In the introduction, Rubina Raja highlighted that the research conducted for over a decade within the Palmyra Portrait Project and its results were the starting point for the conference. She stressed the importance of large datasets and how they can shed light on historical events, as well as on the nature and function of individual portraits in the Roman period – revealing especially the connection between the imperial centre and the regional responses to imperial authority.

The first two papers of the conference discussed imperial imagery in the Greek East. The paper by Jane Fejfer (The Saxo Institute, University of Copenhagen), focused on the sculptor as a creator by using the imperial portrait statues found in the baths of Sagalassos as a case-study. The statues were relocated to the baths from their original position and have been interpreted as a family group, with portraits of Hadrian and some of his heirs. Fejfer convincingly argued that the portrait usually identified as Marcus Aurelius should instead be interpreted as a local creation of a portrait of Septimius Severus, done after seeing the emperor himself and rendering his particular, personal physiognomy.

The paper by R.R.R. Smith (University of Oxford and Bilkent University) also addressed imperial portraiture, from the perspective of the local elites of the Greek East. The portraits they commissioned, deviated from the official types authorized in Rome, which showed the emperor as yet another office holder, by representing the emperor as a Hellenistic-style ruler and god. This revealed not only local styles in representation but also the perception of the Roman emperors as new divinities.

In her paper, Rubina Raja presented several trends – but also outliers – observable in Palmyrene sculpture. The 4000 portraits from Palmyra are the largest corpus of individual portraits known from the Roman empire, barring the city of Rome. Through their examination as a corpus, it is possible to gain new insights on the city and the region, as well as broader developments in the ancient world. The sculpture from the city can answer questions of social structure, economic fluctuations, locals and foreigners, imperial representation, among others, and research on it can show how archaeology can be used for writing history.

Michael Blömer (University of Münster), presented the sculptures from the ancient city of Hierapolis. A famous city in the Roman period, the city’s sculpture is usually confused with that from neighbouring Zeugma and Palmyra and has rarely been studied on its own right. In his paper, Blömer gave the main characteristics of Hierapolitan sculpture, emphasizing their distinguishing iconographic features. He also demonstrated how local sculptural production was in response to Roman imperial sculpture and trends of individual representation.

The paper by Olympia Bobou (Aarhus University) and Chris Dickenson (University of Groningen) focused on a small group of statues found inside the temple of Artemis that was part of the Asklepieion complex at Messene. The statues form two distinct groups in terms of age and costume, and while their participation within the group is emphasized, there are iconographic elements that promote their individuality. Furthermore, they are all arranged in a circle within the sanctuary, a form of display that was very popular in the Roman imperial period.

Barbara Borg (Scuola Normale Superiore) gave the last paper of the first day of the conference with a paper on the portrait mummies from Antinoöpolis. She noted that the more accomplished the portrait was, the more influenced it was by Roman imperial portraiture. Furthermore, the portraits of the mummies, whether in sculpted (mask) or painted form, were also influenced by other regional artistic traditions, most notably that of Syria. This was thanks to the position of Antinoöpolis within the trade routes used by Syrian – and especially Palmyrene – merchants: their clothes and patterns travelled together with their goods.

The day closed with a visit to the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, where the current and permanent exhibitions generated further discussions on the questions of the conference.

The second day of the conference began with a paper by Christopher H. Hallett (UC Berkeley) on the mummy portraits of Roman Egypt. He advocated for the necessity for the holistic study of the portraits regardless of their medium (plaster mask, painting on fabric or wood) and demonstrated how the addition of a personalized portrait in the mummy coffin aligned with Egyptian eschatological thought about the survival of the individual in the afterlife. The great advantage of a Greek-style portrait was its naturalism and impression of vivacity, which were associated with life beyond death in Egyptian thoughts and beliefs.

Dietrich Boschung (University of Cologne) presented a few select case studies from the western part of the Roman Empire that showed how different local populations developed sculptural traditions influenced either from Hellenistic culture (for example, in Campania) or by the city of Rome. The adoption of portraiture, however, did not take place across the western part at the same time. Interestingly, in addition to the chronological variation, there were areas that took on the portrait tradition developed in Rome more enthusiastically than others.

The paper by Maureen Carroll (University of York) presented another case study from the west, this time from the Rhineland. The portraits appeared in the middle of the 1^st century CE, and the appearance of the portrait tradition can be associated with the presence of Roman soldiers and their families. While the form of the monument can be connected to the Roman world, the iconography revealed how the people of the Rhine used it for expressing their own identities as members of local tribes, and/or individuals aware of Roman practices and costumes.

Nadežda Gavrilović Vitas (Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade) gave a wide-ranging paper on the sculptural production in the central Balkans. She demonstrated influences from both Greece and Rome, and distinguished between the works of various local workshops and sculpture that was imported. In addition, she showed how local sculptors engaged with Roman styles – sometimes adopting them and other times resisting them, preferring instead local sculptural traditions and imagery.

The last paper of the conference was given by Amalie Skovmøller (University of Copenhagen). She presented two nineteenth century sculptures depicting queen Zenobia and queen Cleopatra. Both statues were made by women: Harriett Hosmer and Edmonia Lewis respectively. They presented the queens as symbols of female resilience and strength. Through these sculptures, the two sculptors negotiated and redefined their own place within the patriarchal artistic hierarchies of the nineteenth century.

The speakers gave a broad array of examples that showed how the individual portrait could be a vehicle of identity and ideology, and how local portrait traditions could be formed – and informed – by imperial ideology and ideas of portraiture but also regional and personal needs. The discussions centred on topics of representation, terminology, origins, and transference.   

We thank all the speakers and participants for their stimulating contributions. The conference proceedings are to be published by Brepols in the series Archive Archaeology founded by Rubina Raja. We would also like to thank the Danish National Research Foundation and the Carlsberg Foundation for their generous support of the conference.