These two very different materials are treated together here because they
were the most important, most common, and most competitive materials
used for both the honorific statue and portrait displayed in a private
context. In the current context, any white stone, marble or (technically
more correct) limestone, which takes a polish is understood as
marble. Marble is by far the dominant surviving material for portraits.
However, although it was quarried around most of the Mediterranean,
the high quality marble which was desired for statuary was only supplied
by a relatively limited number of quarries in Italy, Greece and Asia
Minor.

The demand for marble for the public building programmes
in Rome and provincial towns throughout the Empire increased enormously
during the late first century B.C. and the early first century A.D.
and this is probably the main reason why most of the large quarries came
under imperial control during the first half of the first century A.D. The
control and efficient organization of the quarries not only secured the supply of marble but it was also profitable for the imperial administration.
In several quarries crucial evidence for the quarry’s administration
has been found and much recent work has been done on the
marble trade. There is substantial evidence for the import, storage
and carving of marble in Rome. With the exploitation of the quarries
in Luni at the end of the Republican period it can be assumed that
marble gradually came to play a more significant role as a portrait material
than painting, bronze and limestone in Rome and Italy.The extent
to which this was the case is very difficult to assess however because
bronze was liable to be recycled and paintings rarely survive.
But it may be indirectly read in the relatively large number of portraits
being pieced together from several separate pieces of marble during
the Republic and the Early Empire. Piecing of course also
occurs in later periods particularly in areas outside the mainstream of
the marble trade, but also in Rome itself.

Colossal statues were oftenmade as acroliths with only the extremities of head, hands and feet being in marble. And piecing is not the only indication that marble was a precious material in the early periods. Inscriptions commemorating Hellenistic kings explicitly mention that the statues with cultic overtones representing kings were of marble. Passages in Pliny the
Elder also indicate that marble was considered a more exclusive material,
suitable for gods; although bronze had originally figured in statues
of the gods and characters from the heroic world, marble was now used,
especially for honorific statues. The inscription mentioning the award
of nine honorific statues to L. Volusius Saturninus is discussed in the
Addendum. For six of the statues no material is mentioned at all. Yet
the inscription suggests that those statues to be set up in temples were
of marble, perhaps reminiscent of the material from which cult images
and images of Hellenistic rulers were made. The image of Saturninus to
be set up in the Roman Forum was in bronze. But an indicator that
bronze was perhaps the most commonly used material for portraits during
the first century A.D. is the proportionally large quantity of bronze
portraits in miniature from the Iulio-Claudian period.

From the second century A.D. onwards there is significant evidence
for the dominant use of marble in portraiture. This may be seen not
only in the high number of marble portraits preserved in and from
Rome and other Italian cities, but also in technical improvements which
date from that period. The bust had become an important perhaps even
dominant format during the late first and early second centuries A.D.
In order to emphasise the face and hair sculptors developed new skills
in treating marble which allowed for visual effects that could not be
achieved in any other material. These efforts culminated
in large drilled pupils, extensively drilled hairstyles and highly polished skin, all of which became characteristic of portraiture of the second
century.
As many second-century marble portraits were cut with busts or
mounted on them they may to a large extent therefore have been intended
for display inside a building. This raises the question of whether
marble was indeed also the most desired material for the honorific statue
set up in a public square. Evidence from inscriptions in municipal towns
in Italy suggests that bronze or rather gilded bronze was at the top of
the hierarchy for honorific statues also in the second century. Examination
of the top of honorific statue bases from the fora of Timgad and
Djemila in Africa Consularis has shown that the majority of statues
were of bronze. There does therefore seem to be a discrepancy between
the material preferred for honorific statues and portraiture in general.
The tomb inscription commemorating Sextus Julius Aquilia in Gaul quoted
above, suggests that in second-century A.D. Gaul imported
marble ranked above bronze and bronze ranked above Luna marble. It
must be stressed, however, that the picture may vary chronologically
and geographically. The above-mentioned inscription from Odemisch
in Asia Minor specifying the type of white marble to be used for two
portraits and the passage in Pausanias concerning statues of Hadrian in
Thasian stone suggest that some viewers at least were able to distinguish
between white marbles and to appreciate marble of particularly high
quality. The Thasian marble had a special appeal because of its striking
white colour and shine.
Stone sculptures were in general coloured. Recent research and exhibitions
in Munich, Copenhagen and the Vatican have highlighted the
use of colour in ancient sculpture. And many marble portraits show the
remains of such decoration. The bust of an Antonine youth,
G. Volcacius Myropnous, had traces of gilding in the hair when it was
discovered in a tomb on the Isola Sacra by Ostia and we are told that
Lucius Verus powdered his hair with gold dust. Perhaps gilding was
particularly relevant during the second century A.D. era of luxury and
“elegantia”. Typically paint is preserved on the lips and in the eyes, with
eyelids, eyebrows and details of the iris and pupils being picked out.
There is good reason to assume that paint was routinely applied to
Roman portraiture. The translucency of marble allowed for experimentation

with different ‘depths’ of colour so that a compact tight colouring could be avoided and the carving and polishing were allowed to shine through the paint.
Paint pigments mixed into wax would make the polished surface of cheeks
and forehead even more radiant, and the wax would emphasize the contrast
between hair and skin. On the body figures paint highlighted the
elements that designated rank, as well as patterns in the material.

The colour of the toga, its border and the stripes on the tunica would emphasize the rank of the person portrayed. On the breastplate of a cuirassed
statue, paint could illuminate details referring to historical or mythical
events that were relevant to the political life of the subject, as has recently
been demonstrated on the statue of Augustus from Prima Porta. In women’s costumes woven patterns could express foreign
influences and sophistication, luxury and wealth or, by their absence,
simply modesty. Colours would not only emphasize details of rank and
status and create a more life-like (though not necessarily more realistic)
image of the subject; they would also enhance the plastic form of the
portrait. It must be remembered that these portraits had an active social
role. They were decorated with garlands and crowns, and were
cared for, perhaps over generations. Faded wax and paint would have
been retouched so that the statues continued to look ‘fresh’. Similarly,
many bronze statues would have a polychrome appearance with their
inlaid eyes and gilding. They too were maintained and, when needed
re-gilded, and in Egypt a special tax was imposed to finance the maintenance
of imperial statues. A painted or gilded surface was probably
continuously in need of maintenance.

• Share
• Tweet
• "&title=""">