hangs from the earlobes, and the head would be covered with an actual veil as is suggested by the holes along the hairband and the less detailed finishing of the back of the statue.46 As to the different colours of the materials, polychromy should be taken into account, so that the head was an object full of colour contrasts. The wider part of the neck would be attached inside the bodily structure of the acrolithic statue. This construction would have been made of a wooden core covered with sculpted plates of bronze that depicted robes or draped with actual robes that were specially made for the statue.47 One of the inventory lists of the sanctuary of Delos illustrates this with its description of acrolithic statues that are decorated with ‘gilded wood diadems, gilded wood earrings, dressed in purple clothes cloaked in linen’.48 These acroliths were seated on thrones, a common feature in acrolithic sculpture that could also have been the case for the Ludovisi Acrolith. The famous Ludovisi throne has long been connected to the acrolith based on its iconography related to the cult of Aphrodite and its possible find spot in the Villa Ludovisi. For the major part of the twentieth century it was considered to be the acrolith’s throne. However, more recent studies argue that the Ludovisi throne was more likely part of an altar than an actual throne.49 Although there is no archaeological evidence, it is plausible that our acrolithic statue was indeed installed on some sort of throne, which would according to the ratio create a seated figure of approximately three metres high.50
Understood as an imported, fifth-century BCE ‘original’, establishing a plausible ‘Greek’ provenance became one of the most important aims for scholars studying the Ludovisi Acrolith. The most influential theories suggest the sanctuary of Locri in Marasà, South Italy, and the sanctuary of Eryx on Sicily as places of provenance. In the case of the latter, the hypothesis is closely connected to the later Roman context that scholars consider for the Ludovisi Acrolith, as will be discussed below.
In 1985, Guarducci argued against the consensus of that time that regarded Eryx as the most plausible origin of the acrolith and argued in favour of Locri as an alternative. The sanctuary of Locri Epizephyrii was established in the seventh century BCE and hosted prominent and ancient cults of Aphrodite and Persephone. In the first half of the fifth century BCE it underwent its most radical refurbishment when the archaic temple was replaced by a new, larger, limestone temple in the ionic order. Inside the cella was a bothros; it is thought that this pit may have been decorated with the Ludovisi Throne.51 Regarding the acrolith, Guarducci notes that there are clear similarities between the iconography of the head and depictions of deities on pinakes found in Locri. A pinax of a seated (statue of a) Persephone in particular shows a remarkable resemblance.52 The acrolith predates the Ionic temple and may have been commissioned for the earlier archaic temple, but it is very plausible that its use continued after the renovation of the temple.53 An epigram by Nossis of Locri about a statue of Aphrodite dressed in robes embellished with gold, suggests that a similar cult-statue was still present in the temple at the third century BCE.54 Locri played a small part in the Punic Wars based on its strategic location and shifted between Roman and Carthaginian control. After seizing the city in 205 BCE, Scipio Africanus handed over control to Quintus Pleminius, whose men inflicted great abuse on the citizens of the city. They plundered various temples and even the ‘treasures of Proserpina/Persephone’.55 It would not be hard to imagine that under these conditions, part of the spoils made their way to Rome and our Ludovisi Acrolith may have been among them.
Various scholars did not accept Guarducci’s hypothesis, but adhered to the theory of the Temple of Venus in Eryx, Sicily as the possible origin of the acrolith. During the Punic Wars Eryx fell into the hands of the Carthaginians until the siege of Pyrrhus when Sicily became a primarily Roman stronghold. According to myth, the temple of Venus at Mount Eryx was founded by Aeneas when he landed on Sicily, but the goddess likely came from the east and had connections with the Phoenician cult of Astarte. In the iconography of the Venus of Eryx, eastern ‘Phoenician’ elements can still be recognized, as well as ‘Greek’ elements of Aphrodite.56 It seems that the sanctuary had a rather autonomous position between the ‘Greek’ and ‘Phoenician’ colonies in the area, and there is evidence of a flourishing cult from the fifth century onwards.57 Polybius mentions the temple in his history of the Roman occupation of Sicily: ‘On its summit, which is flat, stands the temple of Venus Erycina, which is indisputably the first in wealth and general magnificence of all the Sicilian holy places’.58 There is very little evidence of a Roman plunder of the temple or any occasion on which objects could have been taken from the sanctuary.59 However, Ovid writes that when C. Marcellus in 212 conquered Syracuse he also conquered Eryx.60 This suggests that spoils from Eryx could have made their way to Rome in 211 BCE. Nevertheless, it seems that the cult on Sicily continued and the sanctuary was still a well-known and wealthy place of worship in the second and first century BCE, as the quote from Polybius suggests. At the same time the cult of Venus Erycina branched out and flourished outside of Sicily as well, and not least of all in Rome where two temples were dedicated to the cult of Venus Erycina.61
2.2 A Roman Context: Venus Erycina in Rome
The exact find spot of the Ludovisi Acrolith in Rome is unknown. The sculpture is first recorded in the inventory of the Buoncompagni-Ludovisi collection in 1733, but with no further information on how it was acquired. It is generally accepted that it was rediscovered on the grounds of the Villa Ludovisi in Rome that covered most of the ancient Horti Sallustiani, located on the slopes of the Pincio and the Quirinal. Theories regarding the Roman context of the acrolith are very much connected to this location. A study from 1892 first connects the Ludovisi throne with the acrolith, and suggested the temple of Venus Erycina near the Porta Collina as their Roman context.62 This temple of Venus Erycina was vowed in 184 and dedicated by L. Porcius Licinius in 181 BCE, and was one of two temples in Rome dedicated to the Venus of Eryx – the other temple was that of Venus Erycina on the Capitoline hill.63 Both Strabo and Livy mention a temple of Venus Erycina in Rome near the Porta Collina (ad portam Collinam), close to the boundaries of the Horti Sallustiani, of which no archaeological/architectural remains are preserved.64 Strabo states that the temple was remarkable for its shrine and surrounding colonnade, but more importantly that there is a ‘reproduction’ of the goddess from Eryx in Rome, anchoring the Roman cult of Venus Erycina to the famous Sicilian cult that, according to Virgil, was founded by Aeneas, which increased the status of the cult even more for a Roman audience.65 It seems clear that this cult in Rome was indeed related to Eryx.66 But where the Venus Capitolina became very ‘Roman’ and was stripped of its ‘Sicilian’ ceremonies,67 the Venus temple ad portam Collinam apparently correlated much more with its Sicilian predecessor in its practices, for example with the continuation of sacred prostitution, also enabled by its location outside the pomerium.68 Most interestingly, the literary sources point to the possible transfer of a (cult-)statue from Sicily to this temple in Rome: did the temple of Venus Erycina perhaps preserve Sicilian practices more because of its Sicilian cult-statue?
2.3 Transferring Statues, Transferring Cults
In order to explore this proposition further it is essential to look at the evidence for such a transfer, the general practice of transferring cult-images to Rome, and its impact. Two passages from ancient literary sources point to the transfer of a ‘goddess’ from Eryx to a temple near the Porta Collina in Rome:
Now is the time to throng her temple next the Colline gate; the temple takes its name from the Sicilian hill. When Claudius carried Arethusian Syracuse by force of arms, and captured thee, too, Eryx, in war, Venus was transferred to Rome in obedience to an oracle of the long-lived Sibyl, and chose to be worshipped in the city of her own offspring.69
Ovid here writes of a capture of Eryx by Marcellus at the same time as his famous conquest of Syracuse and distinctly mentions the location near the Porta Collina. The Venus which Ovid refers to here is commonly understood as a cult-statue of Venus. Ancient authors would frequently use only the name of a deity to refer to a cult-image of that particular deity.70 Strabo writes of the temple of Venus Erycina near the Porta Collina as a ‘reproduction’ of the Temple in Eryx on Sicily, suggesting a similarity between the two sanctuaries:
In Rome, also, there is a reproduction (
ἀφίδρυμα ) of this goddess, I mean the temple before the Colline Gate which is called that of Venus Erycina and is remarkable for its shrine and surrounding colonnade.71
Anna Anguissola points out Strabo’s use of the word
The sanctuary of Venus Erycina in Rome illustrates how a Mediterranean cult on Sicily, made up of various elements that are sometimes defined as ‘eastern’ or ‘Phoenician’, moved through the Roman world. This movement of a cult is inseparable from the movement of objects. There is no hard evidence for the transfer of a cult-statue from Eryx to Rome but the ancient sources do suggest the possibility. The connection of the Ludovisi Acrolith to this sanctuary cannot be proven, but recent research has convincingly argued that it was a cult-statue that was indeed at some point transferred from the Hellenistic West to Rome.79 If this cult-statue was transported to Rome during the conquest of Sicily – Ovid mentions the capture and transfer of a Venus from Eryx by Marcellus – it might have followed a different trajectory than looted statues that were introduced through triumphs, as discussed in the first part of this chapter. The debate on how to view and handle the capture of enemy gods – in the form of their statues – had already arisen during the early Roman conquests. To take a cult-statue, one had to avert the possible anger of the gods acted out by their statues. A cult-statue could only be respectfully transferred, if an invitation was proposed to the (in)animate statue, inviting the god to leave its temple and come to Rome: the evocatio deorum. Interestingly, gods brought to Rome by evocatio during conquest were seemingly never part of the triumphal procession.80 For this would show the statue/god as a captive while in fact they had come voluntarily. As Östenberg puts it, ‘to be paraded in triumph was by definition a sign of subordination’.81 After transference, the statue and god would be assimilated into a new context where they would willingly receive a new temple and cult. Although evocatio deorum is generally seen as a religious and military ritual that plays a role in the mythification of certain historical events,82 it is foremost a ritual that concerns objects. Kiernan, in his book on Roman cult-images, states:
This sort of origin story distracted from the perception of idols as man-made objects by connecting them to early historical events. In its former home, the foreign idol’s agency was already accepted, so no further justification was needed to generate agency in Rome. The story of its decision to move to Rome further reinforced the idea of the idol as an active participant in human affairs.83
The ritual of evocatio thus legitimized the ‘agency’ of a cult-statue – what Kiernan calls an idol – in a new context. At the same time it shows that to the Roman citizen the cult-statue was indeed an entity that was not at all times under – human – control and could affect humans and events. This is emphasized by the fact that some cult-statues in the Greek world are known to have been chained in the temple to prevent deities from leaving in the case of evocatio.84 So, in order to transfer cult-statues, a ritual that defuses the inherently perilous object was imperative.85
2.4 Acroliths in the Roman World
In order to understand the possible function and impact of the Ludovisi Acrolith, it is crucial to explore how the sculpture as an (cultic) acrolith would have suited the context of Late Republican Rome. Would the Ludovisi Acrolith have stood out much in style or material, or for its acrolithic technique? Would the sculpture have been perceived as distinctively ‘different’ in Rome, in the middle of a vast body of both imported and reused sculpture from the Greek world and newly produced sculpture based on classical models? To explore these questions, a brief overview of acrolithic sculpture in Rome is required.
As mentioned above, no marble cult-statues were present in Rome before the end of the third century BCE; until then cult-statues were made mainly in terracotta and bronze, much in line with what is known from Etruria and surroundings.86 Interestingly, from 200 BCE onwards, various examples of marble acrolithic sculpture are known from Rome and the wider area of central Italy. At the temple of Fides, in the Sant’Omobono area in Rome, two marble acroliths have been found. A fragmented head of at least 55 cm high, is considered to have been the cult-statue of Fides. The head is executed in a classicizing style. The sculpted hair was parted in the middle, the strands are clearly defined and move towards a narrow hairband. The head is dated to the end of the second century BCE.87 The second acrolith was found in a layer of sediment that may have fallen from the adjacent slope of the Capitoline hill. This head is part of a classicizing statue from the early first century BCE. In this case, the surface treatment of the flattened back of the head suggests that a metal ‘wig’ would have been attached, likely without a diadem or helmet.88 Both of these statues, however, show no holes for the attachment of individual hairlocks, diadems, or veils.
An overview of Roman cult-statues reveals that the acrolithic technique was quite common in the last two centuries BCE, especially for female cult-statues.89 According to Martin, this can be explained by the fact that a robe could hide the transition between the head and the material of the body. Male deities were commonly depicted nude which made the acrolithic technique less preferable.90 We cannot take for granted that all acroliths functioned as cult-statues in Rome, just in virtue of the technique. However, chryselephantine sculpture – closely related to acrolithic sculpture, as discussed above – in the Roman world is mentioned in the literary sources only as temple sculpture.91 Acrolithic sculptures, likewise, are indeed absent in other Roman contexts like villas.92 From the beginning of the imperial period, the acrolithic technique also came into use for colossal imperial statues.93
An acrolith from the Vatican museums is dated to 490–480 BCE and deemed a Greek original, like the Ludovisi Acrolith.94 This acrolithic head is identified as Athena, and has eyes laid in gray stone with the iris and pupils missing. The lash line is set in with bronze and some individual lashes are still visible. The ear lobes are pierced for the attachment of jewelry. The head is completely bald and shows three round attachment holes, two above the eyes and one in the left temple, that served to attach a (metal?) helmet or headdress on the head. Despite the difference in the application of hair or a headdress, stylistic similarities with the Ludovisi Acrolith can be seen in the abstract eyebrows, ridged eyelids, strong round chin, full lips, and overall archaic expression. This Athena is sometimes compared to a mid-first-century BCE acrolith of Juno Sospita found near the sanctuary of Lanuvium. Based on this comparison, Hafner argued that the Athena originated in Latium in the fifth century BCE and was a predecessor of the later Juno Sospita acrolith. However, if we take into account the development of acroliths in the Mediterranean world it is much more likely that the Athena originated in Magna Graecia/Sicily and was transferred to Rome, which is the consensus at present.95 The Athena does not provide a parallel in function or use to the Ludovisi Acrolith, as no information on the find spot or context in Rome is preserved.
So, would the Ludovisi Acrolith have stood out as a peculiar object in Republican Rome? Yes and no – probably not as an acrolith an sich, nor was it the only original fifth-century BCE acrolith that was brought to Rome from Sicily or Magna Graecia. But on the other hand, we may consider that it was perceived as different or Other in regard to its archaizing style. Only a small – 31 cm in height – head of Diana from Nemi shows some similarities to the Ludovisi Acrolith in its archaizing style, the individual curls on the forehead, a narrow, sculpted head band, and the undetailed, long hair down the neck.96 Apart from this exception, the early fifth-century BCE style is rarely seen in Roman acroliths, that are generally classicizing in style. This is well illustrated by their hairstyles: the majority of the female heads have sculpted hair parted in the middle in a classical fashion. Only a few are sculpted without hair and were likely adorned with metal helmets or wigs. The classicizing Roman acroliths do not show multiple attachment holes like the Ludovisi Acrolith, although some do have pierced earlobes, and are therefore less likely to have been decorated with separate diadems and veils.
Although seemingly different, an ‘archaic’, original Greek acrolith might have been the most appropriate choice for a temple that was closely connected to its Sicilian predecessor, like the temple of Venus Erycina. A statue like the Ludovisi Acrolith would both fit the setting for the Sicilian rituals as well as perhaps incite the traditions from the old cult in Rome, where the newer, classicizing cult-statues were more appropriate to fulfill the function of cult-statue in more formal, Roman cults.
3 Concluding Remarks
This chapter explored the impact of the introduction of spoils from Sicily on the city of Rome from an archaeological perspective. We know from literary sources that the statues that were brought to Rome as spoils by Marcellus in 211 BCE greatly affected the city and its citizens but no archaeological evidence remains of either statues or their architectural surroundings. To remedy this absence, I used the Ludovisi Acrolith as a comparable case of an object that was (most likely) transferred to Rome from Sicily in Republican times. Exploring the biography of this sculpture sheds light on the process of the transference of cults and cult-statues to Rome, and the evident connection between the two.
This essay has focused on the Roman appropriation of the acrolith and the four different stages of appropriation as presented in the Introduction of this volume, can be well distinguished.97 First is material appropriation; the sculpture is physically taken from its original context on Sicily through spoliation. This is followed by objectification. Statues transferred to Rome underwent various rituals, like the triumph or evocatio, that could introduce the object to a new context in a controlled manner and made it possible for the object to become ‘Roman’. Our acrolith became part of the objectscape of Rome where it was given new meaning as a Roman cult-statue. Next is the phase of incorporation; now part of the Self, the sculpture is ‘unleashed’ in the new context. It could be suggested that the transfer of an ‘alien’ cult to Rome was not possible without an object from the old sanctuary, like a cult-statue. An original, reused cult-statue like the Ludovisi Acrolith would be able to anchor the cult to its origins and by that means enable, legitimize, and affect the new cult in Rome. It was perhaps by the existence of an original ‘Sicilian’ cult-statue in the temple that the cult of Venus Erycina in Rome retained so many of its old, Sicilian practices. This is closely related to the final stage of transformation as the acrolith is now completely integrated in Rome, while still maintaining a connection with its provenance.
If we take the idea of objects as innovators seriously, we should no longer exclusively approach spoils from Sicily like the Ludovisi Acrolith as an illustration of the Roman conquest of Sicily but focus instead on their process of appropriation and consequently, the active and crucial role they fulfilled in the transfer and instigation of ‘new’ practices in Rome.
Bibliography
Anguissola, A., ‘Note on aphidruma 2: Strabo on the transfer of cults’, CQ 56 (2006) 643–646.
Bravi, A., Griechische Kunstwerke im politischen Leben Roms und Konstantinopels (Berlin 2014).
Bremmer, J.N., ‘The Agency of Greek and Roman Statues. From Homer to Constantine’, Opuscula 6 (2013) 7–21.
Cirucci, G., ‘The Roman Conquest of Sicily and Its Consequences’, in C.L. Lyons, M.J. Bennett, C. Marconi (eds.), Sicily. Art and Invention Between Greece and Rome (Los Angeles 2013) 134–143.
Coarelli, F., ‘Venus Erucina, aedes (ad Portam Collinam)’, in E.M. Steinby (ed.), Lexicon topographicum urbis Romae. Volume 5 (Rome 1999) 114–116.
Davies, P., Architecture and Politics in Republican Rome (Cambridge 2017).
De Angelis d’Ossat, M., ‘Acrolito Ludovisi’, in Palazzo Altemps. Le collezioni (Rome 2011) 200–201.
Despinis, G.I., Zu Akrolithstatuen griechischer und römischer Zeit (Göttingen 2004).
Diffendale, D.P., ‘Five Republican Monuments. On the Supposed Building Program of M. Fulvius Flaccus’, in P. Brocato, M. Ceci, N. Terrenato (eds.), Ricerche nell’area dei templi di Fortuna e Mater Matuta (Arcavacata di Rende 2016) 141–166.
Feeney, D., Beyond Greek. The Beginnings of Latin Literature (Cambridge 2016).
Fejfer, J., Roman Portraits in Context (Berlin 2008).
Fratantuono, L.M., Alden Smith, R., Virgil, Aeneid 5. Text, Translation and Commentary (Leiden 2015).
Fuchs, W., Die Skulptur der Griechen (Munich 1983).
Gruen, E.S., Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome (Ithaca, NY 1992).
Guarducci, M., ‘Due pezzi insigni del Museo Nazionale Romano. Il Trono Ludovisi e l’acrolito Ludovisi’, BA 70 (1985) 1–20.
Gustafsson, G., Evocation deorum. Historical and Mythical Interpretations of Ritualised Conquests in the Expansion of Ancient Rome (Uppsala 2000).
Hafner, G., ‘Der Kultbildkopf einer Göttin im Vatikan’, JDAI 81 (1966) 186–205.
Häger-Weigel, E., Griechische Akrolith-Statuen des 5. und 4. Jhs. v. Chr. (Berlin 1997).
Hahn, H.P., ‘Global Goods and the Process of Appropriation’, in P. Probst, G. Spittler (eds.), Between Resistance and Expansion. Explorations of Local Vitality in Africa (Münster 2004) 211–229.
Hallett, C., ‘Terracotta, Antiquarianism, and the “Archaic Revival” of Early Augustan Rome’, in C.M. Draycott, R. Raja, K. Welch, W.T. Wootton (eds.), Visual Histories. Visual Remains and Histories of the Classical World. Papers in Honour of R.R.R. Smith (Turnhout 2019) 181–203.
Hamilton, R., Treasure Map. A Guide to the Delian Inventories (Ann Arbor 2000).
Hartswick, K.J., The Gardens of Sallust. A Changing Landscape (Austin 2004).
Helbig, W., Führer durch die öffentlichen Sammlungen klassischer Altertümer in Rom. Volume 1 ([1891] rev. edn. Tübingen 1963).
Hermans, A.M., Latin Cults through Roman Eyes. Myth, Memory and Cult Practice in the Alban Hills (PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam 2017).
Hölscher, T., Visual Power in Ancient Greece and Rome. Between Art and Social Reality (Oakland 2019).
Kiernan, P., Roman Cult Images. The Lives and Worship of Idols, from the Iron Age to Late Antiquity (Cambridge 2020).
Lanciani, R., ‘La Venus Hortorum Sallustianorum’, BCAR 16 (1888) 3–11.
Lapatin, K.D.S., Chryselephantine Statuary in the Ancient Mediterranean World (Oxford 2001).
Lazzarini, L., Cirucci, G., ‘Indagini archeometriche su alcuni marmi greci nelle collezioni del Museo Nazionale Romano e dei Musei Vaticani’, Marmora 11 (2015) 33–56.
Lietz, B., La dea di Erice e la sua diffusione nel Mediterraneo. Un culto tra Fenici, Greci e Romani (Pisa 2012).
Lippold, G., Die Skulpturen des Vaticanischen Museums. Volume 3.2 (Berlin 1956).
Lulof, P., ‘Archaic Terracotta Acroteria Representing Athena and Heracles. Manifestations of Power in Central Italy’, JRA 13 (2000) 207–219.
Malkin, I., ‘What is an Aphidruma?’, ClAnt 10 (1991) 77–96.
Maniscalco, L., ‘Terracotta Figurines and the Acrolithic Statues of Demeter and Kore from Morgantina’, Les Carnets de l’ACoSt 17 (2018).
Marconi, C., ‘Acrolithic and Pseudo-Acrolithic Sculpture in Archaic and Classical Greece and the Provenance of the Getty Goddess’, in M. Brand (ed.), Cult Statue of a Goddess. Summary of Proceedings from a Workshop Held at the Getty Villa, May 9, 2007 (Los Angeles 2007) 4–13.
Martin, H.G., Römische Tempelkultbilder. Eine archäologische Untersuchung zur späten Republik (Rome 1987).
McDonnell, M., ‘Roman Aesthetics and the Spoils of Syracuse’, in S. Dillon, K. Welch (eds.), Representations of War in Ancient Rome (Cambridge 2006) 68–90.
Miles, M., Art as Plunder. The Ancient Origins of Debate about Cultural Property (Cambridge 2008).
Mustilli, D., Enciclopedia dell’arte antica. Volume 1 (Rome 1958).
Orlin, E.M., ‘Why a Second Temple for Venus Erycina?’ in C. Deroux (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History (Brussels 2000) 70–90.
Östenberg, I., Staging the World. Spoils, Captives, and Representations in the Roman Triumphal Procession (Oxford 2009).
Palombi, D., ‘Honos et Virtus, aedes’, in E.M. Steinby (ed.), Lexicon topographicum urbis Romae. Volume 3 (Rome 1993) 31–33.
Papini, M., ‘Republican Rome and Italic art’, in B.E. Borg (ed.), A Companion to Roman Art (Hoboken, NJ 2019) 93–113.
Pearson, S., The Triumph and Trade of Egyptian Objects in Rome. Collecting Art in the Ancient Mediterranean (Berlin-Boston 2021).
Petersen, E., ‘Aphrodite’, MDAI(R) 7 (1892) 32–80.
Pitts, M., Versluys, M.J., ‘Objectscapes. A Manifesto for Investigating the Impacts of Object Flows on Past Societies’, Antiquity 95 (2021) 367–381.
Pollitt, J.J., ‘The Impact of Greek Art on Rome’, TAPhA 108 (1978) 155–174.
Reusser, C., Der Fidestempel auf dem Kapitol in Rom und seine Ausstattung. Ein Beitrag zu den Ausgrabungen an der Via del Mare und um das Kapitol 1926–1943 (Rome 1993).
Rosing, M.T., Østergaard, J., ‘Preliminary Results from Geochemical Analysis of Pigments on Ancient Greek and Roman Marble Sculptures’, in J. Stubbe Østergaard, M.L. Sargent, M. Scharff, M. Rosing, R. Berg (eds.), Tracking Colour. The Polychrome of Greek and Roman Sculpture in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Preliminary Report 1 (Copenhagen 2009) 41–47.
Russell, A., The Politics of Public Space in Republican Rome (Cambridge 2015).
Sourvinou-Inwood, C., ‘Persephone and Aphrodite at Locri. A Model for Personality Definitions in Greek Religion’, JHS 98 (1978) 101–121.
Steiner, D., Images in Mind. Statues in Archaic and Classical Greek Literature and Thought (Princeton 2001).
Uhlenbrock, J.P., The Terracotta protomai from Gela. A Discussion of Local Style in Archaic Sicily (Rome 1988).
Welch, K., ‘Domi militiaeque. Roman Domestic Aesthetics and War Booty in the Republic’, in S. Dillon, K. Welch (eds.), Representations of War in Ancient Rome (Cambridge 2006) 91–161.
This investigation is part of my PhD research entitled ‘Moving statues. The agency and impact of Greek statuary in the city of Rome’ executed at Leiden University and supervised by Prof. M.J. Versluys and Prof. E.M. Moormann, in the context of the programme ‘Anchoring Innovation’. Anchoring Innovation is the Gravitation Grant research agenda of the Dutch National Research School in Classical Studies, OIKOS. It is financially supported by the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (NWO project number 024.003.012). For more information about the research programme and its results, see the website www.anchoring innovation.nl.
Plb. 9–10; Liv. 25.40.1–3, 26.21; Plu. Marc. 21.1–2; Cic. Ver. 2.4.120–121. See also the chapters of Pieper and Van Gils and Henzel in this volume.
Among others Liv. 25.40.2, 34.4.4; Plin. Nat. 35.150; Plu. Marc. 21.1–2; see also Pollitt 1978 for an overview.
Liv. 26.21. Translation of J.C. Yardley in the Loeb series.
Plb. 9.10.12–13: see also the discussion on this text in the chapter of Allan in this volume. In the light of Roman expansion it was, according to Polybius, acceptable to take gold and silver to strengthen their state, fitting a soon-to-be empire, but not artworks.
Plu. Marc. 21.1–2: apparently not all of the loot ended up in Rome as there were statues and paintings from Syracuse at Samothrace in the temple of the Cabeiri and in the temple of Athena at Lindus, see 30.4.
Plu. Marc. 21.3: the passage also describes that he was less popular with the ‘elder citizens’ who condemned his adornment of the city and the looting of statues of gods.
Pitts and Versluys 2021 for the introduction of the concept of ‘objectscapes’ in archaeological studies. See also the contribution by Versluys in this volume.
Capitoline Museum, inv. AntCom14914; inv. AntCom03363. Lulof 2000; Hallett 2019. See also Papini 2019: 95–113 for an overview of ‘Republican’ art in Rome from the eighth to the first c. BCE.
Plin. Nat. 35.46: ‘Statues of this kind [terracotta] are still to be found at various places. In fact even at Rome and in the Municipal Towns there are many pediments of temples, remarkable for their carving and artistic merit and intrinsic durability, more deserving of respect than gold, and certainly less baneful.’ My emphasis, transl. Loeb Classical Library. See also Hallett 2019 for the use of terracotta in Augustan Rome connected to archaism.
Gruen 1992: 86–94 for examples. For the argument see also Cirucci 2013: 136. See Feeney 2016: 124 for the role of Marcellus and Syracuse in the changes in literature in the third century BCE.
The presence of statues in triumphal processions is only noted twice before Marcellus: in 380 BCE the statue of Jupiter Imperator from Praeneste was paraded in triumph, and in 275 BCE statues were brought in from Beneventum, see Miles 2008.
A triumph must be granted to a victorious general by the senate; this was not the case for Marcellus who was only allowed an ovatio, see Östenberg 2009: 48–50 on the difference between ovatio and triumph.
The Fasti Triumphales list already at least 130 triumphs before 200 BCE (starting with the mythological triumph by Romulus in 752 BCE). The triumph can be considered a well-known event in Roman cultural memory.
Östenberg 2009: 184–183, the conquered people would even be dressed up in shabby or national clothes to be more recognizable and enhance the contrast. The Roman victors would all be wreathed.
See Östenberg 2009: 6–12 on the triumph as a performance.
See Ostenberg 2009: 84.
Liv. 39.5.13–16; Plu. Aem. 32.3; for Plutarch see the chapters by Buijs and Strootman in this volume.
See Versluys in this volume for a theory on the triumph as an anthropological ‘cooling-off’ ritual necessary for the appropriation of alien objects. For the sensorial aspect of a triumph, see also the chapters of Buijs, Huitink and Moormann in this volume.
Cic. Ver. 2.4.120–121; see Pieper’s chapter in this volume.
Liv. 25.40.2–3. He adds, interestingly, that in his time (last half of the first c. BCE, beginning first century CE) only a small part of these works were still visible.
The earlier temple was dedicated in 234 BCE by Q. Fabius Maximus. There is discussion on the existence of a second temple or the dedication of Virtus in a separate cela, as the references to this temple in the ancient texts are not clear. Russell 2015: 133 suggests that an architectural complex of two separated but linked temples would have fitted the tradition of earlier and contemporary Republican temples where complexes of two identical temples on one platform facing in the same direction are well known.
See among many others Russell 2015: 133–134 for the history of the complex and a comprehensive overview of the literary sources; also Palombi 1993: 31–33; Bravi 2014: 23–26; McDonnell 2006.
Cic. Ver. 2.4.121. The possibility of the existence of a portico or a monumental wall surrounding the temple complex is also suggested by Russell 2015: 134; see also Welch 2006.
Russell 2015: 134 (my emphasis), the focus of Russell is mainly on the creation of space.
Russell 2015: 134–138.
Russell 2015: 133.
Plin. Nat. 34.7.16. The number of statues is questionable.
Papini 2019: 104; see Diffendale 2016 on the archaeology of these bases. Diffendale argues against the relation between the bases and Flaccus’ dedication.
Bravi 2014: 24–25; she bases herself on Liv. 25.40.1 where he refers to the Sicilian statues as ornamenta urbis.
Bravi 2014: 24. She places this within Tonio Hölscher’s theory of decorum, see Hölscher 2018 for a more in-depth discussion.
Bravi does not explain these categories in much detail, although she builds much of her argument on them. See Bravi 2014: 24n.52.
The ancient sources point out this triumph and the display of the spoils of Syracuse as the first introduction of Greek art in Rome and the cause of the upsurge of luxuria in Roman society: Liv. 25.40.2, 34.4.4; Plin. Nat. 35.150; Pollitt 1978; see also the chapter of Van Gils and Henzel.
Inv. 8598, now in Palazzo Altemps – Museo Nazionale Romano.
Early fifth-century BCE terracotta statue(tte)s from Sicily show similarities to the features of the Ludovisi Acrolith. These statues wear certain headdresses that could give us a general impression of what kind of headdress may have been worn by the Ludovisi Acrolith, see Uhlenbrock 1988 and the terracotta protomai from Gela, fig. 3–26 for the headdresses. Uhlenbrock mentions the general form of the Ludovisi Acrolith as anticipated by the ‘Roll Hair type’ protome dated to 490–480 BCE: 46–47.
Davies 2017: 112n.242 puts forward that there are also great similarities with images of Persephone/Proserpina.
Helbig 1963: 3, 265; Fuchs 1983: 130; Guarducci 1985: 14–17; Coarelli 1999: 114; De Angelis d’Ossat 2011: 200.
Lazzarini and Cirucci 2015: 43–44.
Mustilli 1958: 48–50; Marconi 2007: 4 notes that because both the production technique and the appearance of pseudo-acrolithic sculpture is different, it is a useful distinction.
Maniscalco 2018.
Marconi 2007: 4–5, who refers to Häger-Weigel 1997.
Marconi 2007: 6–7. Marconi explains the use of the pseudo-acrolithic technique as useful in regions that lack white marble like South Italy, this is why it is less common in Greece. Marconi also includes metopes as acroliths, when the extremities of the figures are set in marble in the limestone relief.
Lapatin 2001: 58–60 (and cat. 33) for first chryselephantine statues in Greece, 61–90 on Pheidias and the Athena Parthenos, 134 on the acroliths as an economical substitute to chryselephantine.
Häger-Weigel 1997: 4 argues that all acrolithic sculptures are cult-statues. Marconi 2007: 5 rejects this but bases himself on a single example of a fifth-century BCE acrolith in a sixth-century temple, that according to him would rather be a complement to an older cult-statue.
Despinis 2004: 249, his examples are an acrolith of Tyche, seen by Pausanias in the Stoa of the sanctuary of Elis, and two acroliths likely found in the necropolis of Cyrene.
De Angelis d’Ossat 2011: 200.
Despinis 2004: 247.
Hamilton 2000: 240, transcription of the inventory of the Delos Thesmophorion Treasure. It is difficult to say anything on the dating of these statues, as this specific inventory only dates to the second century BCE. The statues may of course be much older.
Guarducci 1985; the Ludovisi throne would also be too small to function as a seat for a cult-statue the size of the Ludovisi Acrolith.
Guarducci 1985: 15n.107.
I am aware that the Ludovisi Throne is a highly disputed object, therefore this paper primarily focuses on the Ludovisi Acrolith notwithstanding the apparent close connection between the two objects. At present, although many scholars still believe the Throne to be a fifth-century West-Greek original transported to Rome, there is considerable debate on the originality of this object which various scholars believe to be a nineteenth-century forgery. This is much related to the controversy surrounding its sister object, the Boston Throne, of which the consensus already is that it is not a Greek original but rather a Roman sculpture to complement the Ludovisi Throne or a nineteenth-century creation. This is strengthened by the unclear provenance of the Boston Throne; the history of its rediscovery in pre-modern Rome is even more challenging than that of the Ludovisi Throne.
Guarducci 1985: 16 fig. 20. Both Persephone and Aphrodite were omnipresent at Locri, see Sourvinou-Inwood 1978: 101–121.
Guarducci 1985: 15; Häger-Weigel 1997 also states that most acrolithic statues were ‘archaistic’ in style. This would mean that the archaic acrolith would not be unsuited for a later temple.
Anth. Palat. 9.332; Guarducci 1985: 16–17n.112 argues based on the substantive
Liv. 29.8.8–10. Livy notes that these treasures had never before been violated except by Pyrrhus who had to repatriate his spoils.
Lietz 2012: 207–213; Hartswick 2004: 75.
See the comprehensive book of Lietz 2012 for quite complete research on the cult and goddess of Eryx. See 60–74 for the origins and early evidence of the cult.
Plb. 1.55.8–9, Loeb Classical Library 128 transl. W.R. Paton, revised 2010.
See Lietz 2012: 328–331 for an overview of the scarce archaeological evidence in the area.
Ov. Fast. 4.873–876.
Lietz 2012: 103–104.
Petersen 1892.
See also Coarelli 1999: 115. The temple was vowed in 217 BCE and dedicated in 215 BCE by Fabius Maximus Verrucosus; Liv. 22.9; 23.30–31 notes the dedication by Fabius Maximus of a temple of Venus Erycina on the Capitol that was only separated from the temple of Mens by a drain.
Liv. 30.38.10. There are some inscriptions that mention ‘Venus in the Horti Sallustiani’ and a sixteenth-century drawing of a plan of a circular temple with a colonnade that mentions T[emplum] veneris salustianae. It was archaeologist Lanciani 1888: 3–11 who connected this evidence with the Temple of Venus Erycina. The connection between these two structures remains debatable, for a comprehensive overview and discussion of this evidence see Hartswick 2004: 68–82.
Str. 6.2.6.; Verg. A. 5.759. For a discussion of Eryx in Virgil see Fratantuono and Alden Smith 2015: 133–134.
A 57 BCE silver coin, minted in Rome, now in the British Museum shows a portrait of a female cult-statue, with curls, a diadem, and earrings on one side and a depiction of a walled mountain with the text ‘eryx’ on the other side. British Museum inv. 1841,0726.1215.
Orlin 2000: 83n.53.
Hartswick 2004: 75; Orlin 2000: 70–90; Coarelli 1999: 115.
Ov. Fast. 4.873–876. I quote the translation of J.G. Frazer in the Loeb series.
Kiernan 2020: 5, the cult-statue transcends representation, the object becomes the deity. Already in Hom. Il. 6.3 it is unclear whether Athena refers to the goddess or to a (acting) cult-statue, see also Steiner 2001: 79–104; Bremmer 2013.
Str. 6.2.6; I quote the translation of H.L. Jones in the Loeb series (my emphasis); in this translation,
Anguissola 2006: 644.
Malkin 1991: 77–96.
Malkin 1991: 78–80, 95, quote on 78.
Livy, summary of book XI; Strabo uses the term
Malkin 1991: 87–96.
Malkin 1991: 81, 83, 86.
Anguissola 2006: 646 in the conclusion of her concise essay moves away from this idea and states that in this case
Especially the archaeometric study of Lazzarini and Cirucci 2015 strengthens the hypothesis on the origin that was previously based on stylistic analysis.
Gustafsson 2000; Östenberg 2009: 90.
See Östenberg 2009: 90 for evocatio in relation to triumph.
See Gustafsson 2000 for an extensive study of evocatio, mainly focused on the ritual as a tool for conquest and vows to the gods, more so than bringing gods to Rome.
Kiernan 2020: 34.
Kiernan 2020: 193; he adds that cult-statues were sometimes also chained to keep control of dangerous gods.
This strengthens the hypothesis by Versluys, this volume, that the triumph would also function as a ritual to tame the agency of such objects.
The Venus of Orvieto being the marble exception to the statement together with an over-life-size head from Volterra, Martin 1987: 45–50.
Reusser 1993: 91–111, Kat 1a–e.
Reusser 1993: 166–173, Kat 6.
Martin 1987. A famous example is the head, arm, and foot of the Fortuna Huiusce Diei by Skopas from the eponymous temple in Largo Argentina (now in Centrale Montemartini, Rome).
Martin 1987: 195, in some cases male acroliths were manufactured with a head and torso as one piece (for example the Jupiter in Capitolium from Cumae, now in the National Archaeological Museum, Naples). Catalogue on 207–248 for an overview of Roman cult-statues. Remarkably, the Ludovisi Acrolith is not included in this catalogue. Research on the surface treatment of a second/first-century BCE acrolithic head of Zeus/Jupiter, a rare example of a male acrolith likely from Central Italy (now in Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen), shows the use of elaborate pigments, which seems very coherent with the polychrome pallet of the different materials used for the non-marble parts of the acrolithic sculpture, see Rosing and Østergaard 2009.
Lapatin 2001: 121–128.
Pearson 2021: 186.
Fejfer 2008: 158n.48. The marble statue of Constantine in Rome is an example. Roman portrait sculpture was often made of parts in various types of marble/stone put together in the Republic and Imperial period, Fejfer calls this ‘piecing’ and states that it is an indication of the value of marble.
Inv. 905, Vatican Museums, 44.5 cm in height. Lippold 1956: 514–515. The head was previously interpreted as a depiction of Hygeia, see Helbig 1963: no. 870.
See Hafner 1966, who suggests Latium as the origin of the Athena. See also the discussion in Hermans 2017: 122–126, on the (acrolithic) cult images of Juno Sospita in Lanuvium; and Martin 1987, 114–115.
Martin 1987: 184–186. He suggests a first-century CE date of the head as a restitution of a former cult-statue with the archaizing style assisting the continuation of the cult.
I use the four stages of appropriation as defined by Versluys in this volume who, in turn, bases himself on Hahn 2004.