Side with Augustus
original south side
Processional Frieze - Far right
One of the defining features of Augustus' social policy was his legislation regarding the responsibilites of marriage and families. The prominence of women and children, especially in this portion of this frieze, rare in state monuments before this, calls attention to the importance of reproduction and dynasty.
The severe lack of continuity between the join of these 2 panels (especially obvious when seen from the side, as in the detail photos in the second line of photos below) indicates that they were incorrectly joined in the hurried 1938 reconstruction. Conlin (1992) and others have shown that details at the bottom of the figures indicate that at least 2 figures, perhaps more, would have occupied the space between these 2 panels.
TO ZOOM IN ON THE LARGE IMAGES, USE THE BUTTONS AT TOP-LEFT.
Tips for using this website
These figures are regularly identified as memebrs of Augustus' family, though individual identifications vary. photo July-Oct. 2008
|
Intense, direct sun. At the left side of this photo the lack of continuity between the 2 slabs is easily seen. The different color and character of the marble head at far left indicates that it was recarved. photo Oct. 2008
|
Intense, direct sun on the lower portion of the same figures. The right edge of this slab is clearly not the right end of the processional frieze. The missing slab would almost certainly have been wider than the narrow space seen here. photo Oct. 20
|
The varying depth of the carved heads is dramatized in this photo. Especially notable is the expressive character of the woman seeming to request quiet, even though carved in very low relief. photo Oct. 2008
|
Antonia Minor, as we now see her, has had her nose, presumably carved in the 1784 restoration, replaced. photo Oct. 2008
|
Antonia Minor - "when the insert on the nose was removed [during the restoration of 1982-1990] from the face of the younger Antonia on the last block of the south Procession (which we know was restored by Carradori [in 1784]), it revealed a smooth and regular surface with sharp edges intended to maximize surface contact. The diameter of the holes, and thus of the pins, is much smaller [than in earlier restorations] . . . the technique used here is significantly more refined". Scanned from Giovanna Martellotti, "Reconstructive Restoration of Roman Sculptures: Three Case Studies", History of Restoration of Ancient Stone Sculptures, ed. Janet Burnett Grossman, Jerry Podany, and Marion True; Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2003, fig.9 (photo P. Rizzi).
|
Antonia minor and Drussus, looking at each other. photo May 2010
|
The expressive relationships of figures change as we move. photo May 2010
|
Drusus - "in the past all these breaks would have been evened out and chiseled down to accomodate a marble reconstruction, as was done inthe case of Drusus in block VII of the south wall". Scanned from Giovanna Martellotti, "Reconstructive Restoration of Roman Sculptures: Three Case Studies", History of Restoration of Ancient Stone Sculptures, ed. Janet Burnett Grossman, Jerry Podany, and Marion True; Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2003, fig.12 (photo P. Rizzi).
|
Antonia minor toward the right. The head at left was recarved by Carradori after 1784. The obvious lack of continuity between these 2 panels indicates that they were incorrectly joined in the hurried 1938 reconstruction. photo May 2010 |
Normally idenitfied as Antonia maior, with 2 unidentified heads left and right. photo May 2010
|
Normally idenntified as Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, with unidentified head at right. Conlin (1997) points out that the surface texture of the head at right shows the effects of an acid wash. photo May 2010
|