John Pollini

The Inscriptional Evidence

Gallo-Roman Bronzes and the Process of Romanization: The Cobannus Hoard, 2002

The Inscriptional Evidence

Gallo-Roman Bronzes and the Process of Romanization: The Cobannus Hoard, 2002

"Some New Observations on and Reconstruction of the Colossal Statue of Constantine in the Capitoline Museum in Rome"

Studies in Digital Heritage, 2025

This article reconsiders some of the most important recent scholarship on the recut colossal acro... more This article reconsiders some of the most important recent scholarship on the recut colossal acrolithic (marble and bronze) statue of Constantine in the Palazzo dei Conservatori of the Capitoline Museums in Rome. Discussed in this article are the various past attempts to determine from which previous emperor or divinity the statue might have bene recut and reused in a new setting, as well as past reconstructions of the statue. To this discussion, I offer some new arguments that the statue was recut from an image of the emperor Hadrian, but not the consecrated cult image of him as a deified emperor (divus) that once stood in his temple (Hadrianeum) in the Campus Martius in Rome but rather a non-consecrated statue of him. In addition, I reproduced a new colorized version of what the reworked statue of Constantine would have looked like when first dedicated, based on more recent and plausible reconstructions of the statue that also take into consideration the materials used for it and its decorations.

Download

Some New Observations on and Reconstruction of the Colossal Statue of Constantine in the Capitoline Museum in Rome

Studies in Digital Heritage 9.2 (2025) 281-91, 2025

This article reconsiders some of the most important recent scholarship on the recut colossal acro... more This article reconsiders some of the most important recent scholarship on the recut colossal acrolithic (marble and bronze) statue of Constantine in the Palazzo dei Conservatori of the Capitoline Museums in Rome. Discussed in this article are the various past attempts to determine from which previous emperor or divinity the statue might have bene recut and reused in a new setting, as well as past reconstructions of the statue. To this discussion, I offer some new arguments that the statue was recut from an image of the emperor Hadrian, but not the consecrated cult image of him as a deified emperor (divus) that once stood in his temple (Hadrianeum) in the Campus Martius in Rome but rather a non-consecrated statue of him. In addition, I reproduced a new colorized version of what the reworked statue of Constantine would have looked like when first dedicated, based on more recent and plausible reconstructions of the statue that also take into consideration the materials used for it and its decorations. [NOTE: This is the final version of the article. The article that was uploaded on the journal's website had a few minor uncorrected grammatical mistakes.]

Download

Appendix II

BRILL eBooks, 2002

Abbreviations of Standard Reference Works

BRILL eBooks, 2002

The Inscriptional Evidence

BRILL eBooks, 2002

Appendix I

BRILL eBooks, 2002

Plates

BRILL eBooks, 2002

From republic to empire: rhetoric, religion, and power in the visual culture of ancient Rome

Choice Reviews Online, 2013

Burning Rome, Burning Christians*

The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Nero, 2017

n the year 64 during the Principate of Nero, in the night between July 18 and 19, a fire broke ou... more n the year 64 during the Principate of Nero, in the night between July 18 and 19, a fire broke out in Rome that within nine days destroyed or badly damaged a substantial part of the City, leaving many dead or homeless. Rumors circulated that the fire had been set by Nero, who, it was claimed, sought to divert blame from himself by holding responsible a new sect of aggressively proselytizing Jews, known as Christians. Most recent scholarship has rejected the popular view of Nero as an arsonist "who fiddled while Rome burned." 1 Largely ignored, however, has been the question of whether the Christians, generally regarded as innocent scapegoats of Nero, might in fact have played some role in the fire. This chapter considers the problematic nature of Christianity and Roman attitudes toward Christians in the first century CE and suggests based on this evidence that Christian involvement is not out of the question. Of the few surviving ancient accounts of the Great Fire of 64, the most detailed is that of Tacitus (Ann. 15.38-44), who wrote in the early second century. Most sources contemporary with Nero say nothing * Too late to be incorporated and discussed in extenso in my essay is a new article by B.D. Shaw, "The Myth of the Neronian Persecution," JRS 105 (2015) 73-100. I do not agree with Shaw's major premise that it is most unlikely that Christians were specifically targeted as arsonists, but that they instead suffered punishmentor rather "persecution"for their faith. Tacitus notes that Christians were punished for arson, but carefully and skillfully leads us to deduce that the real culprit was indeed Nero. In my opinion, the reason that other elite post-Neronian authors omit reference to early "Christianized Jews" in connection with the conflagration is that they were intent upon laying the blame for it at the feet of the tyrannical Nero, rather than the new heretical Jewish sect.

Download

A New Roman Imperial Relief Said to Be from Southern Spain: Problems of Style, Iconography, and Marble Type in Determining Provenance

A very fine-grained white marble “historical” relief, featuring three figures and part of a Latin... more

Download

Studies in Augustan "historical" reliefs

A New Winget Goat Table Leg Support from the House of Numerius Popidius Priscus at Pompei and the Rediscovery of Related Finds Lost for a Century and a Half

Computer technology and three-dimensional models in determining the recutting of Roman portraits: The Getty Augustus

"Damnatio memoriae", damnation of an individual's memory, especially for political ... more "Damnatio memoriae", damnation of an individual's memory, especially for political reasons, was a recurring phenomenon in ancient Rome. As a result, marble portraits of leaders and their family were often recut into images of others, usually imperial successors or divinized predecessors. 3-D computer models now allow researchers to project a suspected reworked portrait into an unreworked one to determine how recutting might have been executed. This method was qpplied to a portrait of Augustus in the J. Paul Getty Museum that was long thought to have been recut from a protrait of the damned emperor Caligula. The results of our computer modeling showed instead that the head of Augustus was only slightly reworked from one of his earlier portrait types

The Image of Caligula: Myth and Reality

New Studies on the Portrait of Caligula in the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, 2020

Katalog der Skulpturen in der Antikensammlung der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin. Band 1: Griechische und römische Bildnisse. Für die Antikensammlung der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin herausgegeben von Andreas Scholl

Gnomon, 2018

Klaus Fittschen, Paul Zanker: Katalog der Römischen Porträts in den Capitolinischen Museen und den anderen Kommunalen Sammlungen der Stadt Rom. Band IV Kinderbildnisse, Nachträge zu den Bänden I–III, neuzeitliche oder neuzeitlich verfälschte Bildnisse, Bildnisse an Reliefdenkmälern. Aufnahmen von...

Gnomon, 2016

The Statue of Germanicus from Amelia: New Discoveries

American Journal of Archaeology, 2019

This archaeological note presents the findings from a scientific analysis of the bronze of an ove... more This archaeological note presents the findings from a scientific analysis of the bronze of an over-life-sized cuirassed statue of Germanicus from Amelia (ancient Ameria). The examination was recently carried out in the Museo Archeologico di Amelia to determine both the nature of the statue's production and its relative dating. The 41 nondestructive X-ray fluorescence spectrometry measurements taken on 32 different parts clearly show that there were two, not three, phases (as had been proposed in the only major monograph on the statue) involved in the production of this sculpture. Some analyses using inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometry were also carried out on drillings taken from detached fragments of the statue that were recently rediscovered in the Museo Archeologico Nazionale dell'Umbria in Perugia. The new scientific examinations indicate that all parts of the statue except the cuirass were produced at the same time and apparently were originally being prepared for gilding, which in the end was not carried out for reasons that are discussed. 1 introduction In an article published in the July 2017 issue of the American Journal of Archaeology, Pollini argued against the hypothesis that parts of a statue of Germanicus in the Museo Archeologico di Amelia (fig. ) originally belonged to an image of King Mithridates VI of Pontus that was reused first for a statue of Sulla and subsequently for the Amelia Germanicus. 2 Instead of such a three-phase scenario extending over some hundred years, Pollini proposed that the original statue represented Caligula, whose head was then replaced with that of his father Germanicus after Caligula's assassination in 41 C.E. and the subsequent damnation of his memory. 3 Images of Caligula were consequently destroyed, damaged, or removed from public display under his uncle and successor Claudius. 4 Supporting Pollini's interpretation is the type of cuirass worn by the Amelia Germanicus. With its skirt of distinctively decorated pteryges (the flaps 1 We gratefully acknowledge the generous grant from the Loeb Classical Library Foundation to carry out analysis of the bronze in the statue of Germanicus. Special thanks are also owed to Riccardo Passagrilli, Responsabile of the Museo Archeologico di Amelia, for his support throughout this project and to the Soprintendenza dell'Umbria for further assistance. Figures are our own unless otherwise noted.

Download

The “lost” Nollekens Relief of an imperial sacrifice from Domitian's Palace on the Palatine: its history, iconography, and date

Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2017

Mainstream classical scholarship has long considered as lost a Roman “historical” relief, excavat... more Mainstream classical scholarship has long considered as lost a Roman “historical” relief, excavated in the earlier part of the 18th c. in the Palace of Domitian on the Palatine hill. Showing an emperor sacrificing, it is known as the Nollekens Relief after Joseph Nollekens, an accomplished British sculptor who came to possess it in the 18th c. Besides being a sculptor and painter, he was a sculptural restorer and dealer active between 1761 and 1770 in Rome, where he worked in the workshop of the sculptural restorer Bartholomeo Cavaceppi and in his own studio. The relief has been known chiefly from two engravings and a pen-and-watercolor drawing, all produced in the 18th c., but, rather than being lost, the relief has been hiding in plain sight in the Gatchina Palace near St. Petersburg. Its dimensions are 88 cm high x 139 cm wide. A recent visit to St. Petersburg established that the relief has been continuously in the Gatchina Palace since the late 1770s and that it had been damage...

Uploads

Papers by John Pollini

Log In