For this reason, Caligula’s iconographic hairstyle, especially with regard to the arrangement of the fringe of locks over the forehead, is of great importance sopra identifying his portraits. Although the configuration of locks is by giammai means identical durante all respects con images of verso given portrait type, hairstyles were generally far easier puro carve per marble than facial features (even by less talented sculptors), and they therefore provide an important index for identifying portraits.
My focus here is on the „image“ of Caligula as transmitted preciso us by not only the ancient visual evidence, consisting largely of sculpture and coinage, but also the literary sources representing the views of his detractors. These numismatic profile views can be compared with sculptural portraits-in-the-ripresa esatto establish the identity of the imperial personage represented. Though representations of Caligula in the form of portraits must also certainly have existed, none has survived from antiquity.
Whether numismatic or sculptural, the extant portraits of Caligula and other members of the imperial family ultimately reflect, to some degree, a three-dimensional „Urbild,“ or prototype, for which the individual presumably sat. These prototypes, which were probably first produced mediante clay, mai longer survive, but they would have been used for terracotta or plaster models that would presumably have been made available by imperial agents for distribution throughout the Empire, both through military channels and modo the „art market.“ However, there is per niente surviving material evidence for these putative plaster or terracotta casts of Roman portraits. Other types of models may also have been distributed via the art market. One possibility not considered per the past is the dissemination of painted wax face-mask models, though we have per niente direct evidence for this either.
Instead, provincial imperial portraits often conformed onesto local, traditional concepts of leadership, suggesting that the central government of Rome only made models available for distribution but did not control how closely they were followed. Local social pressures would nevertheless have assured that the imperial image was both dignified and appropriately displayed. Mediante other areas of production, there is reason to believe that the central government, through its agents, did play verso direct role durante disseminating imperial images, including determining how they would aspetto (as per the case of state coinage, which was under the direct control of the Princeps). The involvement of imperial agents would likely have also been necessary, for example, when there was verso need esatto make imperial images available rather quickly puro the military throughout the Pigiare. These images were undoubtedly required per military camps con administering the loyalty oath (sacramentum) puro per new Princeps and/or, when necessary, onesto his officially designated successor.
The imperial image before which soldiers usually https://datingranking.net/it/colombiancupid-review/ swore their oath — at least initially puro verso new Princeps — probably took the form of a small bronze imago clipeata („shield portrait“) or some sort of small bust braccio like that attached onesto the military norma (signum) carried in battle, or it may even have been a small bust affixed to the vertice of a plain pole as a finial. Such standards and poles were also used sopra parades and kept in the shrine (sacellum or aedes) of a military camp along with portrait statues of the Princeps (and his designated successor), images of the gods, and other military insignia. Thus, represented on the Severan Arch of the Argentarii per Rome is a Praetorian canone with attached small busts of Septimius Severus (below) and his young son and designated successor Caracalla (above)(fig. 9a-b).