Marble sculptures from the imperial palace in Sirmium

STARINAR LVI/2006.

153

F ew fragments of marble sculptures have beendiscovered in the course of systematic archae-ological excavations conducted in Sirmium

from 2003 to 2005 at site 85 which is almost certainlythe imperial palace complex1 (Fig. 1). The most im-portant are certainly two almost completely preservedheads of deities.

The head of a young person (C 109/2003) made ofmilky white, fine-grained marble of exceptionally finetexture and originating from Pentelicon2 was discove-red in October of 2003 in the layer of building rubbleand fragments of Roman pottery, under the floor ofroom 7 at the absolute altitude of 80.27 m (Fig. 2 a–d).The head slightly inclined to the right and fragment ofthe neck are almost completely preserved; the totalheight is 17 cm, while the dimensions of face are 9.5 x7 cm. The portrayed person, of exceptional, idealizedbeauty, has symmetrical features. The large eyes ofalmond shape are wide open, with modelled eyelids,but without denoted irises and pupils. The nose issymmetrical with the tip broken off. The mouth issmall, with full half-opened lips giving the face amelancholic impression. The chin is rounded andslightly protruding, cheeks are smooth and full, whilethe neck is massive without visible wrinkles. The hairrepresented in the full volume is in contrast to the

smooth surface of the face. It is parted in the middle,framing the face in gentle waves modeled in relief andwith locks emphasized by incisions. On the back of thehead the side locks combed over the ears are gathered

MARBLE SCULPTURESFROM THE IMPERIAL PALACE IN SIRMIUM

IVANA POPOVI]

Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade

UDC 904:73"652"(497.113)DOI: 10.2298/STA0656153P

Abstract. – Few fragments of marble sculpture have been found in the course of the archaeological excavations conducted in Sirmium between 2003 and 2005 at site 85 which is believed to be part of the imperial palace complex. The most important are two almost completely preserved heads of deities. The head of a young person made of milky white, fine-grained marble of exceptionally fine texture from Pentelicon was found under the Late Roman floor in room 7 of the residential structure.

The sculpture, of exceptional quality, is from the second half of the 1st century and represents a deity, most probably Venus

or Apollo. Another head made of Carrara marble, from the 4th century, was found in a secondary position and on the basisof its mural crown is identified as the Tyche of Sirmium.

Key words. – Roman sculpture, marble, Sirmium, deities, personifications.

* The author presented a brief account of these finds at theInternational Meeting Les ateliers de sculpture réginoaux: techni-ques, styles et iconographie, Xe Colloque international sur l’artprovincial romain, Arles et Aix-en-Provence, 21–23 mai 2007.

1 Systematic investigation was preceded by test trenching in2002 when one trench (11 x 5 m), which yielded relatively clearstratigraphic data about this multi-layered site was excavated, cf.Jeremi}, Popovi} 2004, 284–288. In the same area, somewhatmore to the east test pit excavations at site 37 were conducted in1968 and 1969 that to a certain extent were investigations of thesame archaeological entity to which the remains recorded to thesouth of this complex belong and which were examined duringexcavation of locality 1a begun in 1957, cf. Milo{evi}, Miluti-novi}1958, 5–57; Popovi} 1969, 665–675; Ochsenschlager, Popovi}1975, 85–95; Bo{kovi}, Duval, Gros, Popovi} 1974, 597–656; Po-povi} 1971, 119–148; Brukner 1983, 5–31; Jeremi} 1993, 90–97.The existing hypothesis that localities 1a and 37 are sections of theimperial palace was confirmed by the results of Yugoslav–Americanexcavations in 1970, when the remains of the imperial hippodromewere discovered to the north of the residential structure, cf. Popo-vi}, Ochsenschlager 1976, 156–181.

2 Analysis of the marble used in the sculpture discussed herewas performed by Dr H.W. Müller, University of Natural Resourcesand Applied Life Sciences, Institute of Applied Geology, Vienna.

IVANA POPOVI]

into a ponytail, which is bent and attached creating alow bun, which looks in profile like a fish tail. Belowthe bun and behind the ears long curls fall down theneck. The locks above the forehead are pulled towardsthe back and tied into a big bowknot (krobylos) withcurled locks depicted by incisions. Around the headand under the locks tied into a knot on the back of thehead is a band (taenia). Judging by the dimensions offace, the head belonged to a statue around 80 cm high,i.e., between half and two thirds of the normal height.

The idealized features confirm that marble headrepresents a deity. This conclusion is supported by thehair style with krobylos characteristic of the represen-tations of gods, above all Apollo, Venus and Diana. Asthe attributes which could reliably identify the depicteddeity are, unfortunately, not preserved, it is necessaryto use indirect methods to identify the represented per-

son. A half-opened, sensual mouth and melancholicexpression on a slightly inclined head are typical forthe representations of Venus, the goddess of the morningstar, love and beauty, while Diana, the goddess of forestsand hunting was most often depicted as an energeticyoung woman with bow and arrow. Stern features anda cold expression without emotion also characterize themarble heads of two other portraits of Diana from thetime of Hadrian, one discovered not far from SremskaMitrovica, in Putinci near Ruma3, and the other from themuseum in Bucharest.4 Among many portraits of Venusin Roman art the best analogies for the marble head from

154

Fig. 1. Imperial Palace Complex in Sirmium: a–d) fragments of marble sculptures on the locality 85

Sl. 1. Kompleks carske palate u Sirmijumu: a–d) nalazi delova mermernih skulptura na lokalitetu 85

3 Dautova-Ru{evljan 1983, T. 41. 2; Srejovi}, Cermanovi}-Kuzmanovi} 1987, 72, kat. 27.

4 Bordenache 1969, 43, T. XXX, 66.

the imperial palace in Sirmium can be found in worksdiscovered in Rome itself, first of all in the sculpturesof the Venus Pudica type5, in particular in the famousCapitoline Venus, the Roman copy of the work of someof Praxiteles’ followers.6 These are sculptures of excep-tional artistic quality made in the early imperial periodas the copies of sculptures of Aphrodite from the earlyHellenistic period. Nevertheless, they are characterizedby cold academism in expression, a certain stiffness ofthe slender body, and oval faces without visible emo-tion. The head from Sirmium is also the work of a first-class sculptor made in the artistic style of Julio-Claudianepoch, but at the same time relying on the best traditi-ons of Hellenistic artistic expression. A certain expres-sionlessness of the face, a result of the eyes depictedwithout irises and pupils is avoided with a nicely sha-ped half-open mouth, which emanates melancholy, butalso increases the sensuality of the portrayed face. Onthe other hand, the wide open eyes gazing into the dis-tance give to the person a certain determination cha-racteristic more of the portraits of Diana and Apollothan of Venus. The neck of the Sirmium head lacks thecurving creases used to evoke the softness of the nakedfemale body which is characteristic, first of all, of repre-sentations of Venus and are hence known as the Venus’necklace. Therefore, although it is clear from the treat-ment of the eyes of the Sirmium head that it is an objectof art from the period of the Early Empire, closer datingand more reliable identification of the deity depictedrequires examination of other stylistic elements.

The sculpture is of a person with oval face,massive neck and wavy hair combed over the ears andgathered on the nape in a low bun of geometric shape,with locks falling in waves down the neck. Similariconographic characteristics, massive structure of thescull, fleshy face and thick neck are characteristic ofportraits of Nero, either in three-dimensional sculptureor on the coins.7 Particularly important for our analysisare representations of this emperor on the whole seriesof the vitreae from the Serbian Danube valley on whichthe emperor is represented as Apollo.8 The explanationfor Nero’s assimilation with Apollo could be found inthe fact that he, being an admirer and patron of music,issued coins on which he was depicted as Apollo with alyre on the reverse. These coins were minted in Romeduring the short period of 61–62 or perhaps in 63–64AD.9 The iconographic characteristics of the idealizedemperor’s image in profile (Fig. 3) on some vitreaefrom the Serbian Danube basin10, like the shape of head,protruding chin and massive neck, as well as the mo-delling of hair around the ears and on the neck, have

close parallels with corresponding traits on the marblehead from Sirmium, as can best be seen by examining itsprofile (Fig. 2 b). The model of the idealized represen-tation of Nero as Apollo on the vitreae was certainly aportrait of this emperor on some official cameo madeof semi-precious stone. There is indirect evidence forthe existence of such cameos as on the plaque of sheet-silver on the inside of a chest of St. [imun from Zadar,work of the goldsmith Toma Martinov from the end ofthe 15th century. The architectural background is deco-rated with medallions inspired by antique cameos andon one of these medallions was a representation of anidealized image of the emperor, analogous to that ofthe vitreae from the Serbian Danube valley.11 It meansthat this motif left a deep mark on Roman art, being aninspiration for the artists of later times and, to all appe-arances, contemporaries as well. However, on the mar-ble head from Sirmium, the voluminous mass of wavyhair is dominant, whereas the accent on Nero’s portraitson coins from the later phase of his rule was on hairrising above the face like a lion’s mane.12 In additionto the representations on cameos, coins and gems, oneof which is housed in the National Museum in Belgra-de,13 there must have been sculptures of the emperor,idealized as Apollo. This suggests that the marble headcould have belonged to a statue of this god, one of manyRoman marble replicas of Leochares’ bronze sculpturedating from around 330–325 B.C., of which is mostfamous example is the Bellvedere Apollo.14 Even moreprobably it was a replica of a sculpture of Apollo witha lyre, or Apollo Kytharodes, of which the closest to theSirmium sculpture in hair style and position of the headis the Apollo from Kyrene, made after the work of theAttic sculptor Timarchides from the 2nd century B.C.15

However, while some Roman replicas, the BellvedereApollo for example, were modelled rather stiffly, in thestern academic style, the marble head from Sirmium ischaracterized by a certain liveliness; a result of the

MARBLE SCULPTURES FROM THE IMPERIAL PALACE IN SIRMIUM 155

STARINAR LVI/2006.

5 LIMC VIII, nr. 88.6 LIMC VIII, nr. 113; Nieber 1955, Fig. 34–35.7 Bernoulli 1886, 1486–1488.8 Popovi} 2001, 377–382.9 RIC I, 152; BMC I, 249–250, Pl. 44. 12; 45. 2.

10 Popovi} 2001, sl. 7–9.11 Petricioli 1986, 149–159, T. V b.12 Hannestad 1988, 114, Fig. 73.13 Kuzmanovi}-Novovi} 2005, kat. 450, inv. 3861/III.14 Lippold 1950, T. 98. 3; Bieber 1955, Fig. 200; LIMC II, nr. 79.15 Bieber 1955, Fig. 678, 679.

IVANA POPOVI]

half-opened sensual mouth in the oval face. A smallbronze head from Grgurovci near Sremska Mitrovica,dating from the time of Hadrian,16 also belongs to thesame type of Apollo portraits, stylistically close to theoriginal from the Hellenistic period. On the otherhand, the position of the head, the fullness of the faceand the treatment of the eyes and mouth connect theSirmium marble head with representations of Apollobased on the traditions of works from the Praxiteles’school, among which is the colossal statue from thetheatre in Carthage made in the 2nd century.17 Taking allthe above into consideration, we can say with reasonablecertainty that the newly found head probably representsApollo or Venus. The stylistic parallels make it pos-sible both to date the sculpture to which the head oncebelonged; moreover, they also offer a possible expla-nation of its presence within the context of the imperialpalace at Sirmium.

The head was discovered in a layer of buildingrubble and pottery under the floor, the level of whichcorresponds to the level of the floor of a structure resto-red during the 4th century, most probably the peristylecourtyard constructed on the location of a room with ahypocaust from the end of the 3rd or the beginning of

the 4th century.18 The decoration of a room in the LateRoman residential structure with a sculpture datingfrom a couple of centuries earlier could be explained notonly by its exceptional quality and beauty, but also asthe intention of Constantine, the emperor who residedin this palace, to legitimate himself as the successor ofthe Augustus’ ideas by means of veneration not only ofVenus, but also Apollo. It is common knowledge thatAugustus thought that he won the battle of Actium in31 B.C. thanks to the intervention of Apollo and he de-dicated the temple on the Palatine hill to this god in 28B.C. Claiming to be the son and earthly representativeof the god himself, he was often represented in the formof Apollo.19 This also explains the background of Nero’swish for the same associations to himself; like his illu-strious predecessor, he was represented with Jupiter’saegis on his chest and crowned with solar rays, insistingon the ideological link with the traditions of Augustus’time.20 On the other hand Venus Genetrix was believedto be the ancestress of the gens Julia, the Roman stateand people that was of special importance in the ide-ology and political propaganda of Constantine as thenew Augustus. Within the context of such a policy hewanted to garner ideological support for his rule withrepresentations of the so-called good emperors of earlierepochs in the monuments erected in his honour, as hedid when he incorporated Trajan’s and Hadrian’s re-liefs on his triumphal arch in Rome.21 Furthermore, asthe admirer of the Sun god he continued the works onthe base of Nero’s colossal monument which depictedthis emperor as Sol.22 After all, Constantine’s respectfor the solar deity was deeply rooted in his personalitysince his earliest days, his father Constantius Chlorusbeing a great admirer of Apollo, whose cult he acceptedin almost monotheistic form.23 As is recorded in the

156

16 Srejovi}, Cermanovi}-Kuzmanovi} 1987, 60–61, kat. 21.17 Ennabli et al. 1995, 98–101.18 Jeremi}, Popovi} 2004, 286–287, sl. 6.19 Alföldi 1977, 191, Taf. 13. 1, 2; Hannestad 1988, 57–58,

Fig. 37.20 Hannestad 1988, 113.21 Spätantike 1983, 327.22 Ensoli 2000, 86–90. It is worth mentioning that the Late Ro-

man cameo of sardonyx, today in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Pa-ris, on which the emperor as Sol on quadriga is depicted with the in-scription Neron Auguste (ibid., 68, fig. 6; Constantino 2005, cat. 98).

23 Burchardt 1949, 282. The respect for the Dardanian descentof Constantius Chlorus was based on the cult of Apollo, who was a na-tive religious pivot in Dardania (Jovanovi} 2006, 127, 142–143), soon the wreath with busts on Galerius’ porphyric head from Romuli-ana this emperor was depicted as Apollo/Sol (Jovanovi} 2006, 191).

Fig. 3. Vitrea with Representation of Nero as Apollo,unknown site in the Danube valley

Sl. 3. Vitreja sa predstavom Nerona kao Apolona,nepoznato nalazi{te u Podunavqu


STARINAR LVI/2006.

Fig. 2a–d. Head of Deity (Venus?, Apollo?)

Sl. 2a–d. Glava boànstva (Venera?, Apolon?)

a b

c d

IVANA POPOVI]158

Fig. 4a–d. Head of Tyche of Sirmium

Sl. 4a–d. Glava Tihe Sirmijuma

a b

c d

Panegyric from the year 310, Constantine himself ex-perienced a vision of Apollo in Apollo’s temple inAutun, which he lavishly endowed during his militarycampaign in Gallia. On that occasion Apollo allegedlypredicted that Constantine would reign thirty years, sohe considered himself a protégé of this god.24 Howpowerful the impact of this belief was on the emperoris confirmed by a gem from the National Museum inBelgrade on which one of Constantine’s sons is depictedas Apollo,25 like Nero some two-hundred and fifty yearsearlier. Thus, the re-use of monuments from the timeof Nero in the buildings of Constantine and in the im-perial propaganda of this epoch can be explained bothas a consequence of their shared veneration of the Sungod and also as Constantine’s desire to accumulate inhis personality the characteristics of his predecessorsof whom Augustus played a particularly important role.The distinctive imitatio Augusti is confirmed by themarble relief perhaps from Sirmium, dating from thereign of Constantine and on which was depicted, in arustic manner, the upper frieze from Augustus’ famouscameo (gemma Augustea).26 In general, the reign ofConstantine is characterized by conspicuous aspirationto retrospective that can be seen as a reflection of thenostalgic attitude towards the past, but also as proof ofcultural continuity, which made possible the creationof the concept contained in the idea of Roma Aeterna.These circumstances offer an explanation of the factthat a statue made in seventies of the 1st century in somewell-regarded sculptor’s atelier, most probably in Italy,found itself in the imperial palace in Sirmium. It mayhave been brought to Sirmium under the Flavian dynasty,when the city became a colony the importance of whichis confirmed by the discovery of the marble head of theemperor Titus27 that later, in the early decades of the 4th

century, was also used to decorate the imperial palace.The second marble head (C–154/2005) was disco-

vered in September 2005, about ten meters southeastof the head just discussed. It has been found in quad-rant 1 of sector B, in profile next to wall XVIII at anabsolute altitude of 82.15 meters. Taking into accountthat it is the eastern wall of the apse of the 14th/15th

century church it is clear that the head was found in asecondary position where it was deposited after thedestruction of the Late Roman structure.

The head and a fragment of neck, made of whiteCarrara marble, are partially damaged; total height is19.5 cm, while the dimensions of the face are 11.5 x 8 cm(Fig. 4 a–d). The sculpture represents a mature womanwith a highly raised chin and back-thrown head. The faceis symmetrical, without distinctive individual features.

The orbital arches are prominent and drooping at theends. The wide open eyes have emphasized irises anddrilled pupils. The largest part of the nose is broken off.The mouth is symmetrical and the tip of the chin isdamaged. The hair is parted in the middle of the head.It frames the face in gentle waves depicted by incisionsand it is gathered at the back into a loose bun. On the topof the head is a crown, partially damaged at the frontand on the left side. On the uncovered part of the headunder the crown can be seen the parting from whichthe locks of hair are combed sideways. Symmetricallyarranged vertical mouldings on the frontal segment ofthe crown to all appearances represent the turrets of awall, although the crowns of the battlements could notbe identified because of the damage. It was most proba-bly a mural crown (corona muralis) of the type usuallyworn by goddesses who protected cities.

Judging by the mural crown, therefore, the headprobably belonged to a statue depicting the protectress,Tyche of Sirmium, i.e., the personification of the city.City goddesses or personifications of cities, provincesand rivers are frequent motifs in Roman art, adoptedfrom the repertoire of Hellenistic artistic achievements.These representations went through iconographic andsymbolic changes in the course of time and finally inthe Late Roman period, when personifications of citieswere particularly numerous on various monuments,the images of these goddesses became schematized,without individual characteristics. Only two represen-tations of Tyche of Sirmium have been identified so far,and neither of them is a three-dimensional sculpture.They are encountered as stamps on two gold ingotsdiscovered at the Crasna site near Brasov in Romania(fig. 5 a–b). On both items, Tyche of Sirmium is depic-ted in profile, highly schematized, sitting on a cippus,holding in her hands the palmeta and cornucopia, andwearing the mural crown on her head. In the segmentsof both stamps is the inscription SIRM. On one ingotthere are four stamps and one of them has three impe-rial busts (Gratian, Valentinian II and Theodosius?),which are repeated also on one of the five stamps on theother ingot.28 The busts of the emperors date the pro-duction of these ingots to the final quarter of the 4th

century. They were produced in the Sirmium workshop


STARINAR LVI/2006.

24 Burchardt 1949, 282; Cavalcanti 2005, 46. 25 Kuzmanovi}-Novovi} 2005, kat. 451, inv. 1894/II.26 Popovi} 2006, 15–19.27 Anti~ki portret / Classical Portraits 1987, cat. 83.28 LIMC VII, 779, nr. 1–2.

IVANA POPOVI]160

Fig. 5a–b. Tyche of Sirmium, gold ingots, Crasna

Sl. 5a–b. Tihe Sirmijuma, zlatne poluge, Krasna

a

b

and they also bear the stamps either of the masters whomade them, or the official of the imperial treasury whodeposited them in the treasury.29 The representationsof the city goddess are, however, highly schematizedon both stamps, so she can be identified only on the basisof the inscription in the segment as is, after all, the casewith representations of the city Tychai (Roma, Thessa-lonica, Naissus, Constantinopolis) on the stamps onother ingots from the end of the 4th and the beginningof the 5th century.30 Similar, very schematized imagesof city goddesses also appear on other artistic monu-ments. The city goddesses of Roma, Constantinopolis,Alexandria and Treviorum have certain individual cha-racteristics in the illustrations of the famous Calendarfrom the year 354,31 while the figurines of the goddesses(Roma, Constantinopolis, Alexandria and Antiochia)on the silver appliqués for the wagon from the renow-ned treasure from the second half of the 4th century,found at Esquiline, are schematized in their expression,so the helmet as an attribute of Roma also appears onthe personification of new Rome – Constantinople.32

However, while the iconography of Roma as a goddessseated on a throne as an Amazon with a helmet on herhead and spear and shield in her hands is establishedfirst of all after many representations on the coins33 andwas also repeated on the bronze chest from Croatia,34

the looks and attributes of other city goddesses chan-ged. The official iconography of Tyche Constantinopo-lis, that in the beginning relied on the appearance ofDea Roma, was established in 330 when on one silvermultiple minted on May 11th of that year the goddesswas depicted sitting on the throne with a mural crownon her head and cornucopia in her hand.35 Although inthe ensuing decades this goddess sometimes appearedon the coins with a flower wreath and thyrsos as well,and sometimes with a helmet and thyrsos or with muralcrown and thyrsos,36 her common attributes are themural crown, cornucopia and sceptre in her hands. Inthis way the city goddess of Constantinople is repre-sented on a bronze statuette housed today in the Metro-politan Museum in New York.37 The main elements ofthis iconography, the idealized hair style of the god-dess seated on the throne, dressed in tunic and cloakwith mural crown on head and cornucopia in the lefthand, were repeated in the representations of other citygoddesses. The attribute in the other hand is diverseand variable, so the palm branch, which the personifi-cation of Sirmium, holds in her hand on the stamp onthe gold ingots is not necessarily her regular attribute.As only the head is preserved of the marble sculptureof Tyche of Sirmium, we can assume that it was a seated

figure of the goddess, dressed in tunic and cloak, around80 cm high and with a cornucopia in the left hand. Incontrast to the high cylindrical crowns with mouldedlines depicting turrets and town gates usually worn bythe goddesses of Alexandria and Antioch38 on the appli-qués from the Esquiline treasure, or the goddess of Con-stantinople on the bronze statuette and that wreathe theheads of city goddesses from the Hellenistic39 andEarly Roman period40, resembling the calathos on theheads of the Oriental deities, the crown on the marblehead from Sirmium is of smaller height with scantily de-picted vertical mouldings, which by alternating convexand concave vertical surfaces barely sketch the battle-ments on the wall. Similarly depicted mural crownscan be seen on the heads of other city goddesses fromthe 3rd/4th centuries such as the basalt specimen fromthe museum in Damascus,41 or the image on the sardo-nyx cameo from the Kunsthistorisches Museum inVienna.42 The simplified look of the mural crown onthe head from Sirmium is a consequence of the generalmovement towards schematization in Late Roman art,as well as the mediocre quality of manufacture by alocal craftsman. Despite the plain expression withoutindividual features this head is a good example of 4th

century sculptural work where the required expressionand the dignity of the city goddess is achieved by thegaze aiming to the distance and the position of thehead, which is thrown back. Unfortunately, the headhas been found in a secondary position, so it is not pos-sible to establish whether the sculpture of the city god-dess of which it was a part decorated some structure


STARINAR LVI/2006.

29 Baratte 1978, 105–109.30 Baratte 1978, 107–108.31 Stern 1953, 124, PL. II, III.32 Dalton 1901, Nr. 332–445, PL. XX; Spätantike 1983, Kat. 84;

Aurea Roma 2000, cat. 114; Constantino 2005, cat. 82.33 Spätantike 1983, Kat. 86, 89, 92.34 Buschhausen 1971, 23, Nr. A2, Taf. 1–6.35 Alföldi 1963, 149–150, Abb. 225.36 Alföldi 1963, 150.37 Spätantike 1983, Kat. 85.38 For the shapes of mural crowns on various representations

of Tyche of Alexandria and Tyche of Antioch, cf. LIMC I, 499–494,nr. 27, 40, 49, 52, 57 and 840–851, nr. 1–13, 18, 21, 28, 93, 98, 99, 100,104, 105, 106, 110, 117, 120, 122, 123, 125, 128, 129.

39 Bieber 1955, Fig. 102 (Tyche of Antioch, work of the sculp-tor Eutychides).

40 Hofmann, Kerner 2002, 96–97, Abb. 143 (Tyche of Gerasa).41 Zouhdi 1976, 107, fig. 41. 42 Trésors des Empereurs 1994, 106, nr. 174.

IVANA POPOVI]

from the time of Constantine or from the time of hissuccessors sometime later. We know that until the endof the 4th century Sirmium maintained its role as animportant administrative, commercial and cultural cen-tre, frequented by emperors, and that some of them, likeConstantius, even prepared there for war with the bar-barians and after victory celebrated the triumph there.The restoration of the residential building in the 4th

century is also confirmed by the archaeological exca-vations at site 85.43

The fragment of an arm, most probably the shoulderand upper arm (C–266/2005), discovered in October2005 in room 21 in the eastern section of sector A alsobelongs to the group of sculptures from the same com-plex of the imperial palace in Sirmium (Fig. 6). Judg-ing by its dimensions (preserved length 12.6 cm, width7.4 cm, height 6 cm) this fragment made of white mar-ble, originating from the Eastern Mediterranean quarri-es Aphyon or Pentelicon, is part of the arm of a womanof whose appearance is unfortunately unknown.

A fragmented hand with a portion of the right arm(Fig. 7) was discovered in September of 2005 in anothersection of the residential complex, to the south of theprevious one, in sector D at site 85. Fragment (C–171/2005) of white coarse-grained marble, originating fromthe quarry Gummern near Villach in Austria (total length13 cm, cross-section 5 x 4 cm, width of hand 6.3 cm), wasfound at the absolute altitude of 79.21 meters in a layerof earth with scattered mortar and brick. Two medievalburials were also discovered in the layer and underneathwere encountered the remains of Roman architecture,frescoes and a floor with a geometric mosaic, meaningthat the hand was found in a secondary position. Thehand is clenched into a fist, but as the fingers are notclose-fitting it is obvious that they originally held a thincylindrical object. The thumb and forefinger are almostcompletely destroyed, while the three remaining fin-gers are well preserved. Although the fingers are slen-der and finely modelled it is more probable accordingto their shape and size that it was a male rather than afemale hand. The hand follows the direction of the fore-arm, but the position of the arm in relation to the bodyis not clear. It is also impossible to determine what wasin the hand. If we assume that it was the attribute of acertain deity it could be a sceptre, trident, arrow, torchor some other object of similar diameter.

Of all the fragments of marble sculptures discove-red between the years 2003 and 2005 at site 85 inSirmium only the head of Venus or Apollo was foundin situ, under the floor of the Late Roman structure,although this work of art was produced in some good

sculptural atelier, perhaps in Rome itself, during theseventies of the 1st century. On the other hand, despitethe fact that the head of Tyche of Sirmium was disco-vered in a secondary position, it is clear, according to thestylistic and iconographic characteristics, that it datesfrom the 4th century and was manufactured locally.Unfortunately, it is impossible to establish whetherboth sculptures date from the same phase of the LateRoman structure and if so, whether they adorned thevery same room. Considering that the Roman horizonsat this site were disturbed by burial pits and structuresfrom later periods, from the Great Migration to Austriantimes, it is not possible to define the position of thesculpture to whom the fragment of the arm, probablyshoulder, belonged, and its relation to the previoussculptures. These three sculptures were of approxima-tely the same size, around 80 cm, while the sculpturewith the hand holding an attribute and discovered inthe south sector of the site could have been somewhattaller. The analysis of the marble used for these sculp-tures revealed that the head of Venus or Apollo andshoulder fragment of the statue were made of marbleoriginating from quarries in the eastern Mediterranean,while the head of the Tyche of Sirmium was carvedfrom Carrara marble. On the basis of this limited sampleof the analyzed marble used for the sculptures it is notpossible to draw conclusions on the use of marble fromdistinct quarries for the carving of sculptures intendedfor certain structures at a particular period of time. Of

43 Jeremi}, Popovi} 2004, 286–287, sl. 6.

162

Fig. 6. Arm Fragment (Shoulder)

Sl. 6. Deo ruke (rame ?)

some interest is the information that the fragment ofarm with the hand holding an attribute was made ofmarble from the quarry in Gummern, whence camemost of the material used for making tombstones andsarcophagi, a fact explained by the easy and relativelycheap transport of the marble blocks along the DravaRiver to the cities on the Danube and via tributaries tosettlements on the Sava River.44 This speaks in favourof the hypothesis that the sculpture to which this armbelonged was made in the Sirmium workshop or that itarrived here as a semi-finished article from the work-shop within the Gummern quarry that supplied certainlarger centres in Pannonia with its products, mostly offunerary character.45

The preserved heads of two out of three sculpturesfrom the north-western section of the structure make itpossible to conclude that the statues are from depicteddeities of different character whose images, however,transmitted a similar message. The figure of Venus or

Apollo from the early Imperial period placed in theLate Roman residential structure confirmed the conti-nuity and legitimacy of the imperial authority, whichhad its centre in Sirmium under the protection of the cityTyche at certain points during the first half of the 4th

century. Therefore, both sculptures are testimony to im-perial propaganda and its multi-layered aspects, andindirectly also about the structure within which theywere found, thus establishing its official, more pre-cisely, palatial function.

MARBLE SCULPTURES FROM THE IMPERIAL PALACE IN SIRMIUM

44 Djuri} 2005, 76. Results of geological-archaeological ana-lysis of the stone material from Sirmium performed as a part of theprojects Stone Use in Roman Towns: Resources, Transport, Productsand Clients. Sirmium, under the directoship of Prof. Dr Bojan Djuri}from the Faculty of Phylosophy in Ljubljana will be published inthis volume of Starinar.

45 Djuri} 2005, 78–80.

163

STARINAR LVI/2006.

Fig. 7a–d. Hand and Arm Fragment

Sl. 7a–d. [aka i deo ruke

a b

c d

IVANA POPOVI]164

Alföldi 1963 – M.-R. Alföldi, Die ConstantinischeGoldprägung, Mainz, 1963.

Alföldi 1977 – A. Alföldi, Die monarhische Re-präsentation im römischen Kaiserreiche, Darmstadt,1977.

Anti~ki portret / Classical Portraits 1987 – Anti~kiportret u Jugoslaviji / Classical Portraits in Yugosla-via, Beograd, 1987.

Aurea Roma 2000 – Aurea Roma. Dalla città pa-gana alla città cristiana, Roma, 2000.

Baratte 1978 – F. Baratte, Lingots d’or et d’argenten rapport avec l’atelier de Sirmium, Sirmium VIII,1978, 99–109.

Bernoulli 1886 – J. J. Bernoulli, Die Bildnisse derrömischen Kaiser 2, I, Stuttgart, 1886.

Bieber 1955 – M. Bieber, The Sculpture of theHellenistic Age, New York, 1955.

BMC I – H. Mattingly, BMC I: Augustus to Vitel-lius, London, 1976.

Bo{kovi}, Duval, Gros, Popovi} 1974 – Dj.Bo{kovi}, N. Duval, P. Gros, V. Popovi}, Recherchesarchéologiques à Sirmium. Campagne franco-yougosla-ve de 1973, Mélanges de l’Ecole Française de Rome.Antiquité 86, 1974, 597–656.

Bordenache 1969 – G. Bordenache, Sculture gre-che e romane del Museo nazionale di antichità di Buca-rest I, Bucarest, 1969.

Brukner 1983 – O. Brukner, Prilog prou~avawuurbanog razvoja Sirmijuma, Gra|a za prou~avawaspomenika kulture Vojvodine XI–XII, 1983, 5–31.

Burchardt 1949 – J. Burchardt, The Age of Con-stantine the Great, New York, 1949.

Bushhausen 1971 – H. Bushhausen, Die spätrö-mischen Metallscrinia und frühchristlichen Reliquiare,Wiener Byzantinische Studien IX, Wien, 1971.

Cavalcanti 2005 – E. Cavalcanti, La croce e ilmonogramma di Cristo nelle narrazioni del ciclo co-stantiniano, in: Constantino, 2005, 44–55.

Constantino 2005 – Constantino il Grande. La ci-vità antica al bivio tra Occidente e Oriente (ed. A.Donati, G. Gentili), Roma, 2005.

Dalton 1901 – O. M. Dalton, Catalogue of EarlyChristian Antiquities and Objects from the ChristianEast, British Museum, London, 1901.

Dautova-Ru{evljan 1983 – V. Dautova-Ru{evljan,Rimska kamena plastika u jugoslovenskom delu provin-cije Donje Panonije (Römische Steindenkmäler aus demjugoslawischen Gebiet der Provinz Pannonia Inferior),Novi Sad, 1983.

Djuri} 2005 – B. Djuri}, Poetovio and the DanubeMarble Trade, in: Römische Städte und Festungen ander Donau (Hrsg. M. Mirkovi}), Beograd, 2005, 75–82.

Ennabli et al. 1995 – A. Ennabli, G. Fradier, J.Pérez, Carthage retrouvée, Tunis, 1995.

Ensoli 2000 – S. Ensoli, I colossi di bronzo aRoma in età tardoantica: dal Colosso di Nerone alColosso di Constantino. A proposito dei tre frammentibronzei dei Musei Capitolini, in: Aurea Roma. Dallacittà pagana alla città cristiana, Roma, 2000, 66–90.

Hannestad 1988 – N. Hannestad, Roman Art andImperial Policy, Aarus, 1988.

Hofmann, Kerner 2002 – A. Hofmann, S. Kerner(Hrsg.), Gadara-Gerasa und die Dekapolis, Mainz,2002.

Jeremi} 1993 – M. Jeremi}, The Imperial Palace(Palatium Imperiale) in: Roman Imperial Towns andPalaces in Serbia (ed. D. Srejovi}), Belgrade, 1993,90–97.

Jeremi}, Popovi} 2004 – M. Jeremi}, I. Popo-vi}, Arheolo{ka istraìvawa Sirmijuma u Srem-skoj Mitrovici na lokalitetima 79 i 85 (u peri-odu od 2000. do 2003. godine), Starinar LIII–LIV(2003–2004), 2004, 281–288.

Jovanovi} 2006 – A. Jovanovi}, Tlo Srbije –zavi~aj rimskih careva / La Serbia – patria degliimperatori romani, Beograd/Belgrado, 2006.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

BMC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LIMC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ABBREVIATIONS:

Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum,LondonLexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae,Zürich–MünchenThe Roman Imperial Coinage, London


STARINAR LVI/2006.

Kuzmanovi}-Novovi} 2005 – I. Kuzmanovi}-Novovi}, Anti~ka gliptika na teritoriji Srbije, Beograd,2005 (PhD Thesis, Ms, Faculty of Philosophy,Belgrade).

LIMC I – M.-O. Jentel, Alexandria (Alexandreia);J. Ch. Balty, Antiocheia, in: LIMC I, Zürich–München,1981, 488–494; 840–851.

LIMC II – W. Lambrinudakis, Apollon, LIMC II,Zürich–München, 1984, 183–327.

LIMC VII – I. Popovi}, Sirmium, in: LIMC VII,Zürich–München, 1994, 779.

LIMC VIII – E. M. Schmidt, Venus, in: LIMCVIII, Zürich– München, 1997, 192–230.

Lippold 1950 – G. Lippold, Die griechische Plastik,München, 1950.

Milo{evi}, Milutinovi} 1958 – A. Milo-{evi}, O. Milutinovi}, Za{titna arheolo{ka is-kopavawa u Sremskoj Mitrovici, Gra|a za prou~a-vawa spomenika kulture Vojvodine II, 1958, 5–57.

Ochsenschlager, Popovi} 1975 – E. Ochsenschla-ger, V. Popovi}, Excavation at Sirmium, Yugoslavia,Archaeology 26, 2, New York, 1975, 85–95

Petricioli 1986 – I. Petricioli, Zadarski zlatar TomaMartinov, Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta – Zadar, Raz-dio povjesnih znanosti 25 (12) (1985/86), 1986,149–159.

Popovi} 1969 – V. Popovi}, Sirmium, ville impé-riale, Akten des VII Internationalen Kongresses fürChristiche Archäologie (Trier, 1965), Roma, 1969,665–675.

Popovi} 1971 – V. Popovi}, A Survey of the Topo-graphy and Urban Organization of Sirmium in the LateEmpire, Sirmium I, 1971, 119–148.

Popovi}, Ochsenschlager 1976 – V. Popovi}, E.Ochsenschlager, Der spätkaiserzeitliche Hippodrom inSirmium, Germania 54, 1976, 156–181.

Popovi} 2001 – I. Popovi}, Imitatio deorumkao motiv na nakitu iz Gorwe Mezije (sum: ImitatioDeorum as a Motif in Jewelry from Upper Moesia),Vestigatio Vetustatis, Beograd, 2001, 375–389.

Popovi} 2006 – I. Popovi}, Roma Aeterna interSavum et Danubium. Works of Roman Art from thePetrovi}-Vesi} Collection, Belgrade, 2006.

RIC I – H. Mattingly, E. A. Sydenham, RIC I: Augu-stus to Vitellius, London, 1923.

Spätantike 1983 – Spätantike und frühes Christen-tum, Frankfurt am Main, 1983.

Srejovi}, Cermanovi}-Kuzmanovi} 1987 –D. Srejovi}, A. Cermanovi}-Kuzmanovi}, Rimskaskulptura u Srbiji (Roman Sculpture in Serbia), Beo-grad, 1987.

Stern 1953 – H. Stern, Le Calendrier de 354, Paris,1953.

Trésors des Empereurs 1994 – Trésors des Empe-reurs d’Autriche (ed. A. Bernhard-Walcher, J. Desautels,K. Gschwantler, B. Kriller, G. J. Kugler, W. Oberleitner),Vienne, 1994.

Zouhdi 1976 – B. Zouhdi, Musée national de Da-mas. Department des antiquités Syriennes aux époquesgrecque, romaine et byzantine, Damas, 1976.

IVANA POPOVI]166

Tokom sistematskih arheolo{kih iskopavawa, realizova-nih u periodu od 2003. do 2005. godine na lokalitetu 85 Sir-mijuma, za koji se sa velikom dozom sigurnosti pretposta-vqa da predstavqa deo kompleksa carske palate, otkrivenoje nekoliko fragmenata mermernih skulptura. Najzana~aj-nije su dve skoro u potpunosti o~uvane glave boànstava.

Glava mlade osobe od mle~no belog sitnozrnastog mer-mera, izrazito fine fakture, poreklom sa Pentelikona,otkrivena je ispod kasnoanti~kog poda u prostoriji 7 re-zidencijalnog objekta. Skulptura izuzetnog kvaliteta izdruge polovine I veka, predstavqa boànstvo, najverovat-nije Veneru ili Apolona. Druga glava od Karara mermera,skulptorski rad iz IV veka, na|ena je u sekundarnom polo-àju, a na osnovu gradske krune na glavi, identifikovanaje kao Tihe Sirmijuma.

Pored glava boànstava, u istom delu kompleksa otkri-ven je i fragment ruke, najverovatnije ramena, neke skulptu-re. U ju`nom sektoru kompleksa na|ena je jedna fragmento-vana ruka sa delimi~no o~uvanom {akom, u kojoj se, obuhva-}en savijenim prstima, nalazio neki atribut.

Ne moè se, naàlost, utvrditi da li skulpture boàn-stava pripadaju istoj fazi kasnoanti~kog objekta, a ako je to

ta~no, da li su ukra{avale istu prostoriju. S obzirom da surimski slojevi na lokalitetu poreme}eni ukopima grobovai objekata iz kasnijih perioda, od seobe naroda do austrij-skog vremena, ne moè se definisati poloàj skulpture ko-joj je pripadao deo ruke, verovatno ramena, kao ni wen odnosprema prethodnim. Ove tri skulpture bile su pribli`noiste visine, oko 80 cm, dok je skulptura kojoj je pripadala{aka koja drì neki atribut, otkrivena u ju`nom sektorulokaliteta, mogla biti ne{to vi{a.

Na osnovu sa~uvanih glava dve od tri skulpture iz se-verozapadnog dela objekta, bilo je mogu}e zakqu~iti da oneprikazuju boànstva razli~itog karaktera, ~ije predstave,me|utim, prenose sli~nu poruku. Figurom Venere ili Apo-lona iz ranocarskog perioda, postavqenom u kasnoanti~-kom rezidencijalnom objektu, potvr|ivao se kontinuitet ilegitimitet carske vlasti, kojoj je, u pojedinim momentimatokom prve polovine IV veka, sedi{te bilo u Sirmijumu,pod okriqem gradske Tihe. Dakle, obe skulpture predstav-qaju svedo~anstvo o carskoj propagandi i wenim vi{esloj-nim aspektima, a, indirektno, i o objektu u kojem su na|ene,potvr|uju}i wegovu oficijalnu, preciznije re~eno, pala-tijalnu funkciju.

Rezime: IVANA POPOVI], Arheolo{ki institut, Beograd

MERMERNE SKULPTURE IZ CARSKE PALATEU SIRMIJUMU

Documents

Marble sculptures from the imperial palace in Sirmium