Bartman - Roman Female Hairstyles

Hair and the Artifice of Roman Female Adornment Author(s): Elizabeth Bartman Source: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol.
105, No. 1 (Jan., 2001), pp. 1-25 Published by: Archaeological Institute of America Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/507324 . Accessed: 26/07/2013 06:34
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of Archaeology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 71.172.216.101 on Fri, 26 Jul 2013 06:34:08 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Hair and the Artifice of Roman Female Adornment

ELIZABETH BARTMAN
Abstract Roman female hairstyleswere highly individualized, gendered culturalmarkers,in manycases havinga physiognomic role in a portraitlike the face itself. The paucity of survivingorganic remains requires that we consult artistic representations in painting and sculpture to assess the forms of these hairstyles.Despite their often fanciful conceptions, they do not represent artistic inventions, but rather elaborate coiffures made with real human hair,usually the sitter'sown. Thus wig wearing may not have been as common as has been imagined; the practice of supplyingmarble statueswith removablewigs in contrasting stone is not in itself evidence for the wearingof wigs in antiquity.Modern commentaryon the hairstyles worn by Roman women assumes frequent changes of hairstyle, an interpretation based on a misreading of the ancient evidence and essentialistviewsof
women.*
She knows her man, and when you rant and swear, can draw you to her with a single hair. Persius Satyrica5.246 (trans.John Dryden) In ancient Rome hair was a major determinant of a woman's physical attractiveness and was thus deemed worthy of considerable exertions to create a flattering appearance. Just as every face had its own physiognomy, so did female hairstyles varyalong with looks, a woman's age, social status, and public role influenced her choice of coiffure. This variety has proved invaluable in identifying historical individuals, thereby enabling scholars to construct a chronology of Roman portraiture and, by extension, Roman art. Yet notwithstanding their pivotal role in the historiography of Roman portraiture, ancient hairstyles remain poorly understood. Like all organic remains, human hair rarely survives in archaeological sites; in lieu of direct material evidence, we must turn to artistic representations in painting and sculpture in order to reconstruct Roman coiffures. Freestanding sculpted portrait statues and busts provide the
richest source of information; because of their large numbers and detailed execution, sculpted portraits from the second to third centuries C.E. will be the focus of this article, while the parallel evidence of painting, coins, and gems will be admitted only occasionally. This article does not intend to survey the development of Roman female hairstyles' but rather seeks to illuminate their social and cultural implications in the portrait: as gender marker, manifestation of cultus (culture), and physiognomic sign no less expressive of personal identity than the face itself. Whether crafted by household slaves or the wearer herself, a woman's hairstyle conveyed her individuality. Except for some overtly divinizing elements, the female coiffures that are recorded in sculpted portraits reproduce real styles that could be made with human hair. That many female hairstyles toy with that reality by a physical size or elaboration that implies artificiality is a paradox; the illusion of artifice reflects, and also contributes to, the long-standing association in antiquity of ornament with the feminine realm. Typically commissioned as honorific works, lifesize public portraits aimed to depict the sitter in a positive mode, as a virtuous individual as well as an example of the best of her sex. Hence we can use the portrait and one of its primary features, hair, in order to reconstruct ancient attitudes about gender. While men's hair may have required no less daily attention than women's, the styling as well as the social response it engendered were radically different. For example, lengthy grooming sessions that were tolerated and even encouraged for women were taboo for men, and throughout most of the period under consideration women's hair was carved according to different techniques than Roman sculptors used for men's. One thing both sexes had in common, however, was the use of false hair, whether "extender" tresses or full wigs. Hair came to be im-
* I thankBettinaBergmann, MarJane Fejfer,and Miranda vin for their close readingsof this text in its earlierdrafts,and alsoAJA's twoanonymousreadersforastutecriticism. Barbara AntoniBorg,CoreyBrennan,John Collis,ElizabethHartley, AmericanJournal ofArchaeology105 (2001) 1-25 1
ettaViacava, and GregWoolfassistedon specificpoints. For such treatments,see Virgili1989, 37-62; Mannsperger 1998; Steininger 1912, 2135-50.
ELIZABETH BARTMAN
THE "GENDERED GRAMMAR" OF HAIR
[AJA 105
Fig. 1. Head of Elabagalus, restored as a woman, Ripon, fir Antike Plastik, NewbyHall 20, front. (Forschungsarchiv Universitat zu K6ln, neg. no. 1302/5) ported from the far corners of the Mediterranean, its trade representing a commodification of body parts that symbolized Rome's dominance. Despite the intrinsic flattery of the portrait (a kind of doubled flattery, first in the hairstyle itself and then in the portrait representation as a whole), modern scholars have often imputed negative connotations to female hair. Whether taking at face value satirical and moralizing texts about women's coiffures or imposing a contemporary and anachronistic perspective onto the imagery, they have misinterpreted the evidence and thus impeded our understanding of the many meanings women's hair held for the Romans. This article offers a corrective.
At its most basic level, a woman's hairstyle signaled her female sex. How hair functioned as a gender marker in Roman portraiture can be seen in the complicated history of a draped female bust bought in Italy for Newby Hall in the 18th century (fig. 1).2 Like most of the ancient marbles acquired by English collectors at that time, the bust has been heavily restored. Crisscrossed by lines of breakage and repair, it is today a composite of old and new: the ancient face, really a mask, is completely surrounded by marble attachments added in modern times.3 Accomplished a carver as the restorer was, however, he erred in bestowing a female sex upon his subject. Alongside the soft, unstubbled chin and the curvaceous lips pressed together in a demure smile, the lady has sideburns. Leaving this distinctly male feature intact (as if hoping it would be mistaken for long locks falling onto the face), while adding a woman's coiffure and chiton, the restorer transformed a male face-possibly that of the thirdcentury emperor Elagabalus4-into a female bust. But was the restorer's mistake unintended? His reworking of the hairline instills doubt. If indeed the original face represented Elagabalus, it had short comma-shaped curls that fell in an irregular pattern onto the forehead. In its female incarnation, however, the face sports short curls arranged quasi-symmetrically and divided in the middle.5 Intuitively, the restorer has acknowleged one of the primary features of female appearance in ancient Rome: long hair divided by a center part. To be sure, the center part was not popular among all women at all times in Rome's history, but it is readily apparent that it is rarely worn by Roman men.6 Given that the hair of men and women has no have hair that is neibiological difference-women ther intrinsically thicker nor curlier than men'sthe adoption of the center-part coiffure by one sex and not the other is a practice determined solely by culture.7 In the same vein, women's hair tends to be more neatly and symmetrically coiffed than men's; stray wisps of hair at the nape of the neck could easily have been reconfigured into the arrangement presentlyseen on the Newbyhead. 6The exception, hairstyles of some barbarian men, is telling. Caligula has a slightly indented hairlock in his most prev-
2 Ripon, Newby Hall 20; EA 3121 (F. Poulsen). The 1974 edition of the guidebook (p. 16) sold at the house simply states,
"Bust of a Romanlady.RomanImperialperiod." 3The crown,neck, and bust havebeen restored,as has the
nose. A lateral break splits the ancient face into two parts. 4 Frederick Poulsen (supra n. 2) first suggested Elagabalus
as the possiblesubjectof the face, althoughhe rightlypointed out the deviationsfrom the emperor'ssingle knownportrait type.Since then an unfinishedportraitin Oslo, closer iconographically to the Newby head and conjectured to represent Elagabalus, has come to light. See Sande 1991, 78, no. 64, pl. 63; Fittschen and Zanker 1985, 116 Beil. 83. 5Because they are fairly thick, Elagabalus's forehead curls
alent portraittype (Boschung1989, pl. 4), but no properRoman male wearsa deep center parton the crownfromwhich in "barbershop long locksflattenout sideways quartet" style. 7 Seeing the center partas a vestigeof the archaicpractice of partingthe bride'shairwitha spear(Ov.Fast.2.560;Festus, s.v. "caelibari is tempting but probablyerroneous, as hasta"), even Diana, a virgin goddesses,wore her hair parted in the middle.
2001]
HAIR AND THE ARTIFICE OF ROMAN FEMALE ADORNMENT
occasionally escape the hairdresser's control, but in real life hairpins, nets, and snoods would have kept female locks firmly in place. Such accessories ensured that women's coiffures had none of the lively movement that animated men's hair (perhaps in deliberate evocation of Alexander's leonine locks). Whereas a man's hair implied his active role, a woman's connoted passivity. With the addition of costly ornaments of gold or ivory, the female coiffure connoted wealth and luxury. Roman sculptors also used formal style and carving techniques to gender the coiffures of men and women. In the Imperial period under discussion here, the physical appearance of the hair itself differed in female and male portraits.8 (Interestingly, the eyebrows of both sexes, which also were subjected to intensive grooming, tended to be treated in the same manner.)' In the Flavian period of the late first century C.E., for example, most men have hair trimmed short on the crown and lacking strong plasticity, while their womenfolk go to the opposite extreme, wearing dramatic curls carved with strong chiaroscuro effects. During the next few decades, simple straight hair cut with forehead bangs is popular with Trajanic men, while women sweep their locks off the face into towering mounds. From the mid-second to the early third century C.E., the practice is reversed: male hair on both face and crown is densely textured by deep drilling, while the female is typically rendered more simply with superficial, noninvasive chiselwork."' These changes are no doubt linked to the different types of arrangements worn by men and women in real life, but neither hairdressing nor genetics offers a satisfactory explanation for the different treatments. Rather, we must view these formal distinctions as the perhaps unconscious evocation of Roman notions of gender: however men looked, women had to look different, even if that difference was achieved by a deliberate falsification of visual appearances. That these distinctions occurred during an extended period of high technical achievement in Roman is, artistic ineptness canportrait production-that not bear the blame-underscores their participa-
tion in a process of gendering male and female imagery. As a rule Roman women had longer hair than men. In metropolitan Rome and the West, men usually wore their hair short on the crown and, when fashion or funeral ritual dictated, also on the face. (In the Greek East a different ideal, that of the bearded, long-haired philosopher, whose intellectual distractions led him to ignore his grooming, prevailed, but even there male hair was regularly shorter than female.) " The relatively short hair of men, however, did not necessarily lessen the time spent on grooming. Trimming a head of hair and shaving, the rule in Rome since the second century B.C.E., were daily occupations, often performed at commercial barbering establishments. Later in the Antonine and Severan periods, full beards and longer hair on the crown were standard among males, but a carefully scissored contour avoided the impression of extravagance. (Note that the last Antonine emperor, Commodus, is condemned not for his longish curls but for his habit of sprinkling gold dust on them, a divine pretension.)'2 Apart from routine upkeep, however, the proper Roman male was advised to avoid excessive attention to his hair; the man who curled and annointed his locks risked scorn for appearing effeminate.13 Such practices had long been associated with Eastern luxury and were highly suspect at Rome; thus a supposedly womanly interest in grooming was a standard accusation in political invective.'4 Because of these sentiments, baldness posed a delicate problem for the male, who wished to improve his appearance but also preserve his manliness-Julius Caesar masked his receding hairline with a wreath, while Domitian and Otho wore wigs.'5 Although the use of cosmetics to enhance a woman's face and body triggered vitriolic attacks from male writers,'6 female hairdressing, notwithstanding its daily execution, roused scant criticism. Satirists such asJuvenal do take aim at female coiffures, but their quips are relatively mild.17 In ancient Rome, as in many other societies, women typically had more "symbolic capital" invested in their hair
See the commentsof Fittschenand Zanker1983,84, 109. Fittschen (1978, 37) makes the same point about different technicalmodes. "'The options ranged from a cleanly plucked brow to one so furrythat it makesa "V" over the bridge of the nose. Clearly, the brow's appearance reflected fashion, not genetics. Shaping would have been achievedwith a razoror tweezers, implementsattestedarchaeologically(Virgilietal. 1990, 101, no. 163.) of the relevant sectionsof Fittschen andZank"'Comparison er (1985 and 1983) will make these contrastsclear. " Zanker 1995, 198-266.
"2Herodian 1.7.5. "'Ov.Arsam.1.51;Gell.NA6.12, Sen. Controv. 2, preface2; Mart.10.65.8;see Gleason 1995, 108-9. 4 Suetonius'scomments about the hairdressinghabitsof JuliusCaesar(Iul. 45) and Nero (Ner. 51) intend such insinuations. On the Easternconnotations of luxury in the early Imperialperiod,see Griffin1976.On the classicalfifth-century manifestationsof the sentiment, see Hall 1989. ' Caesar: Suet. lul. 45.2;Domitian:Suet. Dom.18;Morgan
1997; Otho: Suet. Otho 11.
6 Chronicled Richlin 1995. by '7Juv.6.502; Stat. Silv. 1.2.113.
ELIZABETH BARTMAN
[AJA 105
Fig. 2. Stucco relief, Carthage,Musee Nationale de Carthage. (Reproduced from Fittschen 1993, pl. 25a) than did men, and few protested the attention paid to it. For one thing, a woman typically dressed her hair in the privacy of her home. For another, the intrinsic eroticism of hair made it appealing to most male observers and writers (the Christian moralists, discussed below, are an important exception). Hair's erotic potential is a recurrent theme of literature from the period, whether explicit, as in the poetry of the Latin love elegists, or implicit, as in the advice for styling and coloring proferred by Ovid and others.18 Hairdressing and its necessary accompaniment, mirror gazing, were regarded as distinctly feminine activities. In fact, hairdressing scenes appear so frequently in the context of women's tomb reliefs (see fig. 2), an obvious site for emblematic imagery, that they may be said to represent the essence of female life itself.'9 That changes in female hairstyle were markers of major Roman lifecycle events (e.g., the seni crines of the bride and the loosened hair of the funeral mourner) adds a special poignancy to the toilet scenes from the tomb context. Because of its wide resonances, however, hairdressing is a far more charged subject than the proferring of the jewelry box to the seated matron on Classical Greek grave stelae, its closest functional analogy.20 When combined with selfreflection in the mirror, hairdressing evoked a web of associations: leisure, artifice, female behavior, and, as we shall see, cultus. Ethnographers and anthropologists have long recognized hair's key role not only in creating gender but also in symbolizing the relationship between individuals and the society to which they belong.
'8Loveelegies: Prop. 1.2.1, 1.15.5;Hor. Carm. 1.5.4;Epod. 11.28. Advice:Ov. Arsam.3.133-55; also Gal. On thePartsof Medicine 1; Plin. HN 12.76, 28.191; Mart. 3.43, 14.27. The
emperorDomitianauthoreda book abouthair,whichhasnot survived(Suet.Dom.18). 19 Fora catalogueof thesescenes,see Kampen1981,149-52.
2001]
The comment, "Control of hair by cutting, grooming, braiding, enclosing in a turban, or other means indicates an individual's participation in social structures within a publicly defined role and that individual's submission to social control,"21 while observed about South Asian cultures, also applies to ancient Rome. Roland Smith has recently discussed the various hairdressing options available to second-century C.E. men in the Greek East for conveying their cultural values.22 Compared to men, ancient women's coiffures made few external references, largely because of a lack of suitable iconographic precedents that could be quoted. In the Roman world, however, hair's erotic potential made it a lightening rod for anxieties about female sexuality and public behavior. Hence the ancient sources preserve many references to veiling and other strictures regarding female headwear.23 We also see a marked difference in the hairstyling deemed acceptible for preadolescent girls, such as long hair cascading loosely onto the back, compared to that for sexually mature women-equally long hair but controlled through wrapping, tying, and braiding (fig. 3).24 Hair on the body and pubis, one of a human being's secondary sex characteristics, is never depicted in statues of women and may have been removed from real bodies by depilation. Hair on the head was considered a major determinant of a woman's physical attractiveness, but its appearance derived as much from culture (cultus) as from nature.25 From the circular "snail" curls worn by Agrippina the Younger to the towering mounds crowning Flavian- and Trajanic-era ladies, Roman female coiffures bespeak human intervention.26 When looking at sculptural renderings today, we frame our discussion of cultus largely in terms of the shape and construction of Roman coiffures, but we should recall that artificial color provided by dye, bleach, or powder, and the sheen acquired by gel or pomade, also advertised the hairdresser's effort. By contrast, we today favor the so-called natural look in female hairdressing; whether styled in an Afro or Princess Diana bob, contemporary women's scenes Schmaltz 1983; Reilly 1992. Jewelry-proffering the monuments such as in late Roman ceiling paintappear ings from Trier,where they have a decorativeratherthan funeralpurpose. 21 Olivelle 1998, 39; Sieber and Herreman (2000) discuss parallelpracticesin Africa.See also Hallpike1987, 155.
20
Fig. 3. Statue group of mother and daughter, Chatsworth, front. (Forschungsarchiv ffir Antike Plastik, Universitat zu Koln, neg. no. 1040/9) hair professes to be close to its natural state. (This is patently untrue, of course, for the waves and shine of the "natural" hairdo often require the substan-
22Smith 1998.
23 Levine 1995,109;Kraemer1992, 146-7; MacMyerowitz Mullen 1980, 208-18. Devonshire Collection; 24Chatsworth, Boschunget al. 1997, 46-50, no. 45.
25For discussion of these paradoxes, see Myerowitz Levine 1995. Some believe that hair never exists in a natural state but is always a product of culture (Hiltebeitel 1998, 7). 26Inone of Roman portraiture's exceptions, images of Livia made late in her lifetime depict her wearing a center-parted, waved coiffure that derives not from any contemporary style but from the classical imagery of Greek goddesses; although crimped, the hair has a texture and arrangement that looks remarkably lifelike and "natural";thus in the portraits that liken Livia to the divine realm she looks, at least to our eyes, her most human.
ELIZABETH BARTMAN
[AJA105
Fig. 4. Figureof reclining woman from a sarcophaguslid, Rome, GalleriaBorghese 187, front. (IstitutoCentraleper ii Catalogo e la Documentazione) tial ministrations of scissors, shampoo, combs, and spray.) To the ancients, however, "natural"was a term of opprobrium, suggesting a lack of civilization and social control-a state close to beasts and barbarians. So Paola Virgili and others have appropriately linked the notion of cultus, implying refinement and civilization, to the elaborate coiffures of imperial Roman women.27 Two Hadrianic stucco reliefs found in Carthage28illustrate the connection: in one (fig. 2) a woman is having her hair dressed in a beehive style by a servant, and in the other, the same woman, her coiffure now finished, sits holding a book. Grooming goes hand in hand with literacy in expressing female cultus. That this stucco and another well-known relief from Neumagen showing a similar scene29 are both from provincial areas brought under Roman control in the early Imperial period illustrates the connections of female cultus to the Romanization process. Whereas provincial women (and men) are represented with unkempt "barbarian" hair when depicted on triumphal monuments, they adopt Roman modes of hairdressing within a generation or so after Roman conquest.30 In view of this cultural context, the public presentation of a Roman woman as deliberately uncoiffed is cause for discussion. A deceased woman reclining atop a late second/early third-century C.E. sarcophagus lid (fig. 4)31 lets her hair flow freely onto her shoulders. Although the lid has been much restored and the figure's face possibly reworked, the hair itself is largely original.32 In the center part and the faint pattern of crimping (reminiscent of the fold lines chiseled lightly onto the woven garments of draped sculptures) there remain vestiges of the mode in which the subject dressed her hair while living; we may imagine a Severan coiffure with finger waves. Virtually unparalleled in the corpus of Roman funerary imagery, the Borghese woman seems to be mourning her own death. Her loosened hair evokes a female mourner, either the praefica hired for funeral processions33 or the ordinary woman who responded to the death of
27Virgiliet al. 1990;Wyke1994, 143-6; D'Ambra1997.
28Fittschen1993, 203, n. 6, pl. 25; De Carthage a Kairouan
1982, 138-9, no. 194; Delattre 1899, 38-41, nos. 1, 2, pl. 8. LandesmuseumNM 184; Kampen1981, 150, no. 29Trier, 32, fig. 50. 30 Cf. the barbarians on sarcophagiin Bianchi-Bandinelli 1971,figs. 2, 10,with the carefullycoiffed Spanishprovincials depicted in figs. 176-181.
31 Galleria Borghese187;Moreno1980;Viacava(forthcoming), no. 199. 32Viacava (forthcoming) discerns "fortiintervenetinella The hairdoes have a minor repairat the back. testa." 33On praeficae, see Serv.AdAen.6.16;Flower1996,98. Two well-known visualrepresentations of praeficaearetheAmiternum relief (Flower1996,pl. 6) and the relieffrom the Tomb of the Haterii (Flower1996, 93-5, pl. 5).
2001]
loved ones by letting down her hair.34 (The use of the verb spargere [to stream] with hair in this context underscores its wild, unleashed quality.)35 By analogy with these familiar images, the Borghese woman appears not only as the deceased subject of the funeral but also as one of its active participants; she infuses an otherwise traditional funerary image with extreme pathos.
HAIR OR SCULPTURE?
Sculpting a head of human hair, whose thousands (on average, 100,000) of infinitesimally thin strands react to both movement and light, posed a daunting technical challenge to the ancient sculptor. By the time of the mid-empire, however, Roman sculptors working in both bronze and marble drew upon centuries of experience for the technical mastery by which they reproduced the texture, arrangement, and even the light-reflecting sheen of real hair.36 Success in rendering the materiality of hair and its accoutrements inevitably raises the question of authenticity: are Roman portraits faithful translations of the actual hairstyles worn by the sitters? An answer is problematic for two reasons. First, the paucity of surviving hair leaves little basis for comparison. Owing to a climate that is generally not conducive to its survival, only scattered discoveries of human hair exist in Britain, Gaul (fig. 5), Egypt, and Judaea.37 Although no ancient coiffure has yet been found in its entirety, examples of human hair from Roman burials, such as long braids from Les Martres-de-Veyre in central France or a bun excavated in York, England, do confirm that the styles portrayed in Roman portraits were actually worn by ancient women.38 Ranging in color from blond (Les Martresde-Veyre, fig. 5) to auburn (York) to chestnut (Les Martres-de-Veyre,fig. 5) to near-black (Masada), these finds document the range of colors that Roman hair would have naturally had; paint would have enabled the sculptor of white marble to match these hues.39 We find further confirmation in the evidence of painted mummy portraits from Egypt. Long dismissed as provincial anomalies, these images recent-
III
-: : :: Li::
::: E
::: E
Fig. 5. Human hair from tombs at Les Martres-le-Veyre, Clermont Ferrand, Musees de la Ville. (Centre Regional de Documentation Pedagogique, Clermont-Ferrand)
ly have been shown to depict coiffures that are identical to those worn by the women portrayed in sculpted portraits from metropolitan Rome.40
34 the mourningwomen who attendMeleSee in particular ager's corpse on sarcophagi(Koch 1975, 119-24) and those scenes from surroundingthe funeral bier in the conclamatio biographicalsarcophagi(Kochand Sichtermann1982, 112Rom.14.267a-b. 3). Cf. Plut. Quaest. 35 s.v."spargo." For a good example of this usage, see OLD, the Consolatio ad Liviam1.98. Pioneersin achievingthese effectswere the GreeksculptorsPolykleitos(Quint.Inst.12.10.8)and Lysippos(Plut.Alex. 4.1). bun fromYork 37Britain: Museum; Allason-Jones (Yorkshire 1989, 133-4; 1996, 38); Gaul:scalp hairwith braidsattached
from Gallo-Roman burials at Les Martres-de-Veyre (Audollent
1923,275-328, esp. 284, pl. 8); Egypt: pile of hairheld in place

with pins and terminating in a bun (Walker and Bierbrier 1997, 208-9, no. 302);Judaea: braid dating to the late first century C.E. found at Masada and now in the Israel Museum,Jerusalem (Yadin 1966, 54, col. pl. p. 56, pl. p. 196; Zias 1998). 38 Cf. the Masada and Les Martres-de-Veyrebraids cited (supra n. 37) to a head in the Capitoline (Fittschen and Zanker 1983, 68, no. 89, pl. 110) and the York bun to Capitoline 280 (Fittschen and Zanker 1983, 96-7, no. 140, pl. 166). 39Rueterswird 1960, 210-27. 40 Parallelism between the painted and sculpted image lies at the heart of Borg's (1998) chronology of mummy portraits from Egypt. Cf. her figs. 28-29, 50-52, and 51-53.
ELIZABETH BARTMAN
[AJA 105
The second difficulty in assessing the realism of the sculpted coiffure stems from the larger question of the physical accuracy of the Roman portrait itself. On the one hand, the physiognomic variety found in Roman portraits suggests that the ancient sculptor was a kind of premodern photographer, capturing a "snapshot" of an individual's appearance. Yet any serious viewer of Roman portraiture recognizes how both artistry and political ideology undercut the physiognomic accuracy by which a sitter is rendered. Throughout her decades-long portrait career, for example, the empress Livia remained youthful; even images created when she was an octogenarian did not betray her encroaching age. In the portraiture of a later successor, Faustina the Elder, the lack of correlation between the empress's coin portraits and those sculpted in-theround leads to the conclusion that her images owed as much to the particular design principles of the portrait medium as to her appearance in real life.41 So, too, the nine changes of hairstyle shown in Faustina the Younger's official portraiture may be at least partially fictive, responses to dynastic politics rather than changes made in the actual coiffure she
wore.42
Notwithstanding their ideological tint, the female hairstyles recorded in sculpted (and painted) portraits are firmly based in hairdressing reality. According to the contemporary hairstylists and wig makers whom I have consulted, most of the Roman coiffures documented in imperial portraiture could have been made by a skilled hairdresser using the sitter's own hair. From braids to buns, pin curls to marceled "finger sets,"43 the standard elements of sculpted coiffures could have been actually made in antiquity, and indeed they can be reproduced today44 by practiced stylists. In Roman times, such skilled hands were abundant, and women of the leisured classes would have had both the staff and the time for lengthy hairdressing sessions.45 Even if we cannot say positively that the hairstyle of every portrait represents the actual coiffure worn by the sitter herself, we may at least conclude 4'Fittschen 1996, 44. Indeed, her seventh to eighth portraittypes differ only in minor details. See Fittschen1982, 55-62. 43 Thistermfindsan ancientanalogyin pressopollice, a phrase used byPropertius(3.10.14)when exhortinghis loverto press her thumb onto her hairlocksin order to styleit. 44 Bettina Bergmannand I have produced a video, "Does She or Doesn't She?"(1999) in which a contemporaryhairFaustinathe Elder'scoiffure. stylistreconstructs 45 Forepigraphic testimonia see Kamhairdressers, regarding pen 1981, 118-20. Wealthywomen employed multiple hairdressers-the empressLiviais attestedto have had five. Even
42
that the designs lie well within the realm of grooming possibility.46 At a fundamental level, of course, hairdressing was a process similar to sculpture. Most female hairstyles of the late first through third centuries C.E. were conceived as structures whose wellarticulated shapes and textures made a visual foil to the face. The wide gap that we envision between sculpture, to the modern mind considered a form of high art, and hairdressing, which is often regarded as an elevated form of grooming, was not necessarily shared by the Romans. The astute observer can discern the workings, and thus the fundamental realism, of many sculpted coiffures. I will focus on popular female coiffures from the middle and high empire, for these have long triggered accusations of invention. After several generations ofJulio-Claudian styles, in which the relative simplicity of Livia's nodus and off-swept hair gave way to ever-fussier but still relatively tame arrangements,47 female hairdressing at Rome underwent a major stylistic change. Characterized by multiple components and towering height, the new styles of the late first and early second centuries C.E. were elaborate constructions whose very complexity challenged the physical possibilities of the sitter's own locks. Their extremism occasioned satirical barbs such as Juvenal's famous likening of a hairdo to a multistoried building.4" The vocabulary used today to describe the popular styles-beehive, turban, pillbox, helmet,44 hairbouquet (Lockenbukett)-derives from nonhairdressing contexts and thus aptly conveys their artful construction. Although the mockery of Juvenal has vanished, a moralizing tone often slips into current discussion: adjectives like "flamboyant" and "frivolous" and nouns like "confection" and "concoction" hint that the women who wore these styles were slaves to their appearances and led shallow lives. Yet many of these portraits were made at a time of social conservatism, when the Flavian dynasty and then Trajan embraced a down-to-earth public image that consciously rejected the decadent lifestyles of the last Julio-Claudians. In addition, they were worn by imthe most complicatedcoiffurewouldnot havetakena teamof slavesmore than an hour or so to execute. does seem to takeprecedence overrealism,how46Artistry ever, in the aspectof hairline.On this question see below, p. 15. 47 Livia'sclean, classicallook distancedher from the excessivelyprimped stylesassociatedwith the HellenisticEast.On Livia,see Bartman1999;on the Agrippinas,see Wood 1988. 48 "Totpremitordinibus, totadhuccompagibus altumaedificat caput"(Juv.6.502). See also Stat.Silv.1.2.113;Mart.9.37. 49 This term is also attestedinJuv. 6.120 and Tert. De cultu
feminarum 2.7.
2001]
Fig. 6. Fonsecabust, Rome, Museo Capitolino434, right profile. (DeutschesArchaologisches Institut,Rome) perial wives, sisters, and daughters, whom we may presume to have been promoted as exempla of contemporary female appearance and behavior. Thus we should see the elaborate coiffures and the plain, sometimes grim faces below as features working in tandem to project a positive message of modesty and control. The most striking visual feature of these coiffures is the high-arching forehead crown (I use the German toupet) that was composed of drilled pin curls during the Flavian era and of complex combinations of braids and curls at later times. In a meticulously carved head such as the Capitoline's famed Fonseca bust (fig. 6),50 the sculptor details a part that divides the hair on the crown into two sections: in front the hair is combed forward into the prodigious coils of the toupet, and in back it is combed into braids that coil into a generous bun. Suspend-
50MuseoCapitolino434; Fittschenand Zanker1983, 53-4, no. 69, pls. 86-87.
10
ELIZABETH BARTMAN
[AJA 105
1805.7Fig. 7. Bustof Matidia,London, The BritishMuselum 3.96, left profile. (E. Bartman) ed over the face, the toupet might be a separate hairpiece made of curls glued or sewn to a backing; the discovery of a braid sewn to two pieces of leather in a woman's tomb in Gaul is tantalizing evidence of precisely this technique.5' Another way to make the toupet was to pull the sitter's hair through the holes of a loosely woven fabric that had been stiff-
ened with beeswax or resin to form a curved armature.52Whether using the sitter's own hair or not, a toupet of the height we see in many portraits had to be somehow secured on the head; a head of Trajan's niece Matidia in London (fig. 7) shows how this could be accomplished, as it preserves a tiny braid combed in such a way as to anchor the tiered toupet in front.53 In an unusual case of cross-hairdressing, a male camillus on a Flavian relief of a sacrifice wears a beehive toupet;54 because camilli typically had hair long enough either to compose or attach this feature, its appearance in this context does not answer the question of real or fictive any more conclusively than do the female portraits. The head of a full-length draped statue in the Vatican (fig. 8) 5 dissembles about the status of the sitter's toupet by depicting hair combed up from the forehead before being worked into the tightly massed pin curls of the toupet.56 It is difficult to know whether this peek-a-boo exposure is meant to suggest that the high-arching crescent of the toupet is an addition or that it is formed from the sitter's own, by necessity ample, locks; certainly the long silky strands of hair on the crown behind the toupet convey the impression of a richly endowed head. In many portraits the hairline at the forehead is more emphatically demarcated by a braidlike ribbon or band that forms the basis for the typically diverse elements stacked above.57 Although its regular striations recall hair, the band does not appear to have been composed of real hair growing from the scalp. It looks, rather, as though it were an addition glued in place (recall the false eyebrows applied to the Satyricon'sGiton),58 as a practical means of absorbing dyes and gums that were applied to the hair, thus preventing unsightly streaks from running down the face. While Flavian coiffures could easily have been crafted from the sitter's own hair, those of later decades often seem to have required separate attachments.59 The stiff, thin forms, unhairlike textures, and awkward perching on the head (especially vis-
51Audollent 1923,284. Fora modern analogy,see the 19thcenturyfrisettepad (StevensCox 1984, fig. 126). 52Hair styliststodayuse cheesecloth or wire mesh to help shape hair on the head. 5'BritishMuseum GR 1805.7-3.96;Smith 1904, 158, no. 1898.A bust in Venice (MuseoArcheologico208;Traversari 1968, 51-2, no. 33, pl. 33a, b) showsa series of twistedlocks that connect the beehive toupet to the scalp. 54 MuseoGregoriano Profano9481;Ryberg1955,pl. 67, fig.
3.2:285-6, no. 20, pl. 129; Helbig4,541. 5"Foranotherexample,see a veiled head in the Palazzodei
116b. 55 Galleria dei Candelabri 2708; Amelung 1903-1908,
Conservatori(2762; Fittschenand Zanker1983, 56, no. 74, pl. 92), wherea layerof long curlylocks (naturalor artificial?) is set severalcentimetersback from the sitter'snaturalhairline. discussed 57Typical examplesoccurin the Flavian portraits circle women of Trajan's by Hausmann1959,and the various (see Fittschenand Zanker1983, 7-10, nos. 6-8, pls. 7-10). 58Sat. 110. 59Cf. the empress Plotina'sfanlike crown (Fittschenand and Marciana's Zanker1983,8-9, no. 7, pl.9) to Matidia styles (Fittschenand Zanker1983,9-10, no. 8, pl.10 [a posthumous Matidia];Fittschen1996, 45, figs. 3-6).
20011
11
Fig. 8. Statue of a woman, Vatican City,Musei Vaticani, Galleria dei Candelabri 2708, front. (MuseiVaticani) ible in the profile view, as in fig. 7 and pl. 1)60 suggest that the vertical components of these later stacked coiffures are hairpieces.61 As before, what are (possibly) fictive additions are deliberately juxtaposed with the sitter's own hair. A bust in Copenhagen (fig. 9),62 for example, wears a coiffure defined at the hairline by two glued bands; in the middle, however, emerges a jumble of pincurls whose texture and looseness makes a sharp contrast-are we to imagine a melange of natural and artificial? Visually dynamic, these compositions leave the viewer impressed with the artful ingenu-
60 Museumof Art,RogersFund 20.200;RichMetropolitan ter 1948, no. 66. 61In some heads the coiffure's componentsareunnaturally flattened:so the ringlets of a head in London (The British
Museum2006;Walker1995,pl. II ) andDresden (Albertinum ZV3716;Knoll et al. 1993, 55, no. 30). 62NyCarlsberg Glyptothek1539;Poulsen 1974, 91-3, no. 72, pls.116-117.
12
ELIZABETH BARTMAN
Fig. 10. Head of a woman, Rome, PalazzoCorsini642, back. (Istituto Centraleper il Catalogo e la Documentazione) LAYERS OF ARTIFICE Long hair extending well below the shoulders was requisite for the elaborate coiffures recorded in second- and third-century C.E. female portraits. At least two secondary images, the Carthage relief already mentioned (fig. 2) and the well-known image of the seated woman from the Villa of the Mysteries frieze at Pompeii, show women with long locks reaching as low as the waist. When sectioned, their tresses could be formed into braids whose combined length was several meters, easily enough to surround the head in even the most lavish concentric arrangements. By applying henna, a temporary dye well known to the ancients, hair could be thickened and made more malleable.64 Ungents, waxes, and curling irons all helped the transform a woman's natural endowment into the desired arrangement.65
Fig. 9. Bust of a woman, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek 1539, front. (Ny CarlsbergGlyptothek) ity of both sculptor and hairdresser. In the deliberate artificiality of this and other contemporary styles, female hairdressing recalls the preparation of food for the imperial banquet table. As the ancient sources tell us, Roman chefs found appreciative diners when they prepared food that completely masked its origins.63
63I thankMiranda See Apicius for this observation. Marvin 4.2.12 ("admensam nemo agnoscent quid manducet")and Petron.Sat.15.33(eggs madeofpastrydough), 15.36 (hareto whichwingsare attachedto simulatePegasus).Fordiscussion of the broaderissuedraisedby food, see Gowers1993. 64Donat.1.26. 65The curling iron (calamistrum) is attested in text (e.g., iscontested.SomescholPlaut.Curc. 4.4.21),butits appearance arsidentifyit as the wandlikerod seen in the stele of P. Ferrar-
ius HermesfromPisa(Florence,Galleria Virgiliet degli Uffizi; al. 1990, 87, no. 30), where it appearswith other objectsof female adornment such as a comb and mirror. (There are modernanalogiesin the 19th-century curlingstick,illustrated in StevensCox 1984, fig. 232.) Others,on the basisof other modern analogies,identifymetal tongs from Pompeii as the for archaeologicalfinds, see Mannsperger1998, calamistrum; 16-24; postantiquetongs in StevensCox 1984, figs. 87, 120.
2001]
13
Fig. 11. Statue ofJulia Domna, Paris,Musee du Louvre Ma 1090, front. (Mus6e du Louvre) Of course, only healthy hair could be worked into these fashions, because hair typically loses strength and abundance as it ages. (The point was not lost on Ovid, who advised supplemental hairpieces for older women or for those whose hair had thinned because of overzealous grooming.) In trying to assess Roman female hairdressing, then, we face a paradox: while most hairstyles depicted in marble portraits theoretically could have been fashioned from the sitter's own hair, we cannot be certain that they actually were. Roman portraitists generally refrained from revealing the mechanics of their sitters' hairdos; two exceptions are therefore worthy of mention. The bust of a Trajanic lady in the Palazzo Corsini in Rome (fig. 10) is unique in its sculpted representation of a hairpin,66 even though Ro-
see Walkerand Bierbrier1997, 58, no. 33. 661Inv. 642; De Luca 1976, 65, no. 28, pls. 55-56. For pins in painted portraits,
14
ELIZABETH BARTMAN
[AJA 105
man female graves have yielded this accessory in impressive quantities, and they were essential for many hairstyles. The second exception, a secondcentury bronze of a woman in Princeton (pl. 2), depicts hair encased in a hairnet. In an extreme manifestation of the quest for mimetic realism, the bronze was cast with a real net.67 In view of the portraitist's reticence in this area, it is not surprising that the wearing of artificial hair, by which I mean human hair not belonging to the wearer, is rarely depicted. This may reflect the skilled deception of the ancient wig, but it also stems from the artistic process itself. In making a portrait the skilled artist imposes a unity of surface, material, and color that the sitter's hairstyle may not have possessed in real life; if all art is an illusion, then the sculpted renditions of coiffures constructed with artificial hair represent a doubled illusion. Ample literary sources document women's (as well as men's) use of wigs and hairpieces, and the extensive vocabulary they employ suggests a wide range of options. Capillamentum, corymbium,galerum, and xpiXpoua are favorite, but by no means the only, terms attested.68 Most wigs in antiquity were made of human hair and fashioned with a level of beauty and craftsmanship largely unobtainable today. (In modern times synthetic hair has replaced natural human hair in all but the most expensive wigs.) Although no Roman wigs have survived, evidence from pharaonic Egypt attests to the high quality of ancient hairpieces.69 The blond hair of Germans and jet black of Indians was preferred for artificial attachments,70 but it is unclear whether their desirability stemmed from their color or texture. While black Indian hair, documented in a late source, was no doubt obtained through trade, the blond hair of Germans was one of the spoils of war, at least in the early Imperial period. Both Ovid and Martial refer
67 The head is now in the ArtMuseum,PrincetonUniversity (80-10;Jenkinsand Williams1987). 6 Reinach 1896 providesa full compilation.For other ancient sources on hairdressing,see Steininger 1912;Virgiliet al. 1990, 55-8. Although dated, Evans1906 has many useful observations. 69 A wig made of linen tinted a chestnut color was among the 18th-century finds from the tomb of a Christianwoman on the Via Ostiensis (Boldetti 1720, 297); its present whereaboutsareunknown. date Awell-preserved wigof NewKingdom from Thebes givesa sense of the enormous laborinvolvedin makinga top-quality hairpiece.Bothitshangingbraidsand the mesh that fits, caplike,over the craniumare made of human hair, and each of the some 300 braidsbundles together hundreds of individualhairs (Stevens Cox 1977). Wigs are also extensivelydocumented at Deir el-Bahri(Laskowska-Kusztal 1978).
to "captured" hair (captivos crines), making an explicit link between the commodification of hair and Roman power.71 Notwithstanding its implications of Roman conquest, a blond braid interwoven into the dark tresses of a Mediterranean crown presumably announced the fictive nature of the coiffure rather emphatically.72This unabashed flaunting of artificial locks contrasts with the generally negative image of wig wearing conveyed by many of the literary sources. According to these texts, the wig-wearer (of both sexes) wore artificial locks to hide baldness and for disguise. But in some instances the context of the verbal testimony warns against too literal a reading, for Juvenal or Martial were satirists who enjoyed skewering the Roman beau monde, and Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria were Christian moralists opposed to all female adornment. Still, even neutral references such as Ovid's crines empti (purchased tresses) and Petronius's description of a with lady's wig and false eyebrows in the Satyricon,73 their knowing hints of the role that artificial hair played in the grooming of elite Romans, underscore the popular connection between borrowed locks and deception. Despite the negativism of the literary tradition, the wig is acknowledged in a number of female portraits dating to the early third century, suggesting that by that time it had acquired cachet. The wig's most influential patron was Julia Domna, wife of the emperor Septimius Severus (fig. 11).74 Throughout a public career spanning nearly 20 years, Julia Domna wore a coiffure that encased her head with a thick mass of hair worked into undulating finger waves.75While not so explicitly rendered as that of a private woman in the Museo Nazionale Romano in Rome (fig. 12),76 her hair can be recognized as a wig by its heavy, globular character, the
7"Blonde hair: Ov. Am. 1.14.45-6; Mart.5.68;Juv. 6.120 (confirmedbythe find of a male skullwithhairfrom Osterby; and Brustscher1988,fig. 85); Indianhair: Jedding-Gesterling 4.16.7 is no mention of the import of Indian 39, (there Dig. hair earlierin the Periplus Maris Erythraei.)
72 Cf. the Renaissancewoman who coversher brown hair witha curly blondwig (balzo) in a paintingof ca. 1530byLorenzo Lotto (London, The NationalGallery). Ov. ArsAm.3.165; Sat. 110. 73 74Museedu LouvreMa 1090; de Kersauson1996, 370-1, no. 170. 75 Schluter1977;Buchholz 1963;Nodelman 1964.See also Fittschen 1978. MuseoNazionale Romano564;Giuliano 1979- , 1.9 76Rome, pt. 2, 342-4, no. R 260. K. Fittschen (Fittschenand Zanker 1983, 106, n. 26) does not think that the wig belongs to the
71Ov., Am. 1.14.45-6; Mart. 14.26. See Bartman 1999, 39.
2001]
15
Fig. 12. Head of a woman wearing a wig, Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano 564, front. (Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, Rome) unnatural hairline, and stray hairs peeking out in front of the ears or along the hairline. Some of her portraits also have an emphatic line that demarcates the hair from the face, but because the feature is not universal, it should perhaps be interpreted as an artistic device for framing the face with shadow rather than as a literal depiction of the contours of a wig.77 In several ofJulia Domna's portraits, finally, her wig is carved separately, but as we will see, this technical detail is not in itself proof of her wig wearing in real life. Because she was born the daughter of a highranking Syrian priest, Julia Domna's taste for wigs is sometimes attributed to her non-Roman origins. Early in this century, Paul Gauckler argued that the sculptural piecing found in the heads of several statues excavated in the Sanctuary of the Syrian Gods in Rome was connected to religious rites practiced
head, but a comparablerelationshipbetween the sitter'snaturalhairlineand wig occursin the bust of a deceasedwoman reliefin Frankfurt funerary depictedon an earlythird-century (Liebighaus1502;Ecksteinand Beck 1973, no. 74 pl. 74). of both men and women 77 This line is found in portraits fromavarietyof periods.Fortypicalexamples,see the head of
a Hadrianicman identifiedasJasonin the Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek (Poulsen 1974, 87, no. 65, pls. 104-105); the head of a woman from Ostia (Giuliano1957, 61, no. 70, pl. 43); and the head of a woman in Cincinnati(CincinnatiArtMuseum 1946.5;Vermeule 1981, 344, no. 296, col. pl. 27).
16
ELIZABETH
BARTMAN
[AJA 105
P1. 1. Head of Marciana, New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Rogers Fund 20.200, oblique right. (Schecter Lee, Metropolitan Museum of Art)
PI. 2. Bronze head of a woman, Princeton, The Art Museum, Princeton University 80-10, oblique right. (Bruce M. White, The Art Museum, Princeton University)
2001]
17
in Syria.78Yet while towering (and, in the case of a mosaic panel from Edessa,79 even outlandish) headdresses are common among Eastern women, there is little clearcut evidence for artificial hairpieces. Among the hundreds of surviving grave reliefs from the prolific workshops of Palmyra, for example, none depicts a woman who is undeniably wearing a wig.80Indeed, Palmyrene women typically wore their hair waved in a simple center-part style that could easily have been achieved with their own locks;81 jeweled diadems and turbans provided luxurious coverage and modesty in accordance with local social mores.82 Rather than wear a wig to convey her foreign status and exoticism,Julia Domna seems to have adopted it to project a familiar Roman guise. Specifically, she donned artificial hair to look like her predecessor, Faustina the Younger, whose last portrait types feature a simple, finger-waved style in which the hair forms a globular cover for the cranium.83 Although Faustina's daughter Crispina was Julia Domna's immediate predecessor,84 Faustina clearly outshone her daughter and successor in reputation and number of public portraits. The earlier empress, moreover, was consciously evoked by the Severans on at least one other occasion; Dio records that one of the omens accompanying Septimius's rise to power was a dream he had on the eve of his marriage to Julia.85 In the dream Faustina prepares the nuptial chamber for Septimius and Julia, and thus sanctions the choice ofJulia as empress; evoked continually in the emulative imagery of her Severan successor, Faustina remained an ongoing sanctioner. Why Julia needed a wig to reproduce Faustina's coiffure is unclear; perhaps her own hair was too thin to be coiffed in this mode, or the wig was deemed necessary to underscore the connection. Her use of a wig to project a specific cultural identity is paralleled in a painted mummy portrait from Egypt that depicts the same woman on its two sides: on one she appears wearing a simple center-parted style popular in the East, and on the other, a
Fig. 13. Bust of a woman, London, British Museum 2009, oblique left. (BritishMuseum) fuller coiffure with a fringe of curls around the forehead.86 As Susan Walker has pointed out, hair and dress function in the portrait as significant cultural markers, instantly recognizable but also easily mutable.87 We may conclude from these examples that wig wearing was as much a matter of cultural choice as necessity, the female equivalent, we might say, of the male's growing a beard. Within a generation after Julia, however, Roman female portrait sitters rejected the empress's blatant artifice for a seemingly more natural coiffure with long silky hair strands lying close to the skull. Portraits of the empress Plautilla, Caracalla's wife, exemplify this hairstyle.88 But was it any less artificial? Many women wear coiffures that combine Plautilla's close-lying locks with masses of curls clustered on the neck or along the hairline (fig. 13
78Gauckler thesis 1910, 378-408, esp. 393-404; Gauckler's wasrefutedby Crawford (1917, 105) and is now discredited. 79 The mosaic depicts the familyof Moqimu (Kraus1967, 295, no. 406). 80 This is not to say that the women are not wearingwigs, only that they are not depicted. For recent surveysof the 1981;Tanabe 1986. material,see Parlasca 81AsM. Colledge (1976,143) writes,"For females the classical Grecian mode is almost universal:the hair is brushed back in wavesfrom a central parting to a (hidden) knot at the back." 82 Nor does Egyptappearto be a pressingsource, despite Septimius'sdevotionto the Egyptiangod Serapis.
83Fittschen and Zanker1983,22-3, nos. 21-22, pls. 29-31; Fittschen 1982, 63-5. 84 Crispinawears a related hairstyle;see Fittschen 1982, 82-8. 5 Dio Cass.75.3. Museum1966.1112; Walker1997,2. 86Oxford,Ashmolean modes 87Walker (1997) contraststhe tworepresentational as Egyptian versusRoman,althoughthe second coiffurewith found in metropolitanRome. pendant curlsis not typically 88Nodelman 1982;Fittschenand Zanker1983, 30, no. 32, pl. 40. See also a bustin Ephesus(SelcukMuseum1566;Inan and Rosenbaum1966, 134-5, no. 163, pls. 95, 101.1).
18
ELIZABETH BARTMAN
[AJA105
Fig. 14. Head of a woman, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek825, front. (Ny CarlsbergGlyptothek) provides a fine example).89 Contrasting texturally with the smoother hair of the crown, the curls would seem to be the sitter's own hair, pulled out from under the flipped-up wig that covers the crown. Although unwiglike in both texture and Museum2009 (Smith 1904, 190-1, no. 2009, pl. 89British 18;Walker1995, fig. 73). See also a head in the PalazzoBarberini,Rome (EA2932). 90 Ny CarlsbergGlyptothek825; Poulsen 1974, 146-8, no. Forcomparable 145,pls.234-235 (Julia Paula?). examples,see Wood 1986,52 (arguesforwigwearing); WiggersandWegner 1971, 115-29, 153-76, 200-22. 91 See also such contemporary heads as Capitoline380 and Conservatori 1188 (Fittschenand Zanker1983, 108, no.161, pls. 187-188, 113-114, no. 171, pis. 200-201, respectively). head in the Lateran(Giuliano1957, 92Ina superb-quality
arrangement, the coiffure of the British Museum woman nonetheless seems to incorporate a wig. It demonstrates that a wig could be extremely thin and finely textured-it is mistaken to imagine that all ancient Roman wigs had the bulk of Julia Domna's or the dull, leaden appearance of wigs made today from synthetic materials. With thick curly tresses long enough to reach her shoulder and a hairline showing no recession, the sitter for the British Museum bust clearly had no physical need for artificial hair. Thus we conclude that she wore a wig by choice. At first glance, another popular style in which the face is framed by short pincurls also seems to make use of a wig. In a representative example in Copenhagen (fig. 14),90 the sitter wears a low-hanging coiffure composed of parallel finger waves and tightly wound pincurls running along the entire hairline. The waves and curls have different textures, but this is not de facto evidence for wig wearing, as the curls could simply be cut short and frizzed into ringlets.91 In this and numerous related portraits, naturalistic features such as the growth of the hair from the forehead and the tucking of hair behind the ears strengthen the case for the use of the sitter's own hair.92 Paradoxically, a private portrait known in several versions has thick, deeply drilled finger waves on the crown that look wiglike but behave so realistically, tucking up under the bun at the back, that they seem to belong to the sitter.93 That most of the portrait subjects wearing these styles are youthful and presumably in possession of healthy locks lends further credence to the view that their hair has not been artificially enhanced. A number of Severan private portraits make their wig wearing literal, by combining white marble heads with coiffures carved separately, often in a contrasting dark stone that enhances their mimetic effect. Is this a case of art imitating life, in which the sculptor enhances the realism in his depiction of a wig-wearing woman by carving her coiffure literally as a wig? The theory is attractive, especially as many of the portraits executed in this manner reproduce the coiffures and wigs worn byJulia Domna. Of the some 30 examples known,94 more than half fall into this 78, no. 96, pl. 57) hairsare combed both up and down from the hairlineover the forehead. 93Thetwo versionsare in the LiverpoolMuseum (Ince 7; Southworth 1991,41-4,no. 9, pls.18-19) andMuseo Fejferand Capitolino(401;Fittschenand Zanker1983,109-10, no. 163, pls. 190-191). 94 The antiquityof some of the hairpiecescarvedin onyx and other colored stonesis disputed.See the commentsof S. Domnain Oslo (Sande1991, Sanderegarding a portrait ofJulia 81-3, no. 67, pl. 66); and Fittschen1989.
2001]
19
category; in addition, many of the "orphan" coiffures, hairpieces that have been separated from the rest of the portrait, have the empress's finger-waved hairstyle.)95 Yet we have no evidence that the Romans conceived of the separate hairpiece in this way. Two different stones were a dramatic, and costly, way of attaining chromatic contrasts between hair and face (paint was another). Essentially, the techniques used for a "bewigged" portrait are no different from those employed in acrolithic stone statues, where the intent clearly was to suggest the sitter's own hair.96 From the earliest discussions of separately carved hairpieces, however, historians have advanced another explanation: that it was designed to be easily removed and replaced when the sitter desired to change her coiffure.97 K. Fittschen has already refuted this "prospective" theory by noting that many portraits with separately carved hairpieces were funerary commissions and thus represent sitters who could hardly have had expectations of future portraits.98 In addition, fitting an existing head with a new hairpiece was not the simple job it is sometimes implied to have been, for hair length, relationship of hair to ears, and shape and size of the bun differed from one coiffure to another and precluded a simple substitution of one wig for another. Thus the potential for change that modern observers see in detachable headpieces is not likely to have motivated either the female portrait sitter or her sculptor. Even without solid empirical evidence, the explanation of the wig as a medium for updating has long found scholarly adherents because of its resonance with contemporary, essentializing assumptions about female behavior: that women are obsessed with their appearance and change their image to keep up with fashion. When men, in contrast, change their hairstyles, it is said to show allegiance to the emperor or express cultural values.99 In ancient Rome, however, unlike today, changes in dress and hairstyle were not dictated each season by a powerful fashion industry. And one of the primary means by which the rapid change of hairdressing styles is allegedly demonstrated, charts in
which numerous coiffures are neatly collated,'0? is misleading, for these charts show the variety of consecutive hairstyles worn by different women, not the multiple changes in appearance of a single individual. Indeed, some (quite famous) Roman women virtually never changed their hairstyle: Livia's portraits depict her in the simple nodus style of the late Republic for the first three decades of empire, and Faustina the Younger's image shows only minor changes in the coiffure during the last 20 years of her career.'10 The recent dating of the Fonseca head to the late Trajanic or early Hadrianic period'12 also demonstrates the longevity of some popular styles-that a woman possessing the beauty and, presumably, wealth of the Fonseca sitter would be represented wearing a hairstyle some 30 years old strikes a major blow against the view that stylish women transformed their hairdos every few years. While female fashions indeed shifted over time, many women clung to old styles, using them in their portraits as generational markers or as expressions of cultural identity. Indeed, hairstyles were all the more important for identification because so many women's faces were idealized. By imagining that an old-fashioned hairstyle required updating, in fact, the modern historian perhaps endows hair with a greater importance than it actually may have had in the ancient image. Certainly it assumes that other features of the portrait, such as the face itself, the clothing worn by the subject, or the bust shape did not themselves change over time and run the risk of appearing
outdated.103
This is not to say that the coiffures of female portraits were never reworked; in fact, there is scattered evidence for the recutting of hair. A head in Boston (fig. 15),1?4for example, wears a tiered toupet coiffure composed of flat bands whose arcing hairstrands terminate in a spiral curl at the center. At various places, especially along the hairline, the bands are pierced by irregularly spaced drill holes, vestiges of the head's prior "beehive" coiffure. C. Vermeule has identified the head as that of Trajan's niece Matidia, although the face does not
95Poulsen 1916; Crawford 1917; Schauenburg 1967; Fittschen and Zanker 1983, 105-6; Kleiner and Matheson 1996, nos. 120, 130 (P. Davies). 96 Cf. also the techniques of pieced bronzes. See Lattanzi 1987, 148; Menzel 1986, 73, nos. 170-171, pls. 84-85. 97Reinach1896, 1453;Burns 1993;Kleinerand Matheson 1996, 164. 98Fittschen and Zanker 1983, 105. 99 E.g.,it is implied thatmen who adopt the emperor'shairstyledo so to advancetheircareers.See alsoR.Smith 1998, 15.
the coiffuresarerenderedasline drawings, '0?Typically e.g., Furneevan Zwet1956, fig. p. 2; Wegner 1938, figs. 3-4; Wessel 1946-1947, figs. 1-6. 10O Cf. her portrait types 7, 8, and 9 (in Fittschen's 1982 scheme).
102 Fittschen and Zanker 1983, 53-4.
103It should be noted, however, that at least one famous Domna,combineda youngfacewith"latportrait subject,Julia er"hair. 104 Museumof Fine Arts 1988.327;Herrmann 1991.
20
ELIZABETH BARTMAN
[AJA 105
Fig. 15. Head of a woman, Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 1988.327, front. (Courtesy Museum of Fine Arts, Boston) closely resemble her other portraits (nor is there evidence that Matidia ever wore the beehive hairstyle)."'5 Whoever she is, this sitter of late Flavian date may have modernized her coiffure to keep current with changing fashions. But that is not the only scenario we might envision. It is also possible that the head was a stock Flavian workshop piece whose beehive coiffure had been carved but whose face was left roughed out. (The procedure is attested for portraits on sarcophagi.) Not finding a buyer when the hairstyle was in vogue, the head would have required recutting when it was eventually purchased.106
Remodeling to update the coiffure is also said to have occurred in two late Antonine portraits known colloquially as the Ludwig Curtius and Frank Brown
didnot 1989.Matidia's l05Vermeule history portrait probably when reignand continuedinto Hadrian's, begin untilTrajan's her daughterSabinamarriedthe emperor.See Wegner1956, 80-3. bustin the Metropolitan Museumin NewYork "6ATrajanic (RogersFund 14.130.7;Richter 1948, no. 63) seems also to
have been recut. Its toupet, now missing,wasattachedto the crownby dowels;although there maybe a technicalexplanation for the attachment (e.g., the discoveryof a flaw in the marble), it is possible that this section of the coiffure was changed. For separatelyattachedbeehive toupets, see Calza 1964, 109-10, nos. 191-192, pl. 106.
2001]
21
Fig. 16. Head of Julia Mamaea, Paris, Musee du Louvre Ma 3552, left profile. (Musee du Louvre) heads.'07 In both, the sitter's straight hair clings closely to the head, projecting beyond the cranium so minimally that one can easily imagine it to be the result of drastic recutting that reduced a once greater mass. In the Brown head, deep grooves located behind the ears that angle against the present movement of the hair also point toward recutting; there is no clue as to when and why it occurred. Another technical feature of the Curtius and Brown heads, however, casts doubt on the standard interpretation of the coiffures as updated. As in a number of Severan-date portraits, the Brown and Curtius heads have sections of hair near the ears carved as separate marble attachments.'08 The Louvre's Julia Mamaea (fig. 16)109 makes an instructive comparison. Today large, roughly triangular cavities gape behind both ears. With their surfaces picked and upper edges smoothed, the cavities clearly have
107 Curtiushead: ex Bertele collection, Rome; now Lewis DubroffCollection,NewYork (on loan, MetropolitanMuseum ofArt,NewYorkL1994.87; Curtius1957;InanandAlfoldiRosenbaum1979,341-3, no. 342,pl. 250);Frank Brownhead: now a privatecollection,NewYork; R. Brilliant(1975) identifies the sitteras ManliaScantilla. stuccowasusedinsteadof marble.Seea head 108 Occasionally in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek(790;Poulsen 1974, 116, no.
109,pl. 183);twoheadsin the MuseoCapitolino,182 and 661 Fittschenand Zanker1983, 94-5, no. 137, pl. (respectively, 163; 95, no. 138, pl. 164), and a bust in the Museo Profano Lateranense586 (Giuliano 1957, 65-6, no. 76, pl. 46). The Curtius head alsohasitsuppercrownand hairbun carvedseparately. Musee du Louvre3552;de Kersauson1996, 424-5, no. 09 196.
22
ELIZABETH BARTMAN
[AJA 105
been worked to accommodate two separate (but matching) attachments of hair."? It is hard to make a case for updating, as Mamaea's current hairstyle follows close on the heavy wig worn by Julia Domna; to recut a Severan style characterized by broad and low-hanging hair into what is now found on the Louvre head would have required interventions so substantial that we would expect to see some trace.1" Did piecing represent a repair? To be sure, the zone behind the ear of typical third-century female portraits was especially prone to breakage because the hair here flipped up and was carved away from the neck. Fittschen has attributed at least one instance of piecing to the repair of broken Venuslike shoulder locks."' That we see the same piecing technique in portraits of short-haired men, where there is no hair to break,"3 casts doubt on this all-encompassing explanation. At present all that can be concluded is that piecing was an expedient way to apply projecting features such as hair or ears, either when the sculpture was first carved or later recut. Recutting could occur for various motives, including a complete transformation of the sitter's identity.'4 Even the briefest survey of Roman portraiture demonstrates the wide range, or more precisely, the broad interpretation of the prevailing style of woman's coiffures in a particular period. The stacked coiffures popular in the early second century C.E., for example, share a similar overall shape but vary markedly in the components such as braids, coils, or waves used to build that shape."5 Individualized in such a way, the coiffure may be likened to the face itself rather than to the stereotypical body type."' It follows that it also must have played an important role in a woman's personal identity: although there are exceptions, women seem to have avoided looking just like their neighbors. ""Another portrait of Julia Mamaea in the Capitoline (Fittschenand Zanker1983, 33, no. 35, pl. 44) gives an idea ofwhatthe hairoriginally lookedlike;note thatthe head shows breakagein preciselythe same place as the Louvrestatue. ''lThe subject's coveredbyhair,wouldneed ears,previously to be carved,as would the flip of hair thatwasworkedup into abun. "11Fittschenand Zanker 1983, 95, no.138, pls. 164-165. " The portraits arethe colossalheadsofAlexanderSeverus and Gordionfound together in Ostia (now MuseoNazionale Romano 329 and 326; Giuliano 1979-, 1.9 pt. 2, 360-2, no. R273; 1979 1.1, 310-2, no. 186, respectively).See also Calza 1977, 65-8, nos. 82, 84, pls. 60, 62. Piecing occurshere not in the coiffure,but in the earsprojectingfrom the head. 114 Thereareampleparallels fora portrait's completechange of identity.For this period, see Goette 1986;for late first-and see Bergmannand Zanker earlysecond-centuryreworkings,
By showing how the hairstyles depicted in Roman portraits can actually be made with human hair, I have argued that sculpture reproduces real life. There remains a powerful exception to this practice, however, in the long tresses hanging onto the shoulders, the "shoulder locks" that are found in female portraits from many periods (e.g., fig. 11). An attribute of Venus, shoulder locks are worn by Roman women to evoke the goddess and the qualities connected with her: beauty, sexuality, and fertility."7 As divine signifiers they are no different in their associative role from nudity or the gesture of the hand covering the pubis, yet in their juxtaposition with patently historical features such as the face and its coiffure, they collapse the boundaries between real and fictive. Their presence makes clear that Romans were accustomed to seeing "through" multiple levels of visual reality."8 They are powerful reminders that, notwithstanding their physiognomic realism, Roman portraits were ideological statements about social status, gender, and cultural values.
15 WEST 81 ST STREET APARTMENT 5A NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10024 EBARTMAN@AOL.COM
Works Cited
Allason-Jones, L. 1989. Womenin Roman Britain. London: British Museum Publications. . 1996. RomanJet in the Yorkshire Museum.York: Yorkshire Museum. 1996. des Vaticanischen Amelung, W. 1903-1908. Die Skulpturen Museums.3 vols. Berlin: Reimer. Audollent, A. 1923. "Les tombes gallo-romaines a inhumation des Martres-de-Veyre (Puy-de-Dome)." MemAclnscr13:275-328. Bartman, E. 1999. Portraitsof Livia: Imaging the Imperial 1981. 115 Evenso, similara decorationas the "chainmail" wornby two late first-century women from opposite ends of the empire actuallydiffers in details like the tightness of the curls and the widthof the intertwinedbands.One portrait,now in Florence, comes from Italy,while the other, now in Lisbon, comes from a Romanvillaat Milreuin Portugal.Both are discussed in Fittschen1993. ""6Favorite body typesincluded the drapedso-calledLarge HerculaneumWoman (see Bieber 1962;Trimble 1999) and nude VenusPudica(see D'Ambra1996). 17 Typicalexamplesinclude the Museo Capitolino'sstatuarycouple in the guiseof Venusand Mars(652;Helbig4,1394) and other imagesincluded in Wrede 1981, 306-22. Cf. the viewer'sexperience of second stylewallpainting, "" withits obviousarchitectural fictions.
2001]

Cambridge
23
Woman in Augustan Rome. Cambridge:
University Press. Bergmann, M., and P. Zanker. 1981. "'Damnatio Memoriae.' Umgearbeitete Nero- und Domitiansportrats. Zur Ikonographie der flavischen Kaiser und des Nerva."JdI96:317-412. TransBianchi-Bandinell, R. 1971. Rome:TheLateEmpire. lated by P. Green. New York: George Braziller. Bieber, M. 1962. "The Copies of the Herculaneum Women." ProcPhilSoc 106:111-34. Boldetti, M. 1720. Osservazioni sopra i cimiteri de'santi martiri ed antichi cristiani di Roma. Roma: G.M. Salvioni. Borg, B. 1998. "DerzierlichsteAnblick der Welt... "Agyptische
London: HMSO. Fittschen, K. 1978. "TwoPortraits of Septimius Severus

andJulia Domna." Indiana University Art Museum Bulletin 1:28-43. . 1982. Die Bildnistypen der Faustina Minor und die Fecunditas Augustae. Gottingen: Vandenhoek and Ru-
precht. . 1989. "Modern, r6misch oder griechisch? Zu einem Bildnis im Museo Capitolino in Rom." In and M. Lugal, 179-81. Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayinlari. . 1993. "Bildnis einer Frau trajanischer Zeit aus Milreu." MM 34:202-9. . 1996. "CourtlyPortraits of Women in the Era of the Adoptive Emperors (AD 98-180) and their Reception in Roman Society." In I, Claudia: Womenin AncientRome,edited by D. Kleiner and S. Matheson, 42-52. New Haven: Yale University Press. Fittschen, K., and P. Zanker. 1983. Katalogderromischen
Portrdts in den Capitolinischen Museen und den anderen kommunalen Sammlungen der Stadt Rom. Vol. 3, Kaiserinnen- und Prinzessinnenbildnisse. Frauenportrdts. Mainz: FestschriftfiirJale Inan: Armagani, edited by N. Ba?gelen
Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Portrdtmumien.
Boschung,
D. 1989. Die Bildnisse des Caligula. Das r6-
mische Herrscherbild 1 (4). Berlin: Mann. Boschung, D., H. von Hesberg, and A. Linfert. 1997. Die
antiken Skulpturen in Chatsworth sowie in Dunham Massey und Withington Hall. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
Brilliant, R. 1975. "One Head, Three Problems." RM 82:135-42. Bucholz, K. 1963. "Die Bildnisse der Kaiserinnen der severischen Zeit nach ihren Frisuren 193-235 n.Chr." Ph.D. diss., Universitat Frankfurt-am-Main. Burns, M. 1993. "Roman Marble Coiffures and Imperial Fashion." Paper read at the 95th Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, 27-30 December, Washington, D.C.
Calza, R. 1964. Scavi di Ostia. Vol. 5, Iritratti, pt. 1, Ritratti greci e romanifino al 160 circa D. C. Rome: Istituto poli-
Philipp von Zabern.

. 1985. Katalog der romischen Portrdts in den Capitolinischen Museen und den anderen kommunalen Sammlungen der Stadt Rom. Vol. 1, Kaiser-und Prinzenbildnisse.
Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Flower, H. 1996. Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture. Oxford: Clarendon.
grafico dello Stato.
.1977. Scavi di Ostia. Vol. 9, Iritratti, pt. 2, Ritratti romani dal 160 circo alla metd del III secolo D.C. Rome:
Furnee van Zwet, L. 1956. "Fashion in Women's HairDress in the First Century of the Roman Empire."
BABesch 31:1-22.
Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato. Colledge, M. 1976. TheArt of Palmyra.London: Thames and Hudson. Crawford, J. 1917. "Capita Desecta and Marble Coiffures." MAAR1:103-19. Curtius, L. 1957. "MadchenportriatvomEnde des 2Jahrhunderts n.Chr." RM64:1-7. D'Ambra, E. 1996. "The Calculus of Venus: Nude Portraits of Roman Matrons." In Sexuality in Ancient Art,
Gauckler, P. 1910. "Nouvelles decouvertes dans le sanctuaire syrien dujanicule." CRAI:378-408.

Giuliano, A. 1957. Catalogo dei ritratti romani del Museo
Vatican City: Tipografia PoliglotProfanoLateranense. ta Vaticana.

, ed. 1979-. Museo Nazionale Romano. Rome: De
Luca.
Gleason, M. 1995. Making Men: Sophists and Self-Presentation in Ancient Rome. Princeton: Princeton University
edited by N. Kampen, 219-32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. .1997. "The Virtue of Adornment in Female Portrait Sculpture." Paper read at the 99th Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, 27-30 December, Chicago.
De Carthage a Kairouan: 2000 ans d'art et d'histoire en Tu-
Press. Goette, H. 1986. "Zweimal lulia Domna." RM 93:24551.

Gowers, E. 1993. The Loaded Table:Representations of Food in Roman Literature. Oxford: Clarenclon.
Griffin,J. 1976. "Augustan Poetry and the Life of Luxu66:87-104. ry."JRS

Hall, E. 1989. Inventing the Barbarian: GreekSelf-Definition through Tragedy. Oxford: Clarendon. Hallpike, C. 1987. "Hair." In The Encyclopedia of Religion,
nisie. 1982. Paris:Association franqaise d'action artistique. De Kersauson, K. 1996. Catalogue des portraits romains. Vol. 2, De l'annee de la guerre civile (68-69 apresJ.-C.) a la
Paris:Editions de la reunion des musees fin del'Empire. nationaux.
Delattre, R. 1899. Musee Lavigerie de Saint Louis de Carthage.
vol. 6, edited by M. Eliade, 154-7. New York:Macmillan. Hausmann, U. 1959. "Bildnisse zweierjunger R6merinnen in Fiesole."JdI74:164-202.
Helbig, W. 1963-72. Fiihrer durch die offentlichen Sammlungen klassischer Altertiimer in Rom. 4th ed., supervised by
Musees et collections archeologiques de l'Algerie et de la Tunisie 8 (2). Paris: Leroux.

De Luca, G. 1976. I Monumenti Antichi di Palazzo Corsini
in Roma.Rome: Accademia nazionale dei Lincei.

Eckstein, F. and H. Beck. 1973. Antike Plastik im Lie-
bieghaus.Frankfurt:Liebieghaus. Evans, M. 1906. "Hair-dressingof Roman Ladies as Illustrated on Coins." NC4th ser. 6:37-65. Fejfer,J., and E. Southworth. 1991. TheInceBlundell Collection of Classical Sculpture. Vol. 1, pt. 1, The Portraits.
H. Speier. Tuibingen: Ernst Wasmuth. Herrmann,J.,Jr. 1991. "Rearranged Hair: A Portrait of a Roman Woman in Boston and Some Recarved Portraits of Earlier Imperial Times."JMFA3:35-50. Hiltebeitel, A. 1998. "Introduction:Hair Tropes."In Hair:
Its Power and Meaning in Asian Cultures, edited by A.
Hiltebeitel and B. Miller, 1-9. Albany: NewYork State University Press.
24
ELIZABETH BARTMAN
pasien a la Basse-Antiquite. Copenhagen: Friihbyzantinische Portrdtplastik aus der Tiirkei: Neue
[AJA 105
Publications
und Inan, J., and E. Alfoldi-Rosenbaum. 1979. Romische Funde. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Inan,J., and E. Rosenbaum. 1966. Roman and EarlyByzantine Portrait Sculpture in Asia Minor. London: The
British Academy. Jedding-Gesterling, M., and G. Brutscher. 1988. Die Frisur: Ein Kulturgeschichte der Haarmode von derAntike bis zur Gegenwert. Munich: Callwey.
Jenkins, I., and D. Williams. 1987. "A Bronze Portrait

Head and its Hair Net." Record of The Art Museum, Princeton University 46 (2):8-15. Kampen, N. 1981. Image and Status: Roman Working Women in Ostia. Berlin: Mann.
de la Glyptoth&que Ny Carlsberg. Reilly,J. 1992. "The Imagery of Female Adornment in Ancient Athenian Funeral Reliefs." Ph.D. diss., Bryn Mawr College. Reinach, S. 1896. "Galerus."DarSag2 (2):1452-3. Richlin, A. 1995. "Making Up a Woman: The Faces of Roman Gender." In Off with herHead!, edited by H. Eilberg-Schwartzand W. Doniger, 185-213. Berkeley: University of California Press. Richter, G. 1948. RomanPortraits.NewYork: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Ruetersward, P. 1960. Studien zur Polychromie der Plastik: Griechenland und Rom. Stockholm: Svenska Bokfor-
in Kleiner, D., and S. Matheson. 1996. I, Claudia: Women AncientRome.Austin: University of Texas Press.
Knoll, K., et al. 1993. Die Antiken im Albertinum. Mainz:
laget.
Ryberg, I. 1955. Rites of the State Religion in Roman Art.
MAAR23. Rome: American Academy in Rome.

Sande, S. 1991. Greek and Roman Portraits in Norwegian
Philipp von Zabern.

Koch, G. 1975. ASR. Vol. 12, Die mythologischen Sarkophage, pt. 6, Meleager. Berlin: Mann.
Koch, G., and H. Sichtermann. 1982. RomischeSarkophage. Munich: C.H. Beck.

Kraemer, R. 1992. Her Share of the Blessings: Women's Religions among Pagans, Jews, and Christians in the Greco-
Collections. Acta ad Archaeologiam et Artium Historiam Pertinentia 10. Rome: Giorgio Bretschneider. Schauenburg, K. 1967. "Perfikentragerin in Blattkelch."
Stddel-Jahrbuchn.f. 1:45-63.
Schlfiter, R. 1977. "Die Bildnisse der KaiserinJulia Domna." Ph.D. diss., Mfinster.
Schmaltz, B. 1983. GriechischeGrabreliefs.Darmstadt: Wis-
Roman World. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kraus, T. 1967. Das romische Weltreich.Propylaen Kunst-
geschichte 2. Berlin: Ullstein. Laskowska-Kusztal,E. 1978. "Un atelier de perruquier a Deir el-Bahari." EtTrav10:83-120.
Lattanzi, E., et al. 1987. Il Museo Nazionale di Reggio Cala-
senschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Sieber, R., and F. Herreman, eds. 2000. Hair in African
Art and Culture. New York: Prestel. Smith, A. 1904. A Catalogue of Sculpture in the Department of Greekand Roman Antiquities, British Museum. Vol. 3.
bria.Rome: Gangemi. MacMullen, R. 1980. "Women in Public in the Roman Empire." Historia29:208-18.
Mannsperger, M. 1998. Frisurenkunst und Kunstfrisur: Die Haarmode der romischen Kaiserinnen von Livia bis Sabi-
na. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt. Meischner,J. 1964. "DasFrauenportrat der Severerzeit." Ph.D. diss., Berlin Universitat.
Menzel, H. 1986. Die romischen Bronzen aus Deutschland.
London: Trustees of the British Museum. Smith, R. 1998. "Cultural Choice and Political Identity in Honorific Portrait Statues in the Greek East in the Second Century A.D."JRS 88:56-93. Steininger, L. 1912. "Haartracht und Haarschmuck." RE7 (2):2109-50. Stuttgart:J.B.Metzler. Stevens Cox,J. 1977. "The Construction of an Ancient Egyptian Wig (c. 1400 B.C.) in the British Museum." JEA63:67-70.
.1984. An Illustrated Dictionary of Hairdressing and
Vol. 3, Bonn. Mainz:Verlag des Romisch-Germanische Zentralmuseums. Myerowitz Levine, M. 1995. "The Gendered Grammar of Ancient Mediterranean Hair."In OffwithherHead!, edited by H. Eilberg-Schwartz and W. Doniger, 76130. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Moreno, P. 1980. Museo e Galleria Borghese: La collezione
Rev. ed. London: B.T. Batsford. Wigmaking.

Tanabe, K., ed. 1986. Sculptures of Palmyra. Memoirs of
Rome: Ministero per i Beni Culturali e archeologica. Ambienti. Morgan, L. 1997. "AchilleaeComae:Hair and Heroism according to Domitian." CQ47:209-14. Nodelman, S. 1964. "Severan Imperial Portraiture A.D. 193-217." Ph.D. diss., Yale University. . 1982. "APortrait of the Empress Plautilla." GettyMusJ10:105-20.
the Ancient Orient Museum 1. Tokyo: Ancient Orient Museum. Trimble, J. 1999. "The Aesthetics of Sameness: A Contextual Analysis of the Large and Small Herculaneum Woman Statue Types in the Roman Empire." Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan.
Traversari, G. 1968. Museo Archeologico di Venezia:I ritratti.
Rome: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato.

Vermeule, C. 1981. Greekand Roman Sculpture in America.
Olivelle, P. 1998. "Hair and Society: Social Significance of Hair in South Asian Traditions." In Hair: Its Power
and Meaning in Asian Cultures, edited by A. Hiltebeitel
Berkeley: University of California Press. . 1989. "Matidia the Elder, a Pivotal Woman of the Height of Roman Imperial Power." In Festschrift
fiirJale Inan. Armagani, edited by N. Ba5gelen and M.
Lugal, 71-6. Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve SanatYayinlari.

Viacava, A. Forthcoming. Catalogo delle sculture antiche del Museo Borghese. Virgili, P. 1989. Acconciature e maquillage: Vita e Costumi dei
and B. Miller, 11-49. Albany: New York State University Press. Philipp von Zabern. Poulsen, F. 1916. "TwoRoman Portrait Busts in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek."JRS 6:47-55.
Poulsen, Parlasca, K. 1981. Syrische Grabreliefs hellenistischer und romischer Zeit: Fundgruppen und Probleme. TrWPr3. Mainz:
RomaniAntichi.Museo della Civilta Romana 7. Rome: Edizioni Quasar.

Virgili, P., et al. 1990. Bellezza e seduzione nella Roma impe-
riale.Rome: De Luca.
Walker, S. 1995. Greekand Roman Portraits. London: Brit-
V. 1974. Les Portraits Romains. Vol. 2, De Ves-
ish Museum Press.
2001]
HAIR AND THE ARTIFICE OF ROMAN FEMALE ADORNMENT . 1997. "Mummy Portraits in Their Roman Con-
25
text." In Portraits and Masks: Burial Customs in Roman
Egypt, edited by M. Bierbrier, 1-6. London: British Museum Press. Walker, S., and M. Bierbrier. 1997. AncientFaces:Mummy Press. Wegner, M. 1938. "Datierung r6mischer Haartrachten." AA:276-325.
. 1956. Hadrian, Plotina, Marciana, Matidia, SabiPortraits from Roman Egypt. London: British Museum
.1988. "Memoriae Agrippinae: Agrippina the Elder inJulio-Claudian Art and Propaganda." AJA92:40926. ipp von Zabern. Wyke, M. 1994. "Womanin the Mirror:The Rhetoric of Adornment in the Roman World." In Womenin Ancient Societies, edited by L. Archer, S. Fischler, and M. Wyke, 134-51. NewYork: Routledge.
Yadin, Y. 1966. Masada: Herod's Fortresss and the Zealots' Wrede, H. 1981. Consecratio informam deorum. Vergottlichte Privatpersonen in der romischen Kaiserzeit. Mainz: Phil-
na. Das r6mische Herrscherbild 2 (3). Berlin: Mann. Wessel, K. 1946-47. "R6mische Frauenfrisuren von der severischen bis zur konstantinischen Zeit."AA:62-76. Wiggers, H., and M. Wegner. 1971. Caracalla,Geta,Plautilla: Macrinus bis Balbinus. Das r6mische HerrscherA.D.
Last Stand. New York: Random House.

Zanker, P. 1995. The Mask of Socrates: The Image of the Intellectual in Antiquity. Translated by A. Shapiro. Ber-
bild 3 (1). Berlin: Mann.

Wood, S. 1986. Roman Portrait Sculpture 217-260
keley: University of California Press. 24:40-5, 64-6.
Zias,J. 1998. "Whose Bones?" Biblical Archaeology Review
Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Bartman - Roman Female Hairstyles

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bartman - Roman Female Hairstyles

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hair and the Artifice of Roman Female Adornment Author(s): Elizabeth Bartman Source: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol.

Hair and the Artifice of Roman Female Adornment

HAIR AND THE ARTIFICE OF ROMAN FEMALE ADORNMENT

emperorDomitianauthoreda book abouthair,whichhasnot survived(Suet.Dom.18). 19 Fora catalogueof thesescenes,see Kampen1981,149-52.

HAIR AND THE ARTIFICE OF ROMAN FEMALE ADORNMENT

27Virgiliet al. 1990;Wyke1994, 143-6; D'Ambra1997.

28Fittschen1993, 203, n. 6, pl. 25; De Carthage a Kairouan

HAIR AND THE ARTIFICE OF ROMAN FEMALE ADORNMENT

1923,275-328, esp. 284, pl. 8); Egypt: pile of hairheld in place

HAIR AND THE ARTIFICE OF ROMAN FEMALE ADORNMENT

50MuseoCapitolino434; Fittschenand Zanker1983, 53-4, no. 69, pls. 86-87.

116b. 55 Galleria dei Candelabri 2708; Amelung 1903-1908,

HAIR AND THE ARTIFICE OF ROMAN FEMALE ADORNMENT

HAIR AND THE ARTIFICE OF ROMAN FEMALE ADORNMENT

71Ov., Am. 1.14.45-6; Mart. 14.26. See Bartman 1999, 39.

HAIR AND THE ARTIFICE OF ROMAN FEMALE ADORNMENT

HAIR AND THE ARTIFICE OF ROMAN FEMALE ADORNMENT

HAIR AND THE ARTIFICE OF ROMAN FEMALE ADORNMENT

HAIR AND THE ARTIFICE OF ROMAN FEMALE ADORNMENT

HAIR AND THE ARTIFICE OF ROMAN FEMALE ADORNMENT

Woman in Augustan Rome. Cambridge:

London: HMSO. Fittschen, K. 1978. "TwoPortraits of Septimius Severus

Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Portrdtmumien.

D. 1989. Die Bildnisse des Caligula. Das r6-

Philipp von Zabern.

Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

grafico dello Stato.

Gauckler, P. 1910. "Nouvelles decouvertes dans le sanctuaire syrien dujanicule." CRAI:378-408.

Vatican City: Tipografia PoliglotProfanoLateranense. ta Vaticana.

Press. Goette, H. 1986. "Zweimal lulia Domna." RM 93:24551.

Griffin,J. 1976. "Augustan Poetry and the Life of Luxu66:87-104. ry."JRS

Paris:Editions de la reunion des musees fin del'Empire. nationaux.

Delattre, R. 1899. Musee Lavigerie de Saint Louis de Carthage.

Musees et collections archeologiques de l'Algerie et de la Tunisie 8 (2). Paris: Leroux.

in Roma.Rome: Accademia nazionale dei Lincei.

Hiltebeitel and B. Miller, 1-9. Albany: NewYork State University Press.

Jenkins, I., and D. Williams. 1987. "A Bronze Portrait

MAAR23. Rome: American Academy in Rome.

Philipp von Zabern.

Koch, G., and H. Sichtermann. 1982. RomischeSarkophage. Munich: C.H. Beck.

Roman World. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rev. ed. London: B.T. Batsford. Wigmaking.

Rome: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato.

Lugal, 71-6. Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve SanatYayinlari.

RomaniAntichi.Museo della Civilta Romana 7. Rome: Edizioni Quasar.

V. 1974. Les Portraits Romains. Vol. 2, De Ves-

ish Museum Press.

text." In Portraits and Masks: Burial Customs in Roman

Last Stand. New York: Random House.

bild 3 (1). Berlin: Mann.

keley: University of California Press. 24:40-5, 64-6.

Zias,J. 1998. "Whose Bones?" Biblical Archaeology Review

Leiden: E.J. Brill.

You might also like