Cat. 12 Statue of a Seated Woman

This under-life-size statue depicts a female figure seated on a rocky outcrop. The sculpture conveys a sense of grandeur and authority despite its reduced dimensions. Carved of fine Parian marble, the figure wears a full-length [glossary:chiton] with short sleeves, the identification of which is affected by losses to the proper left arm and near the proper right shoulder.320 This garment was typically held together by pins running down each sleeve, and the gatherings of drapery along the proper right arm imply that this was the case here.321 The chiton clings to the figure’s breasts and is girt at the waist to form a [glossary:kolpos] (fig. 10.41). The garment gathers in heavy, vertical folds between the lower legs, yet it is incredibly sheer where it drapes over the proper left leg. Over the chiton the figure wears a thicker [glossary:himation] that drapes over her left shoulder and across her back, where it hangs in diagonal ridges that draw the viewer’s eye down toward her seat (fig. 4.1). The himation then wraps around to the front, covering the lap in voluminous folds that contrast with the taut appearance of the section hugging the proper right leg. The feet are clad in sandals (fig. 8.36), the straps of which may have been added in paint.322

The figure is missing its head, neck, and arms. A large, slightly conical socket with a [glossary:keyed] surface located between the shoulders accommodated the separately carved head and neck (fig. 4.3). The arms were also carved separately and joined by means of metal pins, traces of which are still visible in the front part of the hole for the proper right arm.323 Based on the position of the shoulders, the proper left arm appears to have been extended outward and might have been raised. In contrast, the proper right arm would have been lowered and perhaps held slightly away from the body, much like a bronze statuette of an enthroned figure in the Art Institute’s collection (fig. 8.37; see cat. 141). It is likely that the head and the arms would have incorporated one or more attributes that would have informed the viewer of the subject’s identity and, if relevant, her divine realm.

Without the head, arms, and accompanying attributes, the subject of Statue of a Seated Woman cannot be confidently identified. However, formal and stylistic features allow for a consideration of the sculpture’s possible functions. In particular, the heavy drapery and dignified pose, when combined with the reduced scale, suggest that it was used in one of several ways. If it depicted a goddess, it might have been a statuary dedication in a sanctuary or an architectural sculpture that adorned a temple, shrine, or other religious structure. Alternatively, it might have been a portrait of a mortal woman, whose exemplary nature, if not her divine assimilation, would have been suggested by the selection of this stately body type.

Seated Goddesses: Greek Precursors

Roman images of seated goddesses seem to have been inspired in large part by earlier Greek representations of female deities, particularly those produced during the classical period. Such Greek works served predominantly religious functions, both as cult statues and dedications and as architectural sculptures adorning the exteriors of temples and other sanctuary buildings.324

The classical [glossary:chryselephantine] cult statue of Hera in her fifth-century B.C. temple at Argos, Greece seems to have served as the model for many of the seated cult statues of goddesses in imperial Rome.325 Although the work does not survive, its appearance has been inferred from a number of Roman coin issues and from several other statues. In these images, an enthroned goddess grasps a scepter in her raised left hand; her right arm is outstretched with an attribute in hand (see fig. 4.5).326 The Art Institute’s Statue of a Seated Woman evokes this type in a very general way.

Arguably the most renowned representations of seated Greek goddesses that still exist today are the statues from the pediments of the Parthenon in Athens, which were designed by the famed Greek sculptor Pheidias and completed in 433 or 432 B.C.327 The east [glossary:pediment] illustrating the birth of Athena preserves fragmentary statues of four seated goddesses, two of which, in the north (i.e., right) corner, offer formal precursors for the Art Institute’s Statue of a Seated Woman: K, commonly identified as Hestia, and L, identified as Dione, a consort of Zeus (fig. 8.38).328 Dione is carved in a single block with another, reclining figure—M—who is identified as her daughter, Aphrodite.329 Like the Chicago sculpture, the goddesses K and L wear a chiton with pinned sleeves and the thicker, more voluminous himation over their laps.330 Figure K (Hestia) sits on a rock, which might allude to the home of the gods on Mount Olympos.331 The Chicago statue is likewise seated on a rock in a somewhat comparable pose, with her upper body turned forward and her legs angled to one side, perhaps to accommodate a placement in one of the triangular corners of a pediment.332 Based on its scale, pose, and subject matter, the Chicago work may have been formally inspired by this type of statue.

Seated Goddesses in the Roman World

The seated pose was employed in images of a variety of Roman goddesses, who were typically identified in part through the addition of specific attributes that indicated their spheres of influence. It was used primarily in depictions of the mature female deities of the Roman pantheon, including Juno, the goddess of marriage and political organization (identified with the Greek Hera); Ceres, the goddess of agriculture and grain (identified with the Greek Demeter); and Magna Mater, the goddess of fertility and wild nature (identified with the Phrygian Cybele).333 For example, a statue of Cybele in San Antonio shows the goddess with her characteristic attributes, the [glossary:mural crown], the [glossary:tympanum], and the lions, along with a [glossary:patera] (fig. 4.8). The pose also appears in representations of Minerva, the Roman goddess of wisdom and warfare (identified with the Greek Athena); Vesta, the goddess of the hearth (the Roman equivalent of Hestia); Venus, the goddess of erotic love and sexuality (the Roman equivalent of Aphrodite); Fortuna, the goddess of chance or luck (identified with the Greek Tyche); and Hygieia, the goddess of health.334 The virtues that were associated variously with these goddesses, such as fertility, chastity, beauty, grace, and maternity, were largely connected with the female roles of wife and mother and with the domain of the household.335 The pose was also used in images of personified virtues, including Felicitas (happiness or good luck), Pietas (dutiful conduct or piety), Pax (peace), and Concordia (concord), particularly on imperial coins (see fig. 8.39).336 Thus, the seated pose conveyed the maturity, dignity, and gravity of a number of divine female subjects. The Chicago sculpture might therefore represent any of these deities.

Much like their Greek counterparts, images of Roman goddesses were produced for a variety of purposes that were all, on some level, religious in nature.337 They were created in an assortment of materials and sizes, ranging from colossal cult statues made of richly colored marbles and other precious materials to statuettes in marble, bronze (see fig. 8.37), or terra-cotta.338 Seated statues of female deities (both large and small) are attested in religious sanctuaries in the Roman world.339 Whether they had a cultic or dedicatory function remains unclear, as there seems to have been no defined aesthetic differentiation among such images. Although cult statues were not necessarily over life-size or made of extravagant materials, this was often the case.340 Smaller-scale statues of deities were probably sculpted dedications within sanctuary contexts.341

The under-life-size scale of Statue of a Seated Woman suggests that it might have functioned as a dedication in a religious sanctuary, perhaps as an offering to one of the goddesses who were frequently represented in this type of seated pose. Moreover, its creation in high-quality Parian marble might have signaled a significant investment on the part of the dedicant, perhaps meriting a prominent placement in a sanctuary.342

Small-scale statues of seated goddesses also functioned as architectural sculpture, often in religious contexts, where they adorned temples, shrines, and other related structures.343 For example, at Eleusis in Greece, a small treasury of Antonine date (A.D. 138–93) featured statuettes of at least two seated goddesses in its pediment.344 The statuettes are preserved in a fragmentary state: the first shows the lower body of a goddess seated on a rock, her lap covered by a thick himation (fig. 4.6), while the second includes the majority of a seated, similarly draped female with a fragmentary child on her lap (fig. 4.7).345 The latter figure also retains traces of a dowel in its right arm, indicating that it had at least one separately carved appendage, much like the Chicago statue.346 With their seated poses and classicizing drapery, the figures from Eleusis seem to draw formally on prototypes from the Parthenon, yet they are only one-third the size.347 Statue of a Seated Woman is noticeably larger than these statuettes and therefore could have been part of the pedimental sculpture for a comparable structure.348

Seated Portraits of Roman Women

Statue of a Seated Woman could instead have been the statuary body in a portrait of a woman, which might have served either an honorific purpose in a civic setting or a commemorative function in a funerary context.349

While men were honored publicly with portrait statues that celebrated their military triumphs, brave deeds, and other forms of service to the state, women were represented far less frequently.350 They were typically recognized for their civic benefactions—financial sponsorship of games and festivals, buildings, public feasts, and distributions of money, food, and wine—or their role as priestesses.351 Additionally, women of noble backgrounds could be portrayed in family statuary groups to highlight their dynastic connection to a prominent male figure, often for propagandist purposes.352

This distinction between men and women in public life was visually reinforced in honorific portraits through the choice of statuary bodies. While men were generally depicted wearing the clothing associated with their role in society, such as the [glossary:toga] of the Roman citizen or the [glossary:cuirass] of the military leader,353 women were typically represented in their characteristic dress of the [glossary:tunic] and [glossary:palla] (the Roman equivalent of the Greek chiton and himation, respectively). However, their clothing seems to have intentionally evoked the thinner and more revealing drapery worn by female deities. In this way, the godess-like statuary bodies employed in portraits of Roman women “served to maintain their absence” from public life.354

Seated portraits of women were rarely displayed in public contexts, but they were sometimes used to honor private women for their civic benefactions.355 Women of widely acknowledged exemplary character and virtue, particularly those from aristocratic and imperial families, were also represented in this way. For example, Cornelia (190–100 B.C.), the mother of the renowned politicians and reformers known as the Gracchi, is said to have been recognized as an ideal mother and matron in a seated portrait exhibited publicly in Rome.356 This now-missing sculpture, which was created posthumously in the late republican or early Augustan period, is thought to have incorporated a statuary body evoking a Pheidian type known as the Aphrodite Olympias.357 This type is exemplified by a second-century statuary body to which has been added a fourth-century portrait head that might depict Helena (c. A.D. 250–330), the mother of the emperor Constantine (fig. 4.9), herself a respected matron.358

Yet overall, seated portraits of women seem to have been considered more appropriate for funerary contexts, where they might have conveyed specific messages about the virtues of the deceased. For example, in a portrait of Severan date (A.D. 193–235), a heavily draped woman is seated on a stool that includes an image of a seated philosopher on the proper right side, highlighting her scholarly pursuits, a sign of her elevated status. This emphasis on the subject’s intellectual interests might not have been considered appropriate for public display, suggesting that the portrait was instead displayed in a funerary setting.359

The seated pose was also employed in [glossary:theomorphic] portraiture. In this type of portrait, a mythological body—including its dress, attributes, and gestures—served as a costume through which the virtues and positive qualities of the divinity were correlated with the subject.360 In theomorphic portraits of both imperial and private women, the goddesses selected for assimilation usually exemplified women’s domestic roles as wives and mothers.361 Ceres was a popular choice due to her associations with chastity and motherhood, while Venus was esteemed for her beauty, grace, and fecundity, qualities that led to marriage and its ultimate fulfillment, the production of children.362 Magna Mater/Cybele was similarly honored for her role as protector and mother as well as for her associations with pudicitia (chaste modesty), and Fortuna symbolized prosperity.363 Juno seems to have been reserved primarily for the empress’s use, likely due to the goddess’s role as Jupiter’s consort, a relationship that was echoed by that of the imperial couple.364

Among portraits of private individuals, examples showing women clearly in the guise of seated goddesses with their attributes surviving are infrequently attested. One such statue in the J. Paul Getty Museum depicts a Roman matron who has been assimilated to Cybele (fig. 10.43).365 The connection is made evident by the presence of numerous attributes associated with the goddess, including the mural crown atop her head, the bunches of wheat and poppies in her right hand, the cornucopia and rudder under her left arm, and the lion sitting attentively at her feet. However, she is distinguished as a mortal by her individualized portrait head: she has a broad face; narrow eyes; a small, tightly closed mouth; and distinct nasolabial folds that indicate her maturity. It is evident that the subject, who would almost certainly have been a woman of elevated wealth and status, had a strong interest in the cult of Cybele, and might even have been a priestess of the goddess.366

Although seated portraits of both imperial and private women are rare, it is possible that Statue of a Seated Woman could have been the statuary body in a portrait of an esteemed matron. However, if it did in fact serve such a purpose, this pose would have conveyed the subject’s feminine virtues and her exemplary character—qualities for which the goddesses represented in this form were also clearly celebrated.

Conclusion

Statue of a Seated Woman, with its classicizing drapery and seated pose, presents a headless image of a female of considerable dignity. It is most likely that it depicted a goddess venerated for her feminine virtues. Given its reduced scale, the statue might have functioned as a dedication in a sanctuary, or it might have been an architectural sculpture, perhaps displayed in the pediment of a small temple, shrine, or other religious structure. Alternatively, although perhaps less likely, the work may have been the statuary body in a portrait of a Roman matron, which could have served an honorific purpose in a civic setting or a commemorative function in a funerary context.
Katharine A. Raff

Technical Report

Technical Summary

This sculpture depicts a female figure, roughly two-thirds life-size, seated on a rocky outcrop (fig. 4.18). The object was carved in the round from a single block of medium-grained, white marble that has been identified as Parian. The head and arms of the figure, which were carved separately and affixed to the sculpture by mechanical means, are no longer extant. The surface of the marble displays a broad range of toolmarks. No evidence of [glossary:polychromy] or gilding has been detected. A pronounced yellow patina is visible in several areas. Other areas display a granular appearance, suggesting an exposed or outdoor location in antiquity. Burial evidence is found in the abundance of rootlets across the surface and in the presence of a reddish-brown coloration in selected areas. The object is in sound condition overall, and despite a great many losses, both major and minor, the fluidity and masterful handling of the carving and the legibility of the drapery are clearly evident. No signs of previous restoration or other interventions, save the thinning of the abundant root growth following excavation, have been found on the object itself, and no written records of treatment accompany the object in either the conservation or the curatorial files.

Structure

Mineral/Chemical Composition

The exterior surface of the marble exhibits a warm, ivory tone overall, but the interior is bright white.

Primary mineral: calcite (calcium carbonate, CaCO₃)367

Accessory minerals: graphite, C (abundant)

Petrographic Description

A sample roughly 1.2 cm square was removed from the highly textured surface on the proper left back corner, approximately 10 cm up from the bottom and 20 cm in from the proper left edge. The sample was then used to perform minero-petrographic analysis. Part of the sample was finely ground, and the resulting powder was analyzed using [glossary:X-ray diffraction] to determine whether dolomite is present. The remaining portion of the sample was mounted onto a glass slide and ground to a thickness of 30 µm for study under a polarizing microscope.368

Grain size: medium to coarse (average MGS greater than 2 mm)

Maximum grain size (MGS): 1.68 mm369

Fabric: heteroblastic mosaic

Calcite boundaries: [glossary:embayed]

Microscopic examination of the prepared thin-section sample revealed slight decohesion.370

Thin-section [glossary:photomicrograph]: fig. 4.30

Provenance

Marble type: Parian (marmor parium)371

Quarry site: Lakkoi, Korodaki valley, on the island of Paros, Cyclades, Greece372

The determination of the marble as Parian was made on the basis of the results of both minero-petrographic analysis and isotopic analysis.373

Isotopic ratio diagram: fig. 4.22

Fabrication

Method

The figure is roughly two-thirds life-size. The body was carved in the round from a single block of stone using the various hand tools and implements that would have been customary for the period, such as chisels, drills, rasps, and scrapers.374

A separately carved head, now missing, was once attached to the body by means of a socket and tenon reinforced with an adhesive. The profile of the socket into which the head was fitted suggests that the head also included the neck and the collarbone. The tenon would have been rather broad, spanning the entire diameter of the neckline of the [glossary:chiton], and, based on the interior shape of the socket, would have been worked for insertion with a [glossary:keyed] surface in a slightly conical form.375

Separately carved arms, now missing, were inserted into the body by means of metal pins.376 Sockets were carved into the body at the points of attachment of both arms; that for the proper right arm is slightly deeper than that for the proper left. The sockets are recessed for both mechanical and aesthetic purposes. The topography of the join face for the proper left arm suggests that a simple butt join was used, allowing the metal pin to bear the weight of the join. Half of the socket on the proper right arm is missing; however, what remains of its profile suggests a more concave shape, which may mean that this arm was carved with a tenon at its end. It is unclear by what means the pins in the arms were further reinforced. No keying is present on either of the join faces, which suggests that the pins might have been fixed with lead. However, the surface preparation of arm joins does not necessarily testify to whether lead alone, lead in combination with a cement or adhesive, or an adhesive alone was used to reinforce the pinning.377

In the socket for the proper left arm, the angle of the pin, together with the angle of the join face, indicates that the missing arm would have been held away from the body, perhaps extended to the side or aloft. On the proper right side, the position of the drapery and the angle of the pin, combined with the profile of the socket, suggest that the arm was positioned so as to be elevated slightly above the thigh and either pointed in the same direction or extended some small degree to the outside.

Evidence of Construction/Fabrication

The surface of the rocky base upon which the figure sits, particularly in the back, shows marks left by a point chisel (fig. 4.23) and a flat chisel (fig. 4.35).

The folds of the chiton and [glossary:himation] are a fantastically complex array of swirling grooves and channels. Close inspection reveals that the sculptor used a wide variety of tools to render these forms. The artist began with a drill, piercing the stone at intervals to create deep tunnels. Along the demarcation between the hem of the chiton and the base, a drill 2.9 mm in diameter was used (fig. 4.34). In the larger folds, drills up to 4.15 mm were used (fig. 8.40). This network of pierced holes was then excavated with a roundel or channeling tool.378 The drill holes of the original perforations remain visible along many of the lines of carving (fig. 4.20).379 Deep inside the folds of the drapery in the front, between the proper left side of the chiton and the part of the himation that hangs from the proper left arm, a crosshatched pattern characteristic of a claw chisel is apparent (fig. 4.28). Elsewhere in the drapery, broad, shallow folds were made using a bullnose chisel or roundel (fig. 4.24), while deep, narrow channels were made using a channeling tool.

Along the length of the proper left leg, where the carving is meant to suggest diaphanous fabric clinging to the limb, a flat chisel was used (fig. 4.32).

Marks from a scraper are visible in numerous places across the surface but are particularly noticeable running lengthwise along the folds of the himation in the back (fig. 4.25).

The interior of the neck cavity was sharply keyed with single, percussive blows of a point chisel to provide extra tooth for an adhesive (fig. 4.27). Within the deepest of these cuts, traces of a white material were found. A sample was taken from the area and analyzed, but the results were inconclusive.380

The pins used to affix and support the arms were made of iron and were bar or lozenge shaped, as evidenced by the profiles of the holes drilled to receive them (fig. 4.21).381 Both cavities show orange staining characteristic of oxidized iron, and, at the front portion of the hole for the proper right arm, traces of oxidized iron remain encrusted on the surface of the stone (fig. 4.26).

Artist’s/Fabricator’s Marks

No artist’s or fabricator’s marks were observed.

Additional or Applied Materials

Microscopic examination of the stone’s surfaces revealed no traces of polychromy or gilding.382

Condition Summary

The marble itself is in stable condition, although surface dirt and soiling are evident throughout.

A pronounced yellow patina is visible in isolated areas: along the proper left thigh, across the middle sweep of the himation on the lap, and in the textured area atop the columnar portion of rock on the proper left side.383 The surface of these patinated areas is dense, with a waxy appearance. When examined under ultraviolet radiation, these areas have a pale greenish-yellow appearance, in contrast to much of the rest of the sculpture, which appears more violet overall. This indicates that these patinated areas constitute the oldest surfaces on the sculpture (fig. 4.33).384

It is clear that the composition of the patinated surface protected the stone to some degree, because outside of the patinated areas, the marble is much whiter and brighter in color and has a granular, porous, sugary texture.385 This sugary appearance, a sign of decohesion and [glossary:exfoliation] of the stone’s surface, is particularly evident on the swath of the himation hanging down between the legs and on the columnar rock on the proper left side (fig. 4.31). The decohesion was caused by prolonged exposure to sunlight, suggesting a possible outdoor location in antiquity.386

The gathering around the waist of the chiton displays a more reddish-brown color than the rest of the stone. Presumably this coloration is a result of contact with iron-rich burial sediments. Under ultraviolet radiation, this portion of the chiton appears the same pale greenish-yellow as the areas of yellow patina.

The object has sustained numerous losses. Major losses are evident in the area of the proper right shoulder and breast. The part of the himation that covered the front of the proper left arm is also missing, as are significant portions of the himation in the back on the proper right side, between the back of the thigh and the ankle. There are also noticeable losses in the sweep of the himation in the front between the proper left knee and the proper right ankle. Under ultraviolet radiation, these areas appear bright purple, which reveals that this damage is quite recent. Losses to the feet include a large missing area on the top and side of the proper right foot as well as half of the second toe. The outside corner of the proper left big toe is also missing. A large spall is present on the front corner of the base on the proper right side, directly below the proper right foot. Moderate though extensive losses, gouges, and [glossary:spalls] are in evidence on the folds on the back of the himation. There are further losses in the upper portion of the chiton, particularly in the center between the breasts. Minor scratches and gouges are distributed uniformly across the surface of the object.

The surface of recent breaks is bright white, densely compact, and crystalline in texture. These surfaces are marked at intervals with prominent, opaque extrusions of an ocher-colored secondary material with a [glossary:laminar] structure.

The object is heavily encrusted with rootlets. The roots have been somewhat thinned but are still visible within the folds and on the undersides of the drapery (fig. 4.29). The remaining roots are very well adhered to the stone matrix.

During the current examination, a resinous, amber-colored accretion was observed on the back, behind the proper right shoulder. This accretion was removed and found to be a proteinaceous material, most likely glue.387 Several ocher-colored accretions are present on the base.

Conservation History

There is no record of treatment for this object while in the museum’s collection.
Rachel C. Sabino, with contributions by Lorenzo Lazzarini

325) Vermeule, Cult Images of Imperial Rome, p. 38. The monumental enthroned statue was created for Hera’s new temple, which was erected in the late fifth century B.C. following the destruction by fire of her earlier temple in 423 B.C.; see Stewart, Greek Sculpture, vol. 1, p. 45. According to the Greek traveler and geographer Pausanias, the statue was created by the sculptor Polykleitos; see Pausanias, Description of Greece, 2.17.4 (for a translation of this passage, see Pausanias, Description of Greece, trans. Jones, vol. 1, p. 335). It has been suggested that Pausanias might instead have been referring to a later namesake, perhaps a Polykleitos the Younger; see Vermeule, Cult Images of Imperial Rome, p. 58; Comstock and Vermeule, Sculpture in Stone, p. 95, cat. 148; Ridgway, Fifth Century Styles, p. 201.

326) For the artistic and literary evidence of the appearance of the Argive Hera, see Lapatin, Chryselephantine Statuary, pp. 101–05. A number of bronze coins issued by the city of Argos under Roman administration during the Antonine (A.D. 138–93) and Severan (A.D. 193–235) periods depict a draped female figure seated on a throne and wearing a [glossary:diadem], with her right arm extended outward and holding an indistinct attribute, perhaps a phiale (libation bowl), a pomegranate, or a bird. It is unclear whether the images on these coins represent the cult statue of Hera by Polykleitos that was described by Pausanias or possibly a later remodeling in the Roman imperial period; see Arnold-Biucchi, “Reflections of Polykleitos’ Work on Ancient Coins,” pp. 222–24, and figs. 12.25–12.30 for examples.

Several Roman statues are also thought to evoke the classical cult statue’s appearance. Two approximately life-size examples are attested—the first is in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, and the other was formerly in Wilton House, England. The addition of the stola, a heavy woolen dress worn by Roman matrons, suggests that both functioned as statuary bodies for portraits. On Roman Woman as an Enthroned Goddess (31 B.C./A.D. 69; Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 03.749), see Comstock and Vermeule, Sculpture in Stone, p. 95, cat. 148; Vermeule and Comstock, Sculpture in Stone and Bronze, p. 111, cat. 148. On the seated female figure formerly in Wilton House, see Michaelis, Ancient Marbles in Great Britain, p. 694, no. 117; Christie’s, Catalogue of a Selected Portion of the Collection of Ancient Marbles, lot 140. On both statues, see Lapatin, Chryselephantine Statuary, pp. 102–03, figs. 205–06. A smaller Roman example is a marble statuette of Juno from the second century A.D. that depicts the enthroned goddess wearing a [glossary:chiton], a [glossary:himation], and a diadem, and holding a pomegranate in her left hand, while her extended right hand might have held a scepter; see Christie’s, Antiquities, Dec. 9, 2015, lot 63.

338) One of the most magnificent Roman statues of a seated goddess to survive is a colossal statue dated to the Augustan period (27 B.C.–A.D. 14) in the Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Massimo alle Terme in Rome (124495), which is composed of numerous types of colored, imported stones, including red and yellow alabaster, basalt, and Carrara marble. This sculpture, which was once seated on a separately carved throne (perhaps of wood), has been interpreted as a possible cult statue depicting either Minerva or Magna Mater/Cybele. On the identification as Minerva, see Germini, “Statua di Minerva seduta,” p. 20; Vermeule, Cult Images of Imperial Rome, p. 62. On the identification as Minerva or Magna Mater/Cybele, see Cellini, “Statua colossale di divinità seduta,” p. 40, cat. 2.

339) For example, fragments of two over-life-size statues of goddesses of early imperial date, identified as Statue I and Statue II, were found in the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore/Persephone at Cyrene and are now in the Department of Antiquities, Shahhat, Libya (Statue I, lower body, 71-710, 71-831, 73-472; veiled head and shoulder fragments, 71-705, 73-279, 73-409, 73-276; Statue II, 78-600). The figures may have represented one or both of the goddesses, as suggested by their large scale, their discovery within the sanctuary, and their iconography. Both were carved with cavities that appear to have allowed interior access to the statues, perhaps in order to insert pharmake (organic or inorganic materials) as well as other texts or materials intended to increase the power of the statue or animate it for various purposes, including divination, prognostication, protection, and healing. On these statues, see Kane, “Kore’s Return,” pp. 73–74; Kane, “Two Limestone Goddesses from Libya”; Kane, “Two Limestone Goddesses from the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore.”

For an under-life-size statue of Cybele from the sanctuary of Magna Mater at Ostia (3rd century A.D.; Museo Ostiense, Ostia, Italy, 1165), see Calza and Squarciapino, Museo Ostiense, pp. 22, no. 17. The statue depicts the goddess in full drapery and sitting on a backless chair or throne in a frontal pose, with her left foot extended slightly forward. At either side of her seat is a lion, which allows for her identification. On the sanctuary of Magna Mater at Ostia, which also included temples and shrines to related deities such as Cybele, Attis (a shepherd and consort of Cybele, later a solar deity), Venus (who shared Cybele’s associations with Troy and the Trojan origins of Rome but also with military triumph), and Bellona (Roman goddess of war and fertility), see Calza and Calza, “Il santuario della Magna Mater”; Meiggs, Roman Ostia, pp. 356–66. On the sculptures discovered in the sanctuary, which depict a number of the deities mentioned above, see Calza, “Sculture rinvenute nel santuario.”

341) The motivations behind dedications are rarely attested epigraphically or iconographically, although they appear to have been offered following specific ritualized practices, such as making vows to the gods. Thus, statuary dedications were brought into a sanctuary as part of a series of rites and functioned thereafter as points of focus for religious observances. For an overview of sculpted dedications in Roman sanctuaries, with additional bibliography, see McCarty, “Religious Dedications.” For a statuette of a seated goddess that might have functioned as a votive offering, see Seated Cybele in the Princeton University Art Museum, Princeton, N.J. (probably 50 B.C./A.D. 50; y1929-64). Its possible votive function is suggested by the form of its throne, which might have been fitted into an enframing naiskos see Lederman, “Seated Kybele.”

347) It has been suggested that the two statuettes from Eleusis could reflect the appearance of two female figures that might have been located on the west [glossary:pediment] of the Parthenon, known as U and U*, respectively. Although statues U and U* have not been securely identified, their existence is postulated based on a drawing of the west pediment made by Jacques Carrey in 1674, which depicts a seated, heavily draped figure identified as U. A large gap to the right of U in Carrey’s drawing is thought to have accommodated another figure, known as U*. For an overview of the issues surrounding the identification of figures U and U*, see Palagia, Pediments of the Parthenon, pp. 50–51.

Two statues dated to the fifth century B.C. that might be figures U and U* were discovered on the Acropolis and are now in the collection of the Acropolis Museum, Athens (1363 and 888, respectively); see Carpenter, “New Material for the West Pediment”; Brommer, Die Skulpturen der Parthenon-Giebel, vol. 1, pp. 54–55; vol. 2, pl. 123–26; Harrison, “U and Her Neighbors.” See also Palagia, Pediments of the Parthenon, p. 51, on the possibility of identifying the second figure, 888, as another candidate for figure U.

350) Jane Fejfer estimated that about one in ten honorific statues in municipal towns represented women; see Fejfer, Roman Portraits in Context, p. 331; see also pp. 181–227 for an overview of male portrait statuary. On the early development of female honorific portraiture in the city of Rome, see Flory, “Livia and the History of Public Honorific Statues.” Female honorific portraiture developed more slowly in the city of Rome than it did in the Greek East, where Hellenistic traditions of portraying kings, generals, and their female family members had previously been established; see Boatwright, “Just Window Dressing?,” pp. 62, 65. For examples of Roman portraits of women in the Greek East, see Inan and Rosenbaum, Roman and Early Byzantine Portrait Sculpture; Inan and Alföldi-Rosenbaum, Römische und frühbyzantinische Porträtplastik; Smith, Aphrodisias, vol. 2; Dillon, Female Portrait Statue, pp. 135–63.

351) Fejfer, Roman Portraits in Context, p. 331. In the cities of the Greek East, women from prominent families had provided their private wealth for civic benefactions to their communities since the late Hellenistic period; see Bremen, Limits of Participation. This practice developed later in Italian municipalities, which came to depend on the financial generosity of wealthy women in the second and third centuries A.D.; see Forbis, “Women’s Public Image.” There appear to have been certain differences in the language employed in dedicatory inscriptions in Italy and the Greek East. Italian dedicatory inscriptions on statues of both men and women used a similar language of praise in which the honorand was esteemed for his or her financial generosity. In the Greek East, by contrast, an emphasis on a woman’s feminine (typically domestic) virtues prevailed; see Forbis, “Women’s Public Image.” Fejfer noted a possible parallel trend in the use of statuary bodies, as honorific images of men and women in the Latin West are often characterized by standing, open poses, while honorific portraits of women in the Greek East frequently incorporate closed statuary types featuring tightly wrapped drapery; see Fejfer, Roman Portraits in Context, p. 344.

368) The thin-section petrography and [glossary:X-ray diffraction] were performed at the Laboratorio di Analisi dei Materiali Antichi (LAMA), Università IUAV, Venice, by Lorenzo Lazzarini, Director, LAMA. The purpose of the minero-petrographic analysis was to determine the following parameters: (1) the type of fabric (either homeoblastic or heteroblastic, the former consisting of grains of roughly equal dimensions and the latter consisting of grains of variable dimensions), which is directly related to the type of [glossary:metamorphism] (equilibrium, nonequilibrium, retrograde, or polymetamorphism); (2) the boundary shapes of the calcite/dolomite grains, which are also correlated with the types of metamorphic events that generated the marble; (3) the maximum grain size, a parameter that has diagnostic significance because it is linked to the grade of metamorphism achieved by the marble; and (4) the qualitative and semiqualitative presence of accessory minerals, which are sometimes of diagnostic value. In the formulation of the petrographic description, previous specific studies of the most important “major” ancient marbles (Gorgoni et al., “Reference Database”; Lazzarini, Moschini, and Stievano, “Contribution to the Identification”), other [glossary:archaeometric] studies of “minor” marbles, and seminal treatises on [glossary:petrotectonics] (e.g., Spry, Metamorphic Textures) were taken into consideration. Lazzarini, “Report on the Results,” pp. 1–2. This essay is greatly indebted not only to Lorenzo Lazzarini’s analysis, which facilitated a better understanding of this object in the newly cast light of its secure attribution with respect to marble type and provenance, but also to his graciousness and generosity in sharing the vast knowledge and wisdom acquired over the course of his decades-long career.

372) The attribution of the quarry site as Lakkoi is not one hundred percent positive, but it is the most probable. Stephani is an alternative possibility, but the grayish color of the marble makes it unlikely. Lazzarini, “Report on the Results,” p. 4.

Two important varieties of Parian marble were quarried on the island of Paros, Cyclades. The first, called lychnites in antiquity (from the Greek word for “lamp,” lychnos), was quarried in galleries near the area of Stephani. It was the most famous marble of classical times for its brilliance, fine grain, pure-white color, and excellent workability. The second variety, of medium grain size and lesser quality, and often having grayish stains, was exploited in open-pit quarries at Lakkoi in the Korodaki valley. Both were used from the Cycladic period to the end of the Roman Empire, especially for statuary. A third Parian marble, quarried at Karavos, was rarely used. It is a slightly dolomitic variety with a very fine grain and a translucency like alabaster. Lazzarini, “Report on the Results,” pp. 4–5. For further information, see Korres, From Pentelikon to the Parthenon; Lazzarini, “Note sulle cave di marmo”; and Schilardi and Katsonopoulou, Paria Lithos.

373) The stable isotope ratio analysis was done at the Isotopen Labo, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Germany, and interpreted by Lorenzo Lazzarini, Director, LAMA. Isotopic characterization has proved to be very useful in the identification of ancient marble. Its use is becoming more and more widespread owing to its outstanding sensitivity, the small quantity of material necessary for the analysis, and the availability of a rapidly growing isotopic database, often associated with other laboratory methodologies (Attanasio, Brilli, and Ogle, Isotopic Signature of Classical Marbles; Barbin et al., “Cathodoluminescence”; Gorgoni et al., “Reference Database”; Lazzarini, “Archaeometric Aspects of White and Coloured Marbles”), that permits increasingly trustworthy comparisons, especially if the isotopic data are evaluated together with the minero-petrographic results from the same samples, as in the present study. The present study used reference data from petrographic databases as well as data compiled from thin-section samples taken in fifty ancient Mediterranean marble quarries. Lazzarini, “Report on the Results,” pp. 2, 3.

Isotopic analysis was carried out on the carbon dioxide derived from a small portion (20–30 mg) of the powdered sample obtained through dissolution by phosphoric acid at 25°C in a vacuum line, according to the procedure suggested by McCrea, “Isotopic Chemistry of Carbonates,” and Craig, “Isotopic Standards for Carbon and Oxygen.” The resulting carbon dioxide was then analyzed using mass spectrometry. The mass spectrometer is fitted with a triple collector and permits the measurement of both isotopic ratios (¹³C/¹²C and ¹⁸O/¹⁶O) at the same time. The analytical results are conventionally expressed in δ units, in parts per thousand, in which δ = (R_sample/R_std – 1) × 1000, and R_sample and R_std represent the isotopic ratios of oxygen and carbon in the sample and in the reference standard, respectively. The standard adopted is PDB, or δ¹³C, for both oxygen and carbon. The PDB standard for isotope ratio measurements in carbonates is the rostrum of the Belemnitella americana, a Cretaceous marine fossil from the Pee Dee Formation in South Carolina. Lazzarini, “Report on the Results,” p. 2.

377) By the second century A.D., the practice of cross pinning appears to have abated, but the use of lead to secure pins continued. Also by this period, an increasing number of sculptures with deeply recessed or underhanging joins fixed only by a very strong cement are attested. “It is tempting to seek correlations in the preparation of the joining surfaces themselves, though the equation is ephemeral. The butting surfaces of fourth-century [B.C.] angled joins are generally dressed with a fine claw chisel, or smoothed and then roughened with light blows of a fine point, which comes to the same thing. By the Roman period they can be anything from very smooth to very rough; large scoops out of the surface or sharp gouges; sometimes they are strikingly different in two joins on the same statue. To give later craftsmen the benefit of the doubt this variety could reflect a wider range of adhesives and a calculated choice in the type or amount to use for a particular purpose.” Claridge, “Ancient Techniques of Making Joins,” p. 148. Further analysis with [glossary:X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy] could reveal traces of lead around the margins of the holes for the pins.

378) The so-called honeycombing method described here is the most laborious means by which to create grooves in marble. Sculptors may have chosen this method because it was deemed safer and offered more control. In another method, the running drill, the drill was rotated at a sharp angle to the stone, cutting a groove as it was moved along. The same tool was used for both; only the method of application differed. Great controversy surrounds the running drill with respect to the date of its introduction and the extent of its use. Olga Palagia discussed the physical evidence of the drill marks left in the Parthenon pediments (where the heart of the controversy lies) and found sufficient proof that their sculptors employed both methods. Palagia, “Marble Carving Techniques,” pp. 253–60. Amanda Claridge, on the contrary, has stated that the running drill is “a phantom, based on a misunderstanding of the German ‘laufende Bohrer.’” Claridge, “Marble Carving Techniques,” p. 106.

380) Several studies have identified various adhesives on ancient marble statuary, namely, [glossary:lime]–beeswax–lead oxide, lime resin, and lime casein. See Claridge, “Ancient Techniques of Making Joins,” pp. 153–54. With this in mind, the material was analyzed with [glossary:Fourier transform infrared microspectroscopy] in the hope of discovering one of these ancient recipes, but only calcite was identified. No evidence of a binding medium was detected, a fact that is unsurprising. Organic materials are notoriously difficult to identify analytically because of their susceptibility to degradation, in addition to the fact that they were generally present only in trace amounts. For more detailed results and a description of the conditions used, see Pozzi, “Analytical Report,” Mar. 18, 2013.

383) Patina is a vague and ambiguous term, and a number of scholars have debated the appropriateness of its use with stone. Indeed, a variety of other terms refer to the numerous types of films seen on the surfaces of ancient stone: scialbatura, epidermis or marble skin, hardening paste, rock or desert varnish, mineral deposit, and weathering crust, to name but a few. Many ancient marble sculptures may have either lost their patinas, perhaps in the course of restoration, or received artificial patinas, applied in an effort to mimic an ancient surface. Of the several types of naturally occurring patinas, as opposed to man-made ones, two predominate: those composed of calcium carbonate crusts and those composed of oxalates. For a concise review of both types, see Craddock, Scientific Investigation of Copies, pp. 254–57. For further information, see cat. 1, Statue of a Young Boy, para. 75, note 108.

384) Ultraviolet-induced visible light fluorescence was among the first technical examination methods to be employed in the service of investigating art objects, and, although there is some subjectivity in the interpretation of the fluorescence, it remains the technique most universally chosen as a first step in examining works of art. UV radiation causes unique patterns of fluorescence in a wide array of materials, and the color and intensity of the fluorescence help to differentiate between original materials and alterations, be they wholesale additions or surface modifications. Very broadly speaking, with respect to marble, a newly broken or modern surface will appear bright purple when exposed to UV radiation, whereas an intact, ancient surface will appear white, yellow, or amber. An older but not necessarily ancient surface will appear more blue. See Rorimer, Ultra-Violet Rays, pp. 17–23. This phenomenon can be exploited to reveal parts of a sculpture that may have been recently cleaned or treated; may have been recut or replaced; or may retain pigments, coatings, or colorants. See Grossman and Maish, “Authenticity of a Classical Attic Funerary Monument.” For further information on the refinement of UV/visible fluorescence imaging since 1931 and its reliability in the examination of marble artifacts, see Polikreti, “Detection of Ancient Marble Forgery”; Polikreti and Christofides, “Composition Profiles and Time Evolution”; Polikreti and Christofides, “Laser-Induced Micro-photoluminescence”; and Polikreti and Christofides, “Role of Humic Substances.”

385) The processes that produce patinas on ancient sculptures are similar to those that produce weathering crusts on ancient outcrops in quarries. Both represent a gradual alteration between the interior, original marble and the exterior, sculpted or excavated surface. The crust can vary in thickness (from 10 µm to 10 mm), and the thickness has a direct relationship to the age, porosity, and crystal size of the stone. Weathering crusts are thought to confer some degree of protection on the stone, although this protection is generally only temporary, since trigger mechanisms such as salt crystallization or frost action can cause rapid and sudden [glossary:cleavage] between the two layers. Studies of weathering crusts on stone in exposed locations such as quarries reveal a great degree of complexity in their compositions, which often combine recrystallized calcite, clay minerals, zeolites, iron and magnesium oxides, calcium oxalate, and gypsum. However, the weathering mechanisms and surface alterations caused by burial environments are less well studied. Buried marble surfaces appear to form separate kinds of surface compositions and morphologies according to the type of marble (grain size, porosity, etc.) and the characteristics of the soil (acidity, humidity, microorganisms, etc.). Despite the smaller number of studies related to natural weathering in burial conditions, a few general observations have been acknowledged by all researchers in the field: “A typical burial patina consists mainly of iron oxides, quartz, clay minerals, calcite and dolomite. A [glossary:micritic] calcite layer is always present as a result of the dissolution of the outer layer of marble crystals in soil water and subsequent precipitation of secondary calcite. Lanthanum (La), barium (Ba), manganese (Mn), lead (Pb), aluminum (Al), iron (Fe) and magnesium (Mg) concentrations increase in the patina with Al and Fe showing the highest concentration because of the presence of clay minerals.” Polikreti and Christofides, “Role of Humic Substances,” p. 272. For further information on the mineralogical composition of weathering crusts, see Alvarez de Buergo et al., “Analysis of the Ochre Patina”; Kouzeli et al., “Phosphatic Patinas”; Margolis and Showers, “Ancient Greek and Roman Marble Sculpture”; Margolis and Showers, “Weathering Characteristics”; Newman, “Weathering Layers”; Polikreti and Maniatis, “Micromorphology”; Previde Massara and Perego, “Study of the Colourings”; Ulens et al., “Study of Element Distributions”; Ulens et al., “Study of the Patina”; and Vazquez-Calvo, Alvarez de Buergo, and Fort, “Patinas in the Architectural Heritage of Lerma.” For further research on patinas specific to buried marbles, see Polikreti and Christofides, “Role of Humic Substances.” For a brief but comprehensive discussion of the advances made in the past thirty-five years with respect to the technical analysis and identification of weathering crusts on marble, see Craddock, Scientific Investigation of Copies, pp. 258–67.