The Head in the Storeroom
A regional museum holds an unpublished marble head, 31 cm high, bought from a dealer in 1958. It has no recorded findspot. The hair is arranged in a simplified version of the Prima Porta type associated with Augustus; the face is smooth, the eyes are not drilled, and the back of the head is unfinished and rough. The marble is fine-grained white. A local donor offers a substantial sum for conservation and display on condition that the label reads 'Augustus, Roman emperor.' The curator thinks the head may be Julio-Claudian but is not certain. A colleague points out that the unfinished back may mean the piece was meant for a niche or was reworked, and that many provincial portraits simplify imperial models. The museum's ethics policy says labels must distinguish between certain, probable and possible identifications. The curator must decide the label, what further tests to request, and how to handle the donor.
1. Assess the case for and against identifying the head as Augustus.
Read the worked answer
For: The hairstyle echoes the Prima Porta type. The arrangement of locks over the forehead is the key diagnostic feature of Augustan portraiture, and a simplified version could still be recognisable as the emperor's image. The scale, 31 cm, is consistent with a slightly over-life-size portrait. The fine white marble is suitable for imperial or high-status work. Provincial portraits often simplify imperial models, so the smooth face and undrilled eyes are not decisive against an Augustan identification.
Against: The simplification could indicate a later or local copy, or a different Julio-Claudian prince using Augustan imagery. The unfinished back suggests the piece was set against a wall or in a niche; that tells us about display, not identity. No findspot means no context. The undrilled eyes may suggest a date before the widespread use of drilling in the later first century CE, or simply a conservative workshop; it is not a secure criterion. The head could be a private person adopting an imperial hairstyle.
Balance: The case is 'probable Augustan type,' not 'certain Augustus.' The label should distinguish type from identity: a portrait can follow an imperial type without depicting the emperor himself. The curator should not let the donor's condition convert a stylistic resemblance into a documented identification.
2. What further evidence would most efficiently test the identification, and what would each result tell you?
Read the worked answer
Marble provenance: Isotopic analysis can suggest a quarry, such as Luna, Carrara or a Greek source. A match to imperial quarrying patterns supports an imperial or official context but cannot identify the individual. A mismatch would not disprove an imperial subject, because marble was reused and transported.
Tool marks and surface: Cleaning and close examination can reveal recutting, especially around the hair and face. Recutting would suggest the head was adapted from another portrait, which weakens a straightforward 'Augustus' label. The unfinished back should be recorded in detail: it may show how the head was mounted.
Comparanda: A search of provincial portraits of the Julio-Claudians may find a closer parallel than Prima Porta. A close comparandum would strengthen a type identification but would not prove identity.
Provenance research: Dealer records from 1958 may establish an earlier collection or export licence. This is ethical as well as art-historical. It would not prove identity, but it would clarify legal status and collecting history. The most efficient sequence is provenance research and close visual examination first, then isotope analysis if the museum can afford it.
3. How should the museum respond to the donor's condition?
Read the worked answer
The museum should decline the condition while trying to keep the donation. Its ethics policy already requires distinguishing certain, probable and possible identifications, and a donor cannot purchase an attribution. The curator should explain in writing that the label will read something like 'Portrait of a Julio-Claudian prince, possibly Augustus' and that further research may change it. The museum can offer the donor recognition in the gallery text or catalogue, and can accept the gift if the condition is withdrawn.
If the donor insists, the museum should refuse the gift. Accepting would compromise the museum's integrity and mislead the public. The donor's money is not evidence. A good compromise is to invite the donor to fund a research project, including provenance research and, if appropriate, isotope analysis, with the label updated as evidence warrants. The curator should also record the decision and the reasons, so that the museum can defend its position if the donor complains or if the label is challenged later.