Original scientific paper
Studies of the Issaic imperial group (II) - The Issaic loricatus in the Archaeological Museum in Zagreb
Dražen Maršić
orcid.org/0000-0003-4582-7792
; University in Zadar, Department for archaeology, Zadar, Croatia
Abstract
Following the article published in the 10th volume of this magazine, stating that the opinion of some scientist that the work by Cyriacus of Ancona provides grounds for conclusion that on the island of Vis, at the time of his visit there in 1436, visible was the base of a bronze sculpture of Augustus, is mistaken - because he actually describes a Tiberius' as (assarius) coin of the so called Providentia emission - this paper continues studying the Issaic group of sculptures. The topic is the sculpture in armour kept in the Archaeological Museum in Zagreb (Fig. 1-2), of 1.22 m in the maximum preserved height, this meaning
that it was produced in life size. A careful study of the technology shows that the sculpture was produced in several pieces, of which three are clearly recognised: the preserved part with the now missing integrally made lower legs (1), the right arm (2) and the head with
a shallow tenon (fitting wedge). The statue is supported on the left leg, whereas the right one is bent in the knee and slightly pulled back. The right arm was obviously risen up, like a salute, or was supported on an attribute (sceptre, spear), whereas the left one is lowered down and slightly bent in the elbow, its wrist pushed forward.
The sculpture clothing comprises basic short tunics, protective leather lining with single- lined shoulder and thigh straps, lorica musculata with double-lined hinged pteriges and cloak (paludamentum). The cloak drapery design is conditioned by the position of the support and the general posture pattern of the statue. Falling from the left shoulder down the back, the drapery passes from the inner towards the outer side of the upper arm. No attribute could have existed in or over the left arm. The cloak and the standing leg are at the same, left, side this making the position of the support easy to recognise, and a small trace
of it is preserved behind the left knee, too, suggesting it followed it all the way down to the base. Running down from the left arm, the drapery could have rested on the support, wherefore the arm could have even been made monolithic. This is upheld by the fracture at the outer side of the support, most probably resulting from breaking off of a «branch»
of the stump that made the transversal connection with the drapery. The part with the drapery hanging down the left side could have been made of a larger number of segments connected with wedges, producing the impression of an organic unity.
The relief decoration of the armour is conceived from two supraposed motives. Between the shoulder straps is the gorgoneion. The central image is a Roman tropaeum with floating Victorias hanging impounded weapons (Fig. 1). In spite of the wear, it is noted that the hair style of the Victoria at right (Fig. 5) is entirely comparable to the well known
loricatus of Solin (Fig. 6). The tropaeum is shown as a tree with cut branches, dressed in an armour of the Roman type and a mantle thrown from the chest backward, but at the top it is covered with a cap, not a helmet. Under it, on the weaponry seated are two barbarians, turned back. The armour ends with double-lined pteriges with an imitated hinge construction (Fig. 1-2). In the upper row of the pteriges (Fig. 1) the central motive is the barded head of a male deity or personification, at the left side of which lined are heads of Gorgon, an elephant and
a griffon or lynx, with a hanging palmetto, and at the right side there are another elephant and ram heads and a rosette. The lower pteriges carry three-leaf palmettos, and just on one of them there is a rosette. The back pteriges have rougher decorations (Fig. 2). In the upper
row there are an eagle and a ram heads, a rosette with two rows of leaves and a rosette with a single row of leaves, a bearded man's head and a ram head. In the lower row, again all the pteriges are decorated with three-leaf palmettos. So far the fact that there are well preserved traces of colouring (Fig. 2 and 4) on the statue has not been noticed, which is the main reason for writing this paper. The remains of the
colours are mutually clearly distinctive, wherefore the author holds that this is beyond any discussion. Even if the stains on the back armour and other traces are possibly attributed to the rust on the stone, the weather or a natural process of colouring with earth ochre in
the underground environment - that would certainly make everyone's first association - it would be impossible to explain three different hues present on three different parts of the clothing! On two endings of the leather pteriges noticed are traces of the darkest colour
present on the statue, obviously combined with a lighter hue (Fig. 3, d1; d = detail). It appears in traces on some more endings of the pteriges on the right side, whereas the very pteriges are exposed to the natural colour of the marble (Fig. 3, d2). The crucial detail are
the surfaces of other «leather» pteriges above the ribbon endings with a darker patina, that are, compared to the faded ones at right, brown or, rather, «earth» coloured (Fig. 3, d3).
These details clearly show these to be traces of a colouring, wherefore it is self-understood that the armour surface, that is, the entire clothing, must have been coloured as well. Therefore,
the rust colour stains on the back part of the armour and a part of the pteriges are also remains of polychromy (Fig. 3, d4).
Although the author did not use «modern» imaging methods, nor is he able to offer chemical analyses of pigment samples, in this paper he presents some preliminary observations on possible recognising of colours and their origin. He deems the «brown» to have been made with earth pigment, most probably (pale) brown ochre, and the armour colour with either yellow based on plumb oxide or yellowish-brown ochre. Using the former colour would be logical because the natural colour of leather is more of less brownish-yellow due to the brown melanin as its main pigment, whereas yellow or golden are natural surface hues of bronze that the breast armour is mostly made of. After all, yellow and golden colours have a long history of use in the Classical époque. The band-like endings of the pteriges are actually coloured in two colours that the author speculates to have been blue or a combination of blue and red, and golden. Colouring of other parts of the statue (tunic, cloak, incarnate) is a question difficult to give any eaningful answer, but it is certain that parts of the clothing were coloured as well. The above assumptions, of course, can be proven
only with in depth chemical and physical analyses. Although the prevailing opinion is that the statue could belong to Tiberius (W. Schmid, N. Cambi, S. Ivčević) given the armour iconography and attribution of another, semi-naked, Issaic sculpture to Augustus (B. Gabričević), there are no conclusive proofs for such an interpretation.
Namely, among the Iulio-Claudian statues no armoured statue of Tiberius has been preserved, and only one armoured bust from Ephesus is available to us. On the other hand, if such statues of Tiberius are to be expected, and with the central theme of tropaeum, these are to be expected just in Illyricum, where at that time the crown-prince won his
greatest victory in the Great Illyrian Revolt. In the interpretation and attribution of this sculpture, choosing and production of the motives of tropaeum is still an important and the starting point. The way of shaping and dressing the tropaeum, the shape of the shield and the style of presenting Victorias, the central image on the armour, can be clearly related to the same motif on a sculpture from Solin (compare Fig. 5 and 6). However, some differences are present as well: on the Issaic 21 sculpture the tropaeum is dressed in the armour of the Roman type, on the other it is a tunic; the cover of the Issaic tropaeum is a simple cap, and on the statue of Solin it is a cap with a transversal band; below the Issaic tropaeum squat imprisoned barbarians, and on the sculpture of Solin these do not exist. Therefore the Schmid's qualification of presentation of the tropaeum on the Issaic sculpture being a «replica» of that of Solin is exaggerated. These are rather two «versions» of the same sculptural motif of tropaeum or even made from the same model. The two sculptures also have different impostations, different presentations of the leather lining and the hinged pteriges decoration. The chronological relation between the two sculptures remains uncertain. The Schmid's dating of the Issaic sculpture to the later Tiberius' époque (provided that this is Tiberius) is not backed by the well known historic circumstances from which result that the Issaic group was almost certainly produced in the beginning of the Tiberius' principate. The attribution key question is whether the tropaeum
version with the barbarians was chosen for programmatic or «copystic» reasons? The former possibility (i.e., attribution to Tiberius) is more probable, and this because we have no sculpture of a prince of the Tiberius' time having a like motif of the tropaeum on his armour.
Less dubious is the qualitative qualification of the Issaic statue relative to the Salonitan one (Fig. 1 and 6). The Stemmer's assessment of a «provincial and simple work» is correct and in the author's opinion indicates a local workshop origin, that is, the possibility of the
statue having been made in Issa or Salona. Perhaps the entire original Issaic group is of the same origin. In any case, the group was formed around Augustus and by its nature should have included a Tiberius' sculpture as well, regardless of the matter of the armoured sculpture
attribution. It is quite certain that the group did include other sculptures of the Iulians and the Claudians from the imperial house and placed there during the Tiberius' principate.
One of them is certainly Germanicus, for dynastic reasons, and another one his adoptive brother, Drusus the Younger, for who and based on the discovered built-in inscription (and the Tacitus' claim) we can assume he visited the island in the late 19 or the early 20 AD. Accommodating the crown prince, and doing this in the second part of stay of the current
heir to the throne, certainly could have provided reasons for placing a statue, aimed to strengthening future relationships. If not at the moment of the visit, the sculpture could have been placed posthumously. A useful analogy about this matter is offered by a rusus'
portrait discovered in Osor (Apsorus) on Cres island, most probably placed during or after the prince's visit to Dalmatia.
Keywords
Issa; loricatus; colours; polychromy; Tiberius; tropaeum; Drusus the Younger
Hrčak ID:
247199
URI
Publication date:
1.12.2020.
Visits: 1.345 *