Anacreon is a marble sculpture depicting a full length male figure. The figure is nude, with the exception of drapery covering his shoulders and some of his back as well as the sides of the torso. His musculature is developed, similar to that of an athlete, with defined abdominal muscles and a visible iliac crest. The figure’s arms are slightly raised, but a portion of the figure’s left arm as well as the right hand have been damaged and are missing. His right arm reaches outward and upward toward the head, while the left arm is pointed downward. The positioning of the arms suggests he was playing an instrument or holding a wine cup. He stands in dynamic contrapposto, his right knee bent and his hips tilted. His left leg rests upon a small tree trunk for support, an element that would not have been present in the bronze original. The figure’s head is tilted upward. He has a full beard formed of locks of individual curls, and his hair is similar in texture. The top portion of his head is damaged and is severed off, but much of his thick hair and all of his face is still visible. The figure’s eyes are hollow and his expression is slightly contemplative and pensive, showing little emotion. The face itself is idealized with smooth, polished skin and a narrow nose.

Significance:
Anacreon was a lyric poet whose works would have been heard at symposia. The sculpture alludes to this in the gesture of the figure’s arms that suggests playing an instrument, such as a lyre, or holding a wine cup typical of one used at a symposium. The face is generalized with few identifying features, which is why the sculptor relies on the attribute of a lyric poet (the lyre) in order to convey Anacreon’s character. In addition, it has been suggestion that the dynamic pose of the figure, such as the jaunty tilt of his head and pronounced contrapposto, is representative of intoxication, another illusion to the symposium where his work would have been read. In this sense, the figure’s body illustrates the nature of Anacreon more so than his face, which is idealized and mask-like with few individualizing details or features suggesting close likeness. Scholar J.J. Pollitt proposes that, “It is the poet Anacreon, more than the man Anacreon, that is presented to the viewer.” The figure also takes on the guise of an athlete or heroic figure with the nude, muscular body. While Anacreon was a poet rather than an athlete, his body may have been depicted this way as an attempt to show pride in the accomplishments of the Greeks, a goal in artwork after the end of the Persian Wars. The original display of this work would have been on the Acropolis during the reign of Pericles, and the sculpture was displayed next to a sculpture of Pericles’ father Xanthippus. While there is no inscription on this sculpture identifying the figure as Anacreon, Pausanias, a Greek traveler and geographer, noted that this was a sculpture of Anacreon in his writings when he saw it on the Acropolis originally.
]]>

"Anacreon. Copenhagen, New Carlsberg Glyptotek (Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek)." History of Ancient Rome. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Mar. 2017.

Breckenridge, James D. "The Portrait in Greek Art." Likeness; a Conceptual History of Ancient Portraiture. Evanston: Northwestern UP, 1968. 90-93. Print.

Pollitt, J.J. "Chapter 3: Personality and Psychology in Portraiture." Art in the Hellenistic Age. Cambridge: Cambridge UPress, 2009. 60. Google Books. Web. 4 Mar. 2017.]]> The portrait statue of Chrysippus depicts the Stoic philosopher in a seated position, his back bent over with age. He sits upon a stone block, tucking his feeble legs closer to his body and pulling his himation tighter around his bare shoulders and sagging chest. His left hand is balled up into a fist on his lap, which also holds the cloak tightly underneath. His right hand is free, the fingers bent and extending towards the viewer to indicate numeration. His head is projecting forward towards an imaginary opponent, and his face portrays that of a man in the middle of a dispute. More specifically, the head is exquisitely detailed, with sunken eyes, furrowed brows, and several sharp creases at the top of the nose. The dotage prevalent in the Chrysippus statue continues with the figure's heavily lined eyes and sagging cheeks. His beard is composed of unruly tufts that extend unevenly in different directions. His head is balding and appears dome-like in shape due to his close-cropped hair style and boney structure.

Significance:
The portrait statue of Chrysippus has a number of features that help define the philosophic image of its deceased counterpart: the beard, furrowed brows, tightly drawn himation, and seated posture all hearken back to the philosopher image of the Hellenistic period. His sagging body and contemplative expression might have been intended by Euboulides to emphasize the portrait as resolutely philosophic. This blatant disregard for the philosopher’s temporal body suggests that Chrysippus favored intellectual prowess over physical fitness. However, these few elements alone would not have been enough to connote Chrysippus’ image in antiquity. More specifically, individualizing features like the gesture of the right hand and energetic thrust of the head are explicit characteristics of Chrysippus. Chrysippus was more than just an aggressive speaker; he was a great Stoic dialectician who represented argumentation and logical deduction in stoicism (one of the main philosophical "schools" in Athens). In this case, his extended right hand represents a particular form of thinking, the fingers perhaps ticking off the order of his winning points. His powerfully expressive face is contrasted with his particularly frail body, which emphasizes how the power of his spirit triumphs over the weakness of his body. These elements precisely communicate not only the portrait subject’s social standing in society, but also his individualizing features as a philosopher in antiquity.

It is of some significance to note that the statue is also a combination of two separate sculptures; however, art historians are fairly certain that they have the correct arrangement because Cicero specifically refers to these individualizing features formerly stated. Another part of what makes the statue of Chrysippus a significant part of history is the change from the “formal” and renowned stance to a more personal stance depicting a man (in this case, a philosopher) frozen in the midst of doing something he was once celebrated throughout antiquity for. In other words, the viewer gets a rather intimate depiction of an individual as opposed to other Hellenistic portraiture.]]>
Dillon, Sheila. “Greek Portraits in Practice.” Ancient Greek Portrait Sculpture: Contexts, Subjects, and Styles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. 114-115. Print.

Harvard University Library Website: http://via.lib.harvard.edu/via/deliver/deepcontentItem?recordId=olvwork295837%2CDIV.LIB.FACULTY%3A828683

Hekler, Antal. Greek & Roman Portraits. Place of Publication Not Identified: Hardpress, 2012. 22. Google Books. Web.

Pollitt, J.J. “Personality and Psychology in Portraiture.” Art in the Hellenistic Age.Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 2009. 69. Print.

Richter, Gisela M. A. “Criteria for the Identification.” Greek Portraits II: To What Extent Were They Faithful Likenesses? Bruxelles: Latomus, 1959. 34. Print.

Zanker, Paul, and H. A. Shapiro. The Mask of Socrates: The Image of the Intellectual in Antiquity. Berkeley, CA: CaliforniaUniversity Press, 1996. Print.

]]> Body: the Louvre, Paris, France]]> The marble statues “Harmodius and Aristogeiton” consist of two standing, nude male figures. From the perspective of the viewer, the man to the right is Harmodius. His hair is quite stylized and made up of rows of snail shell-like curls. His face is serene and mask-like. He has deep-set almond shaped eyes and a slight archaic smile. Unfortunately, his nose has been mostly broken off so that only the nostrils remain. Aristogeiton’s hair, on the other hand, is much smoother and almost helmet-like. He also has a beard which is quite rough and almost crudely carved. His nose is broken off as well, and he shows additional signs of damage all along his cheeks. His eyes, while deep-set, are a bit rounder than Harmodius’. Both Harmodius and Aristogeiton’s postures are dynamic and full of movement. Unlike their stylized heads, their bodies show evidence of contrapposto. Harmodius’ left arm is raised above his head and he is holding what appears to be the end of a sword, with the blade missing. His right arm is stretched slightly behind him and is held in place by a marble support connected to his leg. The muscles in his arms and torso are defined and twist along the line of his body. He appears to be lunging forward, with his left knee slightly bent and his right leg stretched behind him. His left hip is leaning on a small tree trunk placed beside him. His right foot is slightly raised, but the marble from the round base slopes upward to remain connected to his foot. Aristogeiton’s body mirrors his counterpart’s position, with his right arm and leg extending forward. His arm, however, is extended in front of him as opposed to above his head. There is a chlamys draped over his arm and he is holding the handle of a sword. There is a tree trunk placed against his right leg and the fabric. Like Harmodius, his back foot is placed on a slight slope in the base, making it appear as though it is raised.

Significance:

These sculptures are noteworthy works, as they do not quite fit in either the Archaic Period or the Classical Period. Instead, they include characteristics typical of each of these periods and are emblematic of the transition that occurred at this time. Both Harmodius and Aristogeiton’s heads are archaic in style, though Harmodius’ more so than Aristogeiton’s. Harmodius features the trademark almond shaped eyes, snail shell curls, and archaic smile. Harmodius’ head, however, is not original to the statue. It has been restored based off of a plaster cast of a sculpture of Aristogeion’s head at Baiae. While their heads appear archaic, their bodies are certainly Classical in style. Although they are still a little bit stiffer than most Classical statues, they are much more dynamic than statues dating to the Archaic period. They are standing in a dramatic contrapposto, with their front leg bearing their weight. They have defined musculature that responds to the movement of their body, a common characteristic of Classical sculptures as well. In addition to Aristogeiton’s head, there have been a few other restorations. Aristogeiton’s left hand and right arm were added at the same time as his head. Harmodius’ arms, lower left leg, and right leg were all restored as well. In addition to their style, the subjects of these sculptures are quite interesting. These statues, in particular, are based on Classical bronze originals, which themselves were based on Archaic bronze sculptures. In the Classical originals, there would not have been tree trunks, as those are used to support the added weight of marble. The early Classical originals would have been displayed at the Athenian Agora after the Archaic originals were stolen by the Persians during their attack on Athens in 480 BC. The statues were commissioned by the city of Athens to celebrate Harmodius and Aristogeiton as heroes of the state. The two men planned to kill the tyrant Hippias, and his brother Hipparchos. However, they only managed to kill Hipparchos, and were killed themselves soon after. It also appears that the assassination attempt was over personal matters, not due to Hippias’ tyranny. According to ancient sources, Harmodius may have been romantically pursued by Hipparchos but turned him down in favor of Aristogeiton. Nonetheless, their actions were seen as an attempt to save Athens from tyranny. After Hippias was finally overthrown in 510 BC, they were celebrated as heroes by the Athenians, and the first bronze sculptures were commissioned. Their actions were once again solidified when these statues of the two men were commissioned by the Athenians to replace the bronze originals and set up at public expense. This is the first instance where portraits were set up by a community, rather than the individuals they portrayed. The communal nature of this commission further confirms the figures’ images as heroes to Athenian State as a whole, regardless of actual outcome of their actions. In fact, Harmodius and Aristogeiton’s legacy has earned them the title of “The Tyrant Slayers” to this day.]]> Original from the Athenian Agora]]> Likeness: a conceptual history of ancient portraiture. Evanston: Northwe stern U Press, 1969. 85-87. Print. Smith, Amy . "Athenian Political Art from the fifth and fourth centuries BCE: Images of Historical Individuals." Athenian Political Art from the fifth and fourth centuries BCE: Images of Historical Individuals. N.p., Jan. 2003. Web. 15 Mar. 2017. <http://www.stoa.org/projects/demos/article_portraits?page=7&greekencoding=>. "Tyrannicides - Aristogeiton." Tyrannicides - Aristogeiton — Sito ufficiale del Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Mar. 2017. <http://cir.campania.beniculturali.it/museoarcheologiconazionale/thematic-views/image-gallery/RA97/?searchterm=Harmodius and Aristogeiton>. "Tyrannicides - Harmodius." Tyrannicides - Harmodius — Sito ufficiale del Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Mar. 2017. <http://cir.campania.beniculturali.it/museoarcheologiconazionale/thematic-views/image-gallery/RA95/?searchterm=Harmodius and Aristogeiton>.]]> The Tetradrachm of Ptolemy I Soter, like all coins, has two sides, the obverse and reverse. The obverse depicts the portrait of Alexander the Great. He is shown wearing an elephant headdress, the mitra of Dionysus, the ram’s horn, and an aegis around his neck. The elephant headdress is lifelike; it is shown with wrinkles in its skin. The trunk of the elephant also seems to be drawn using the same pattern as the outline of the coin, almost as if the two are connected. The ear of the elephant also seems to be disconnected from the rest of the head, as if it was pinned on. The ram’s horn also peaks out from underneath the headdress (protruding from the top of Alexander’s head in a slanted direction towards the right). It is also worth mentioning that the aegis around Alexander’s neck is very detailed; it is shown with a scale like design. Furthermore, we can still see Alexander’s long hair spill out, despite the headdress. Lastly, the features of Alexander’s face are extremely detailed. You can especially see this with his eye. Not only are his eye lids depicted, you can even see that the artist included Alexander's iris in the obverse die that was used to strike this portrait image. Lastly, the open lips and luxurious hair show that the portrait of Alexander is in “Lysippan style.”
_________________________________________

There are a lot of noticeable features about the reverse side of the coin as well. First, we see the emphasis of this side, the striding Athena. Athena is depicted here, with a spear in her right hand and a shield in the left. The detail in the picture of Athena is meticulous. You can see the design in her dress, the folds in her cloths, and the pieces of her armor. I would even go as far as saying that the bottom of her clothes seem almost transparent, since you can see the outline of her leg, even through the clothes. Along with Athena, this side of the coin also has an eagle on top of a lightning bolt, to the right of Athena. There are also a number of inscriptions on this side of the coin, AΛEΞANΔPOY (to the left of Athena), and a couple of arrow like characters (to the right of Athena). It should also be noted, that this side of the coin has the same outline as the obverse side.

Significance:
The obverse side of the coin is full of significance. The depiction of Alexander the great is filled with metaphor and connections to other aspects of his life. To start, we have his face. The face shown on the coin is clean, shaven, and young. This shows the idea of the coin was to cement Alexander forever in time, as the youthful leader that he was. The aegis around Alexander’s neck also gives the same idea; it represents agelessness and immortality. The aegis also belonged to Zeus, connecting Alexander to divinity and, what was believed to be, his bloodline. Next we have the elephant headdress; this is to reference his conquest in the east and his victory against an army of elephants. Not only is Alexander wearing an animal, his hair can be seen as reference to the mane of a lion. This connects Alexander to the fierceness and regality of the lion. The ram’s horn, poking out from underneath the headdress, is also significant because it is a reference to Zeus Ammon. The reason Alexander is connected to Zeus Ammon is because a prophet, from the oasis Siwah in the Libyan desert, claims he is his son. Along with being Zeus Ammon’s son, Alexander is shown wearing a mitra of Dionysus, to further relate him to the gods. Other instances where Alexander is being connected to Zeus are the eagle and lightning bolt on the reverse side, both are symbolic of Zeus.

The reasons behind the making of the coin are also very important. First, the portrait being on a coin means the images on the coin are meant to be seen by the populace. This was Ptolemy’s way of showing the majority of his connection to Alexander. It was a way for him to proclaim his right to be Alexander’ successor. It was also a way to show his respect to his predecessor.
]]> Arnold-Biucchi, Carmen. Alexander's Coins and Alexander's Image. N.p.: n.p., 2007. Print. Pages 59-61

http://www.harvardartmuseums.org/art/191212

http://snible.org/coins/hn/egypt.html

http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/egypt/ptolemy_I/i.html

https://warisboring.com/battle-of-the-dumbos-elephant-warfare-from-ancient-greece-to-the-vietnam-war-ca62af225917#.7uhs73yoa

http://www.livius.org/sources/content/arrian/anabasis/alexander-visits-siwah/]]>
This Roman coin, called a sestertius, presents portrait busts of two different men, Octavian and Julius Caesar, on the obverse and reverse respectively. Framed by thin, circular border patterns that resemble intricate clock dials, and Latin inscriptions in capital letters, including "CAESAR DIVID F" (son of the divine Caesar) around Octavian and "DIVOS IULIUS" (the divine Julius) around Caesar, whose heads, shown in profile, face toward the right. Protruding slightly from the coins’ surfaces, the portraits and the letters surrounding them convey a degree of three-dimensionality. On the obverse side, Octavian’s features, including a notable jawline, subtly sloped brow, rounded eye, prominent nose, and straight mouth, are elevated above the surface, creating shadowed lines that define the face. Faint swirls along his jaw area suggest that a beard was originally present. More evidently, curled ringlets cascade to the back of his scalp and up across his forehead, tucking behind a simplified, curved ear, thus emphasizing his youthfulness. His relatively blank expression and idealized face recall conventions of Classical Greek portrait types. Conversely, Julius Caesar, on the reverse, exhibits many of the individualizing traits of his lifetime portraits. With a bulbous head, a long, straight nose, as well as a receding hairline composed of slight waves, the portrait offers a striking contrast to that of the obverse. Minimal verism may be referenced in the prominent Adam’s apple, slight crease at the corner of the eye, and jowl lines that form a mouth tilted up into a smile. Nevertheless, the bust lacks wrinkles on the forehead and neck, prominent areas that would be conveyed in a strictly truthful representation. Notably, Caesar also wears a wreath that extends from the back of the head to the top of the forehead, again distinguishing him from Octavian’s portrait.

Significance:

The pictorial and linguistic representations on the coin serve as propaganda that expresses Octavian’s political aims. In depicting himself as the living ruler on the obverse, he followed the precedent recently introduced by Julius Caesar in 44 B.C., which had broken Roman Republican tradition. Unlike in Caesar’s time, Octavian establishes in his own likeness a new Roman portrait ideal of eternal youth, reflecting the beginning of his rise to power at age 19 upon Caesar’s death. The smooth, generalized features reference his admiration for the Greeks and signify a stylistic transition from verism, which promoted the Republican notion of honoring men with age and experience, to classicism, which allowed Octavian to reinforce his youthful image. This particular coin, a standard bronze sestertius, worth ¼ of a silver denarius and 1/100 of a golden aureus, dates from between 38-31 B.C., prior to Octavian’s military victory against Marc Antony in 27 B.C. that led him to become Rome’s first Emperor and receive the title of “Augustus” from the Senate. Given the timeframe, it follows logically that Octavian would have sought to increase his power and legitimize his right-to-rule by connecting himself with Julius Caesar through propaganda. For this reason, Julius Caesar, depicted with a corona triumphalis crown of laurel leaves that denotes his deification given by the Senate in 42 B.C. and military triumph over Pompey in Rome, appears as a god, as evidenced by the inscription, ‘Divius Julius’ and his now-smoothed out features, which had been more veristic in his lifetime portraits, such as the 44 B.C. Tusculum bust. Octavian, cementing himself to his adoptive father, uses the inscription, ‘Divius filius,’ beside his face, effectively proclaiming himself the “son of a god” who even wears the beard of mourning for his departed father. This father-son relationship is largely fictionalized to assert Octavian’s authority and inform the populace, who would have likely had more access to these widely distributed coins than portrait statues. In reality, Octavian was Julius Caesar’s grandnephew and only received adoption posthumously through his will. Thus, he cleverly minted these coins to convey visual messages that fabricated the truth and served to boost his prestige based on his connection to Julius Caesar.]]> Kleiner, Diana E. E. Roman Sculpture. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 2006. 61. Print.

Kleiner, Fred S. A History of Roman Art. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning, 2016. 62-63; 89. Print.

http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?assetId=616516001&objectId=1193367&partId=1

]]> The portrait “Standing Demosthenes” shows a standing man and is just over life-size. He looks to be around fifty or sixty, with clear wrinkles, predominantly on his face. His cheeks are hollow, and his brow is furrowed. His lips are closed tightly and his jaw is clenched. He is looking downward, as though he is just looked away from the viewer. His beard is closely cropped, and his hairline is slightly receding. He is very thin with his bones creating most of his body’s definition rather than muscle. His chest is sunken and his hunched shoulders are quite bony. In his hands, there is a partially unrolled scroll. He is standing in contrapposto, a typical stance for the early Hellenistic period. From the perspective of the viewer, his right foot is pointed forward, while his left foot is turned outward. There is a round container of scrolls placed behind his right foot. He is wearing a himation, which is wrapped around his body. It is rolled underneath his chest and draped over his right shoulder. It falls around his ankles, exposing his sandaled feet. He is standing on a small, round platform.

Significance:
This sculpture of Demosthenes is an exemplary piece of Hellenistic portraiture. It is individualized and realistic, appealing to the audience’s emotions. His identity is known from both ancient texts and an inscription that appears on one of the several Roman replicas. The original Greek version would have been made of bronze, not marble. The container of scrolls behind his right foot would not have been present on the original and is acting as a support for the heavier marble. Even though it is not an exact physical representation, as Demosthenes died 40 years before this was made, it pays great attention to using physical features to portray his inner character. Demosthenes was an orator who spoke out against the Macedonian conquest of Greece. As a result, he was seen as one of Athens’ greatest advocates. This statue was originally on display at the Athenian Agora, possibly as part of a collection of statues of individuals who had defended Athens in the past. However, his attempts to speak out against Macedonia failed and he ultimately committed suicide. His posture and expression reflect the anxiety and stress he felt during his life. He appears uncertain and unconfident, as though he is aware that his efforts have been in vain. This statue’s hands are not original, but have been restored based on ancient texts. However, scholars now think that instead of holding a scroll, his fingers would have been interlaced, adding to his uneasy appearance. Even though his physiognomy may not accurately reflect the real Demosthenes, his inner state is clearly conveyed through this work. Furthermore, it has been suggested by one scholar that his slightly awkward mouth position is a reference to the stutter he had to overcome in his youth. By portraying Demosthenes’ inner struggle, the audience is able to empathize with him. It does not simply portray him as a historical character but encourages the viewer to understand his anxiety. This appeal to emotion and heightened realism makes this a wonderful example of a Hellenistic art.]]> Original: Athenian Agora]]>
Fullerton, Mark D. Greek Art. Cambridge: Cambridge U Press, 2000. 38-39. Print.

Havelock, Christine Mitchell. Hellenistic Art. (London): Phaidon, 1971. 77. Print.]]> This panel from the Punt colonnade from the Mortuary Temple of Pharaoh Hatshepsut depicts three figures etched into the limestone. The figure to the far left is male, wearing a kilt with a sword tucked into the waistband. He has broad shoulders and a thin waist. He is turned to the left, only a profile of his face is visible, but the rest of his body faces forward. His left arm is at his side, clutching a rod that is only partially in view. His right arm is crossed at his chest, with his hand clenched into a fist. He is wearing a necklace, and has a long goatee that reaches his sternum. The figure in the center is a woman, who appears to be extremely obese. There are rolls to indicate extra flesh around her arms, her midsection, and around her legs. Her hair is down and behind her shoulders, but there is a thin strip of fabric tied around her forehead. Her sleeveless shirt hugs her rolls, and exposes her fleshy arms. Her buttocks and thighs are disproportionately large, partially covered by loose shorts. Her figure is humanoid, the deposits of fat are awkwardly spaced, and her buttocks extend far out, making her profile look like an “s” shape. She has a necklace with three, equidistant circles, and two anklets. Her left arm is at her side, with an open palm gesturing towards the ground. Her right arm is crossed at her chest, with the palm open and facing her midsection. There is a figure partially depicted on the far right, holding a covered pan with open palms.

Significance
This panel is located on the Punt Colonnade, a section of the mortuary temple dedicated to celebrating the political achievements of Pharaoh Hatshepsut in the land of Punt, an area “rich in resources” and invaluable to the Egyptians. This section specifically touts Hatshepsut’s expedition to punt circa 1493, which brought trees and other supplies back to Egypt. It depicts King Perehu and Queen Eti of Punt, but Eti is shown as portrayed as morbidly obese. This could have been done for a number of reasons, still debated today. It could be used to portray the wealth of resources in Punt. Another potential reason is to emphasize the “otherness” of people from the land of Punt, to stress the political accomplishments of Hatshepsut that she made trade relations with a land with people far different from Egyptians. This also could simply be how Queen Eti actually looked, with femoral obesity and random deposits of fatty tissue as a result of Lipomatosis or Dercum disease, now refered to as “Queen of Punt” Syndrome.
]]>
Egyptian Dermatology Online Journal Website: http://www.edoj.org.eg/vol001/00102/07/quine%20punt.htm

Art History Webmaster's Association Website: https://www.bluffton.edu/homepages/facstaff/sullivanm/egypt/deirelbahri/deirelbahri.html

Ancient History Encyclopedia Website: http://www.ancient.eu/punt/

]]> The Met Caracalla is a portrait head of emperor Marcus Aurelius Severus Antoninus Augustus of the Severan dynasty. The head is square shaped and has a slight indentation at the chin. The sculpture is slightly damaged with sharp breaks along the neck, as well as chips to the nose, outer left eyebrow, and cheek. The face of the portrait is smooth and idealized, aside from some wrinkles on the forehead. These wrinkles suggest a tension or concentration in the face, rather than old age. These wrinkles also contribute to a furrowed brow, giving the portrait a glaring or frowning expression. Caracalla’s lips are full and slightly parted. Above his lips is a thin moustache, suggested by small lines in the marble. The figure also has facial hair in the form of a beard around the far edges of his face and chin. Similar to the moustache, the beard is fairly thin and cropped close to Caracalla’s face. The portrait’s nose is at the center of the face above the lips and moustache. Though the left portion of the nose has suffered some damage, the broad ridge of the nose and rounded nostrils are still visible. Caracalla’s eyes are on either side of the top of the nose and below his eyebrows. Carved in deep relief, his eyes appear to droop slightly at the outer edges and glance upward. There is a line below the outer edge of each eye to suggest an eye bag. The sculpture’s iris and pupil are drilled and sit towards the top of the eye. The irises do not form complete circles and are severed by the top lid. The eyebrows, carved in high relief, protrude from the face and cast a dramatic shadow over the eyes. Caracalla’s hair is short and wavy.

Significance:
Caracalla is known for being a ferocious and cruel leader, having murdered his brother and practiced violence through the military. This portrait displays Caracalla as an adult, and when he was at least eighteen when this portrait was completed. While Caracalla took the name of Marcus Aurelius, he does not liken himself to his predecessors with a luxurious beard and hair. Instead, his hair and beard are closely cropped to his head and face, a more military style. This choice may be related to advice his father, Septimus Severus, gave on his death bed that suggested he prioritize Roman soldiers and forget all other people during his rule. Caracalla followed this advice and spent a great deal of time with his military, even increasing their pay. During his rule he had the desire for many military conquests, and in later portraiture he attempts to liken himself to Alexander the Great. He begins to do this here with the turn of his head. Caracalla’s glaring, intense expression is the most striking in this portrait, and is representative of his severe disposition. The “X” shaped created by the furrowed brown and nasal labial lines in the face defines the style of the Caracalla Master, and this “X” shape first seen in this portrait became a popular style for portraits to come. In this way the portrait depicts his inner psyche, and is thus similar to Antonine portraiture, especially that of Marcus Aurelius. This is an official portrait, and was most likely made at an imperial workshop since it was found in Rome. It is part of a larger sculpture, and the fragments that remain are his legs. These fragments are bare legs, suggesting Caracalla may have been dressed in military garb. In this portrait Caracalla attempts to depict his intensity as a leader and emphasize his role in Rome’s military.
]]> ARTnews. Art Media ARTNEWS, 1 Mar. 2004. Web. 09 Apr. 2017.

Kleiner, Diana E. E. "The Severan Dynasty." Roman Sculpture. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 2006. 324-25. Print.

"Marble Portrait of the Emperor Caracalla | Roman | Severan | The Met." The Metropolitan Museum of Art, I.e. The Met Museum. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2017.]]> In ancient Egypt, artists often gravitated towards abstract qualities in their portraiture, resulting in characteristics that some would not define as a “true portrait.” This decree is shattered in the Bust of Prince Ankh-haf, as it exhibits the details finessed by the hand of a master rather than the usual stylized representation. Plaster covers the limestone core of the bust, which has been painted red. This color is often associated with males in antiquity. There also appears to be damage to the forehead, nose, and chin of the bust. Ankh-haf’s features show evidence of traits that are comparable to mature men. His head appears bulbous in shape, but this observation can be attributed to his hairline, which starts at the tip of his scalp. This seemingly minute detail depicts Ankh-haf with a receding hairline – a detail absent from most ancient Egyptian sculptures of the Fourth Dynasty. His eyelids droop down towards his irides, which were originally painted white with brown pupils, but the paint has since faded from existence. Additionally, the puffy bags under his eyes show signs of age, complimenting his weary facade. The diagonal grooves in his cheeks set off his mouth, which gives him a sense of sternness. His ears have since been lost to antiquity, along with a separate piece of plaster that was once used as a beard. The absence of the statue’s arms and the surface damage surrounding the lower chest suggests that part of the statue was separated from the rest of its body.

Significance:
The Bust of Ankh-haf demonstrates a sense of realism that had not yet been attempted by Egyptians in antiquity. His expression might be described as either pensive or contemplative, both of which are frequent components of lifelike renderings. His gaze appears commanding and willful to the observer and may have been intentionally carved out to give his viewers a raw, yet true depiction of his facial traits. The Bust of Ankh-haf was not only significant for its accurate representation of the human image, but also for its practical use in ancient Egypt. It is believed that the bust was taken from a false door and offering table, which housed the remainder of the arms and torso. Historians claim that the aesthetic perception of the bust must have been used to evoke a sense of realism in the event of an offering. Ankh-haf is special because he is not like other Egyptian sculptures of his time. Tomb sculptures were often private and placed in serdabs, where they were hidden from the public eye; however, this is not the case with the Bust of Prince Ankh-haf since it was found in a chapel attached to the exterior of the prince’s tomb. This chapel showcased the bust in such a way that it took on the form of an offering table, so it would be easily accessible for visitors seeking to honor the memory of Ankh-haf.]]> 2520–2494 B.C.]]>
Breckenridge, James D. Likeness: A Conceptual History of Ancient Portraiture. Evanston: Northwestern University, 1969. 37-38. Print.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston: http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/bust-of-prince-ankhhaf-45982]]> The ‘Large Kneeling Statue of Hatsheput’ presents a large female figure kneeling atop a rectangular slab with a rounded front. She wears a nemes headdress of incised lines that wraps around her forehead and extends to her shoulders and stops just above the breast, a false beard that flares out slightly at the bottom and creates a solid block at her upper chest, and a shendyt kilt that ends just above the knees. Her face, with its sharp, chiseled features and incised eyes, broad shoulders, understated breasts along with her regal attire, characterize the Ancient Egyptian conventions of a male pharaoh. Formed of hard granite, the statue exudes a stoic strength, with a rigid, straight back, and bent knees with curled feet pressing down on the base. Her arms, bent at the waist, lead to hands tilted up, cupping two round, palm-sized vessels, called nu-pots, used as offerings to the god Amun, according to the inscription at the statue’s base. Cracks appear throughout the granite, denoting the deliberate damage the rough, grainy surface, which has been re-assembled and restored by the Metropolitan Museum of Art with a plaster fill.

Significance:
Rendered in the millennia old Egyptian visual iconography, the statue boldly expresses King Hatsheput’s endurance as pharaoh. Although considered a queen earlier in life, Hatsheput, whom the statue portrays, ascended to power following her husband Thutmose II’s death. By 1473 B.C., scholars note that she wore male pharaoh regalia and created her own mythology, claiming to be the daughter of Thebes’ supreme god, Amun, in order to establish her authority. This particular statue was created after that time, and probably commissioned by Hatsheput herself along with hundreds of other portraits she mandated, which imbues its strong, kingly features with a greater sense of power. Originally seated in the middle terrace of Hatsheput’s mortuary temple, the statue, in kneeling position, would present its raised offerings to the statue of Amun-Re that passed from Thebes across the Nile to a shrine in the back of temple for one night during the Beautiful Feast of the Valley. This kneeling posture not only showed Hatsheput’s reliance and submission to Amun, but also testified to her own role in partaking in a ritual of the living, even after her death, implying her eternal position as a king/god in the afterlife, and heralded by the enormity of the statue. Though its cracks reflect the efforts of her step-son, Thutmose III, to expunge her name from history, the statue now sits proudly in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, a lasting symbol to new generations of the legacy Hatsheput proclaimed for herself.]]>
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ancient-art-civilizations/egypt-art/new-kingdom/v/mortuary-temple-of-hatshepsut-and-large-kneeling-statue-new-kingdom-egypt]]>