This chapter covers the Etruscans and Romans. The Etruscans were the earlier residents of the Italian peninsula and were builders of cities, international traders and literate. Many of their cultural and artistic practices were adopted by the later Romans.  The following links will take you to specific subsections of this chapter.

THE ETRUSCANS

The Etruscans – an introduction

Before the small village of Rome became “Rome” with a capital R (to paraphrase the author D. H. Lawrence), a brilliant civilization once controlled almost the entire peninsula we now call Italy. This was the Etruscan civilization, a vanished culture whose achievements set the stage not only for the development of ancient Roman art and culture but for the Italian Renaissance as well.

Though you may not have heard of them, the Etruscans were the first “superpower” of the Western Mediterranean who, alongside the Greeks, developed the earliest true cities in Europe. They were so successful, in fact, that the most important cities in modern Tuscany (Florence, Pisa, and Siena, to name a few) were first established by the Etruscans and have been continuously inhabited since then.

Yet the labels “mysterious” or “enigmatic” are often attached to the Etruscans since none of their own histories or literature survives. This is particularly ironic as it was the Etruscans who were responsible for teaching the Romans the alphabet and for spreading literacy throughout the Italian peninsula.

The influence on ancient Rome

Etruscan influence on ancient Roman culture was profound. It was from the Etruscans that the Romans inherited many of their own cultural and artistic traditions, from the spectacle of gladiatorial combat, to hydraulic engineering, temple design, and religious ritual, among many other things. In fact, hundreds of years after the Etruscans had been conquered by the Romans and absorbed into their empire, the Romans still maintained an Etruscan priesthood in Rome (which they thought necessary to consult when under attack from invading “barbarians”).

We even derive our very common word “person’” from the Etruscan mythological figure Phersu—the frightful, masked figure you see in this Early Etruscan tomb painting who would engage his victims in a dreadful “game” of blood letting in order to appease the soul of the deceased (the original gladiatorial games, according to the Romans!).

Etruscan art and the afterlife

Early on the Etruscans developed a vibrant artistic and architectural culture, one that was often in dialogue with other Mediterranean civilizations. Trading of the many natural mineral resources found in Tuscany, the center of ancient Etruria, caused them to bump up against Greeks, Phoenicians, and Egyptians in the Mediterranean. With these other Mediterranean cultures, they exchanged goods, ideas, and, often, a shared artistic vocabulary.

Unlike the Greeks, however, the majority of our knowledge about Etruscan art comes largely from their burials. (Since most Etruscan cities are still inhabited, they hide their Etruscan art and architecture under Roman, Medieval, and Renaissance layers.) Fortunately, though, the Etruscans cared very much about equipping their dead with everything necessary for the afterlife—from lively tomb paintings to sculpture to pottery that they could use in the next world.

From their extensive cemeteries, we can look at the “world of the dead” and begin to understand some about the “world of the living.” During the early phases of the Etruscan civilization, they conceived of the afterlife in terms of life as they knew it. When someone died, he or she would be cremated and provided with another “home” for the afterlife. ​

This type of hut urn, made of an unrefined clay known as impasto, would be used to house the cremated remains of the deceased. Not coincidentally, it shows us in miniature form what a typical Etruscan house would have looked like in Iron Age Etruria—oval with a timber roof and a smoke hole for an internal hearth.

More opulent tombs

Later on, houses for the dead became much more elaborate. During the Orientalizing period, when the Etruscans began to trade their natural resources with other Mediterranean cultures and became staggeringly wealthy as a result, their tombs became more and more opulent.

The well-known Regolini-Galassi tomb from the city of Cerveteri shows how this new wealth transformed the modest hut to an extravagant house for the dead. Built for a woman clearly of high rank, the massive stone tomb contains a long corridor with lateral, oval rooms leading to a main chamber.

A stroll through the Etruscan rooms in the Vatican Museum where the tomb artifacts are now housed presents a mind-boggling view of the enormous wealth of the period. Found near the woman were objects of various precious materials intended for personal adornment in the afterlife—a gold pectoral, gold bracelets, a gold brooch (or fibula) of outsized proportions, among other objects—as well as silver and bronze vessels, and numerous other grave goods and furniture.

Of course, this important woman might also need her four-wheeled bronze-sheathed carriage in the afterlife as well as an incense burner, jewelry of amber and ivory, and, touchingly, her bronze bed around which thirty-three figurines, all in various gestures of mourning, were arranged.

Though later periods in Etruscan history are not characterized by such wealth, the Etruscans were, nevertheless, extremely powerful and influential and left a lasting imprint on the city of Rome and other parts of Italy.Additional resources

 

Other Resources:

See the range-based 3D surveying and modeling of the Bettini Tomb in Tarquinia and virtual restoration of its frescoes using archive material.  

Tomb (of the Funeral Bed?), 470-60 B.C.E., found in the necropolis of Tarquinia (Villa Giulia, Rome) by Matthew Brennan on Sketchfab

Video: Etruscan Necropolises of Cerveteri and Tarquinia (from UNESCO/NHK).

Etruscan art on The Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History.

“In Our Time” podcast on Etruscan Civilization.

Bucchero ceramics in Smarthistory

Architecture and Architectural Sculpture

Temple of Minerva and the sculpture of Apollo (Veii)

by DR. LAUREL TAYLOR

Forget what you know about Greek and Roman architectural orders—Etruscans had their own unique style.

 

Apulu (Apollo of Veii), from the roof of the Portonaccio temple, Italy, c. 510–500 B.C.E., painted terracotta, 5′ 11″ high (Museo Nazionale Etrusco di Villa Giulia, Rome)   

Video URL: https://youtu.be/GLgrt_4WnMY

 

Etruscan temples have largely vanished

Among the early Etruscans, the worship of the Gods and Goddesses did not take place in or around monumental temples as it did in early Greece or in the Ancient Near East, but rather, in nature. Early Etruscans created ritual spaces in groves and enclosures open to the sky with sacred boundaries carefully marked through ritual ceremony.

Around 600 B.C.E., however, the desire to create monumental structures for the gods spread throughout Etruria, most likely as a result of Greek influence. While the desire to create temples for the gods may have been inspired by contact with Greek culture, Etruscan religious architecture was markedly different in material and design. These colorful and ornate structures typically had stone foundations but their wood, mud-brick and terracotta superstructures suffered far more from exposure to the elements. Greek temples still survive today in parts of Greece and southern Italy since they were constructed of stone and marble but Etruscan temples were built with mostly ephemeral materials and have largely vanished.

How do we know what they looked like?

Despite the comparatively short-lived nature of Etruscan religious structures, Etruscan temple design had a huge impact on Renaissance architecture and one can see echoes of Etruscan, or ‘Tuscan,’ columns (doric columns with bases) in many buildings of the Renaissance and later in Italy. But if the temples weren’t around during the 15th and 16th centuries, how did Renaissance builders know what they looked like and, for that matter, how do we know what they looked like?

Fortunately, an ancient Roman architect by the name of Vitruvius wrote about Etruscan temples in his book De architectura in the late first century B.C.E. In his treatise on ancient architecture, Vitruvius described the key elements of Etruscan temples and it was his description that inspired Renaissance architects to return to the roots of Tuscan design and allows archaeologists and art historians today to recreate the appearance of these buildings.

Archaeological evidence for the Temple of Minerva

The archaeological evidence that does remain from many Etruscan temples largely confirms Vitruvius’s description. One of the best explored and known of these is the Portonaccio Temple dedicated to the goddess Minerva (Roman=Minerva/Greek=Athena) at the city of Veii about 18 km north of Rome. The tufa-block foundations of the Portonaccio temple still remain and their nearly square footprint reflects Vitruvius’s description of a floor plan with proportions that are 5:6, just a bit deeper than wide.

The temple is also roughly divided into two parts—a deep front porch with widely-spaced Tuscan columns and a back portion divided into three separate rooms. Known as a triple cella, this three room configuration seems to reflect a divine triad associated with the temple, perhaps Menrva as well as Tinia (Jupiter/Zeus) and Uni (Juno/Hera).

In addition to their internal organization and materials, what also made Etruscan temples noticeably distinct from Greek ones was a high podium and frontal entrance. Approaching the Parthenon with its low rising stepped entrance and encircling forest of columns would have been a very different experience from approaching an Etruscan temple high off the ground with a single, defined entrance.

Sculpture

Perhaps most interesting about the Portonaccio temple is the abundant terracotta sculpture that still remains, the volume and quality of which is without parallel in Etruria. In addition to many terracotta architectural elements (masks, antefixes, decorative details), a series of over life-size terracotta sculptures have also been discovered in association with the temple.  Originally placed on the ridge of temple roof, these figures seem to be Etruscan assimilations of Greek gods, set up as a tableau to enact some mythic event.

Apollo of Veii

The most famous and well-preserved of these is the Aplu (Apollo of Veii), a dynamic, striding masterpiece of large scale terracotta sculpture and likely a central figure in the rooftop narrative. His counterpart may have been the less well-preserved figure of Hercle (Hercules) with whom he struggled in an epic contest over the Golden Hind, an enormous deer sacred to Apollo’s twin sister Artemis. Other figures discovered with these suggest an audience watching the action.  Whatever the myth may have been, it was a completely Etruscan innovation to use sculpture in this way, placed at the peak of the temple roof—creating what must have been an impressive tableau against the backdrop of the sky.

An artist by the name of Vulca?

Since Etruscan art is almost entirely anonymous it is impossible to know who may have contributed to such innovative display strategies. We may, however, know the name of the artist associated with the workshop that produced the terracotta sculpture. Centuries after these pieces were created, the Roman writer Pliny recorded that in the late 6th century B.C.E., an Etruscan artist by the name of Vulca was summoned from Veii to Rome to decorate the most important temple there, the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus. The technical knowledge required to produce terracotta sculpture at such a large scale was considerable and it may just have been the master sculptor Vulca whose skill at the Portonaccio temple earned him not only a prestigious commission in Rome but a place in the history books as well.

 

Additional resources

This sculpture at the Villa Guila, Rome

Apollo de Veio and its 2004 restoration

Etruscan art on The Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History

Source:  Dr. Laurel Taylor, “Temple of Minerva and the sculpture of Apollo (Veii),” in Smarthistory, August 8, 2015, accessed October 1, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/temple-of-minerva-and-the-sculpture-of-apollo-veii/.

 

 

Tombs and Sarcophagi

Etruscan Necropolises of Cerveteri and Tarquinia (from UNESCO/NHK)

by UNESCO and NIPPON HOSO KYOKAI

Doors to the afterlife, Etruscan tombs were happily decorated. But as war increased, that began to change.

Video from UNESCO / Nippon Hoso Kyokai 

Video URL:  https://youtu.be/YheIckLuV7c

These two large Etruscan cemeteries reflect different types of burial practices from the 9th to the 1st century BC, and bear witness to the achievements of Etruscan culture. Which over nine centuries developed the earliest urban civilization in the northern Mediterranean. Some of the tombs are monumental, cut in rock and topped by impressive tumuli (burial mounds). Many feature carvings on their walls, others have wall paintings of outstanding quality. The necropolis near Cerveteri, known as Banditaccia, contains thousands of tombs organized in a city-like plan, with streets, small squares and neighbourhoods. The site contains very different types of tombs: trenches cut in rock; tumuli; and some, also carved in rock, in the shape of huts or houses with a wealth of structural details. These provide the only surviving evidence of Etruscan residential architecture. The necropolis of Tarquinia, also known as Monterozzi, contains 6,000 graves cut in the rock. It is famous for its 200 painted tombs, the earliest of which date from the 7th century BC.

 

Cite this page as: UNESCO and Nippon Hoso Kyokai, “Etruscan Necropolises of Cerveteri and Tarquinia (from UNESCO/NHK),” in Smarthistory, December 21, 2015, accessed January 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/etruscan-necropolises-of-cerveteri-and-tarquinia-from-unesconhk/.

Sarcophagus of the Spouses (Louvre)

by DR. LAUREL TAYLOR

The freedom enjoyed by Etruscan women

One of the distinguishing features of Etruscan society, and one that caused much shock and horror to their Greek neighbors, was the relative freedom enjoyed by Etruscan women. Unlike women in ancient Greece or Rome, upper class Etruscan women actively participated in public life—attending banquets, riding in carriages and being spectators at (and participants in) public events. Reflections of such freedoms are found throughout Etruscan art; images of women engaged in these activities appear frequently in painting and in sculpture.

The Sarcophagus of the Spouses was found in Cerverteri, a town in Italy north of Rome, which is the site of a large Etruscan necropolis (or cemetery), with hundreds of tombs. The sarcophagus vividly evokes both the social visibility of Etruscan women and a type of marital intimacy rarely seen in Greek art from this period.

A funerary banquet?

In the sarcophagus (and another largely identical example at the Villa Giulia in Rome), the two figures recline as equals as they participate in a banquet, possibly a funerary banquet for the dead. In contemporary Greece, the only women attending public banquets, or symposia, were courtesans, not wives! The affectionate gestures and tenderness between the Etruscan man and woman convey a strikingly different attitude about the status of women and their relative equality with their husbands.

Terracotta

Aside from its subject matter, the sarcophagus is also a remarkable example of Etruscan large-scale terracotta sculpture (terracotta is a type of ceramic also called earthenware). At nearly two meters long, the object demonstrates the rather accomplished feat of modeling clay figures at nearly life-size. Artists in the Etruscan cities of Cerveteri and Veii in particular preferred working with highly refined clay for large-scale sculpture as it provided a smooth surface for the application of paint and the inclusion of fine detail.

Handling such large forms, however, was not without complications; evidence of this can be seen in the cut that bisects the sarcophagus. Splitting the piece in two parts would have allowed the artist to more easily manipulate the pieces before and after firing.  If you look closely, you can also see a distinct line separating the figures and the lid of the sarcophagus; this was another trick for creating these monumental pieces—modeling the figures separately and then placing them on top of their bed.

Color

A really lovely characteristic of this sculpture is the preservation of so much color. In addition to colored garments and pillows, red laced boots, her black tresses and his blond ones, one can easily discern the gender specific skin tones so typical in Etruscan art. The man’s ochre flesh signifies his participation in a sun-drenched, external world, while the woman’s pale cream skin points to a more interior, domestic one. Gendered color conventions were not exclusive to the Etruscans but have a long pedigree in ancient art. Though their skin and hair color may be different, both figures share similar facial features—archaic smiles (like the ones we see in ancient Greek archaic sculptures), almond shaped eyes, and highly arched eyebrows—all typical of Etruscan art.

What were they holding?

One of the great puzzles of the sarcophagus centers on what the figures were holding. Etruscan art often featured outsized, expressive hands with suggestively curled fingers. Here the arm positions of both figures hint that each must have held small objects, but what? Since the figures are reclining on a banqueting couch, the objects could have been vessels associated with drinking, perhaps wine cups, or representations of food. Another possibility is that they may have held alabastra, small vessels containing oil used for anointing the dead. Or, perhaps, they held all of the above—food, drink and oil, each a necessity for making the journey from this life to the next.

Whatever missing elements, the conviviality of the moment and intimacy of the figures capture the life-affirming quality often seen in Etruscan art of this period, even in the face of death.

Additional resources:

The Sarcophagus in the Louvre

Etruscan Necropolises of Cerveteri and Tarquinia (UNESCO)

Etruscan Art on The Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Heilrbunn Timeline of Art History

Conservation in Action: Etruscan Sarcophagi

Dr. Laurel Taylor, “Sarcophagus of the Spouses (Louvre),” in Smarthistory, August 8, 2015, accessed October 1, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/sarcophagus-of-the-spouses-louvre/.

Sarcophagus of the Spouses (Rome)

by DR. JEFFREY A. BECKER

The intimacy of this clay sculpture is unprecedented in the ancient world. What can it tell us about Etruscan culture?

Sarcophagus 4of the Spouses (or Sarcophagus with Reclining Couple), from the Banditaccia necropolis, Cerveteri, Italy, c. 520 B.C.E., painted terracotta, 3 feet 9 1/2 inches  x 6 feet 7 inches (Museo Nazionale Etrusco di Villa Giulia, Rome). Speakers: Dr. Beth Harris and Dr. Steven Zucker   

Video URL: https://youtu.be/XmirNCA_Lj

The Sarcophagus of the Spouses is an anthropoid (human-shaped), painted terracotta sarcophagus found in the ancient Etruscan city of Caere (now Cerveteri, Italy). The sarcophagus, which would have originally contained cremated human remains, was discovered during the course of archaeological excavations in the Banditaccia necropolis of ancient Caere during the nineteenth century and is now in Rome. The sarcophagus is quite similar to another terracotta sarcophagus from Caere depicting a man and woman that is presently housed in the Louvre Museum in Paris; these two sarcophagi are contemporary to one another and are perhaps the products of the same artistic workshop.

An archaic couple

The sarcophagus depicts a reclining man and woman on its lid. The pair rests on highly stylized cushions, just as they would have done at an actual banquet. The body of the sarcophagus is styled so as to resemble a kline (dining couch). Both figures have highly stylized hair, in each case plaited with the stylized braids hanging rather stiffly at the sides of the neck. In the female’s case the plaits are arranged so as to hang down in front of each shoulder. The female wears a soft cap atop her head; she also wears shoes with pointed toes that are characteristically Etruscan. The male’s braids hang neatly at the back, splayed across the upper back and shoulders. The male’s beard and the hair atop his head is quite abstracted without any interior detail. Both figures have elongated proportions that are at home in the Archaic period in the Mediterranean.

A banquet

The Sarcophagus of the Spouses has been interpreted as belonging to a banqueting scene, with the couple reclining together on a single dining couch while eating and drinking. This situates the inspiration for the sarcophagus squarely in the convivial (social) sphere and, as we are often reminded, conviviality was central to Etruscan mortuary rituals. Etruscan funerary art—including painted tombs—often depicts scenes of revelry, perhaps as a reminder of the funeral banquet that would send the deceased off to the afterlife or perhaps to reflect the notion of perpetual conviviality in said afterlife. Whatever the case, banquets provide a great deal of iconographic fodder for Etruscan artists.

In the case of the sarcophagus it is also important to note that at Etruscan banquets, men and women reclined and ate together, a circumstance that was quite different from other Mediterranean cultures, especially the Greeks. We see multiple instances of mixed gender banquets across a wide chronological range, leading us to conclude that this was common practice in Etruria. The terracotta plaque from Poggio Civitate, Murlo, for instance, that is roughly contemporary to the sarcophagus of the spouses shows a close iconographic parallel for this custom. This cultural custom generated some resentment—even animus—on the part of Greek and Latin authors in antiquity who saw this Etruscan practice not just as different, but took it as offensive behavior. Women enjoyed a different and more privileged status in Etruscan society than did their Greek and Roman counterparts.

Technical achievement<

The Sarcophagus of the Spouses is a masterwork of terracotta sculpture. Painted terracotta sculpture played a key role in the visual culture of archaic Etruria. Terracotta artwork was the standard for decorating the superstructure of Etruscan temples and the coroplastic (terracotta) workshops producing these sculptures often displayed a high level of technical achievement. This is due, in part, to the fact that ready sources of marble were unknown in archaic Italy. Even though contemporary Greeks produced masterworks in marble during the sixth century B.C.E., terracotta statuary such as this sarcophagus itself counts as a masterwork and would have been an elite commission. Contemporary Greek colonists in Italy also produced high level terracotta statuary, as exemplified by the seated statue of Zeus from Poseidonia (later renamed Paestum) that dates c. 530 B.C.E.

Etruscan culture<

In the case of the Caeretan sarcophagus, it is an especially challenging commission. Given its size, it would have been fired in multiple pieces. The composition of the reclining figures shows awareness of Mediterranean stylistic norms in that their physiognomy reflects an Ionian influence (Ionia was a region in present-day Turkey, that was a Greek colony)—the rounded, serene faces and the treatment of hairstyles would have fit in with contemporary Greek styles. However, the posing of the figures, the angular joints of the limbs, and their extended fingers and toes reflect local practice in Etruria. In short, the artist and his workshop are aware of global trends while also catering to a local audience. While we cannot identify the original owner of the sarcophagus, it is clear that the person(s) commissioning it would have been a member of the Caeretan elite.

The Sarcophagus of the Spouses as an object conveys a great deal of information about Etruscan culture and its customs. The convivial theme of the sarcophagus reflects the funeral customs of Etruscan society and the elite nature of the object itself provides important information about the ways in which funerary custom could reinforce the identity and standing of aristocrats among the community of the living.

Additional resources:

This sculpture at the Museo Nazionale Etrusco di Villa Giulia.

Cite this page as: Dr. Jeffrey A. Becker, “Sarcophagus of the Spouses (Rome),” in Smarthistory, August 8, 2015, accessed January 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/sarcophagus-of-the-spouses-rome/.

Tomb of the Triclinium

by DR. JEFFREY A. BECKER

Elaborate funerary rituals

Funerary contexts constitute the most abundant archaeological evidence for the Etruscan civilization. The elite members of Etruscan society participated in elaborate funerary rituals that varied and changed according to both geography and time.

The city of Tarquinia (known in antiquity as Tarquinii or Tarch(u)na), one of the most powerful and prominent Etruscan centers, is known for its painted chamber tombs. The Tomb of the Triclinium belongs to this group and its wall paintings reveal important information about not only Etruscan funeral culture but also about the society of the living.

An advanced Iron Age culture, the Etruscans amassed wealth based on Italy’s natural resources (particularly metal and mineral ores) that they exchanged through medium- and long-range trade networks.

Tomb of the Triclinium

The Tomb of the Triclinium (Italian: Tomba del Triclinio) is the name given to an Etruscan chamber tomb dating c. 470 B.C.E. and located in the Monterozzi necropolis of Tarquinia, Italy. Chamber tombs are subterranean rock-cut chambers accessed by an approach way (dromos) in many cases. The tombs are intended to contain not only the remains of the deceased but also various grave goods or offerings deposited along with the deceased. The Tomb of the Triclinium is composed of a single chamber with wall decorations painted in fresco. Discovered in 1830, the tomb takes its name from the three-couch dining room of the ancient Greco-Roman Mediterranean, known as the triclinium.

A banquet

The rear wall of the tomb carries the main scene, one of banqueters enjoying a dinner party (above).  It is possible to draw stylistic comparisons between this painted scene that includes figures reclining on dining couches (klinai) and the contemporary fifth century B.C.E. Attic pottery that the Etruscans imported from Greece. The original fresco is only partially preserved; although it is likely that there were originally three couches, each hosting a pair of reclining diners, one male and one female. Two attendants—one male, one female—attend to the needs of the diners. The diners are dressed in bright and sumptuous robes, befitting their presumed elite status. Beneath the couches we can observe a large cat, as well as a large rooster and another bird.

Music and dancing

Scenes of dancers occupy the flanking left and right walls. The left wall scene contains four dancers—three female and one male—and a male musician playing the barbiton, an ancient stringed instrument similar to the lyre.

Common painterly conventions of gender typing are employed—the skin of females is light in color while male skin is tinted a darker tone of orange-brown. The dancers and musicians, together with the feasting, suggest the overall convivial tone of the Etruscan funeral. In keeping with ancient Mediterranean customs, funerals were often accompanied by games, as famously represented by the funeral games of the Trojan Anchises as described in book 5 of Vergil’s epic poem, the Aeneid. In the Tomb of the Triclinium we may have an allusion to games as the walls flanking the tomb’s entrance bear scenes of youths dismounting horses, variously described as being either apobates (participants in an equestrian combat sport) or the Dioscuri (mythological twins).

The tomb’s ceiling is painted in a checkered scheme of alternating colors, perhaps meant to evoke the temporary fabric tents that were erected near the tomb for the actual celebration of the funeral banquet.

The actual paintings were removed from the tomb in 1949 and are conserved in the Museo Nazionale in Tarquinia. As their state of preservation has deteriorated, watercolors made at the time of discovery have proven very important for the study of the tomb.

Interpretation

The convivial theme of the Tomb of the Triclinium might seem surprising in a funereal context, but it is important to note that the Etruscan funeral rites were not somber but festive, with the aim of sharing a final meal with the deceased as the latter transitioned to the afterlife. This ritual feasting served several purposes in social terms. At its most basic level the funeral banquet marked the transition of the deceased from the world of the living to that of the dead; the banquet that accompanied the burial marked this transition and ritually included the spirit of the deceased, as a portion of the meal, along with the appropriate dishes and utensils for eating and drinking, would then be deposited in the tomb. Another purpose of the funeral meal, games, and other activities was to reinforce the socio-economic position of the deceased person and his/her family: a way to remind the community of the living of the importance and standing of these people and thus tangibly reinforce their position in contemporary society. This would include, where appropriate, visual reminders of socio-political status, including indications of wealth and civic achievements, notably public offices held by the deceased.

Additional resources

Etruscan Necropolises of Cerveteri and Tarquinia, UNESCO

Cite this page as: Dr. Jeffrey A. Becker, “Tomb of the Triclinium,” in Smarthistory, August 8, 2015, accessed January 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/tomb-of-the-triclinium/.

The François Tomb

by DR. JACLYN NEEL

The François Tomb is chock-full of elaborate frescoes with complicated messages we may never fully understand.

When Alessandro François and Adolphe Noël des Vergers entered the so-called François Tomb (named for its discoverer) in 1857, they described a magnificent treasure trove in which ancient Etruscan warriors were sleeping on their funeral couches, surrounded by grave goods, armaments, and brilliant tableaux on painted walls. This exceptional tomb from the Ponte Rotto necropolis in Vulci served as a familial burial monument and was used for several centuries in the Hellenistic period.

The Etruscans believed that the afterlife mirrored their own world, so they provided elaborate “homes” for their dead. The ground plan of the François Tomb is essentially a T shape, with two main chambers (called the atrium and tablinum after the rooms of typical Italo-Roman houses). The main chambers are arranged perpendicularly, with small burial chambers branching out from all sides.

The François Tomb is famous largely because of the frescoesof its main chamber, which can be dated to the fourth century B.C.E. Unlike most Etruscan tomb paintings, the François tomb frescoes seem to include battle scenes — making it a rare, early example of ancient history painting.

Though scholars still have many questions surrounding the exact meanings of these paintings, they reflect important Etruscan ideas about history, and they would have helped reinforce shared narratives about ancestry and the past as family members continually visited the tomb to inter the newly deceased.

Dazzling frescoes

Frescoes fill the walls and ceiling of the tomb. (The original frescoes were removed by a collector in the 19th century, and replaced in the tomb itself by reproductions.) The ceiling is designed to look like the interior of a building with a timber-framed roof structure, while the walls include various figural representations and geometric designs.

The atrium, which was the first room a visitor would enter, has the most elaborate frescoes. At the upper margin of the wall, there is a small running frieze in two registers: a Greek key pattern on top, with a hunting scene below. Under the hunting scene are larger scenes featuring human figures depicted at nearly life size.

Although one wall was badly damaged, most of the figures are well-preserved and labeled with text. From this text we know that these figures include a mix of mythological characters (including Sisyphus, Eteocles and Polynices killing each other, and Ajax raping Cassandra) and historical figures, including the founder of the tomb, an Etruscan aristocrat named Vel Saties. This full-length portrait of Vel Saties wearing a toga picta has garnered acclaim as the first such portrait in western art. [1] It is likely that the lowest quarter of the wall was obscured by stone benches, although not all of these benches have been preserved.

Scenes from mythology and history

The tablinum, or rear room of the tomb, also has benches at the bottom, a fresco representing a running meander at the top, and a scene featuring human figures in between. There are a few differences in the iconography that clearly separate the atrium and tablinum. First, the tablinum does not have a hunting scene below the meander; second, the ceiling patterns are different; and finally, the figural fresco is made up of two narrative scenes, each with labeled characters.

On the left-hand side of the tomb, there is a scene of Achilles sacrificing Trojan prisoners to the shade of Patroclus.

The right-hand side of the tomb shows a battle between two groups of Etruscans. It is this battle scene that has drawn the majority of historical attention. The figures are arranged into a series of dueling pairs on the long wall. Inscriptions identify the men on both sides as Etruscan, but only the figures who appear to be losing are identified with a specific city. This discrepancy has led scholars to believe that the winners are from Vulci. Because many of the dying men are only partially clothed, this scene has been interpreted as a nocturnal ambush: surprised in their sleep, the defeated figures were apparently not able to fully dress before the fighting started.

A link between text and image

Rounding the corner of the fresco is a scene derived from Rome’s legendary history. Mastarna (perhaps an alternate name for Servius Tullius, the legendary sixth king of Rome) frees Caelius Vibenna, an Etruscan aristocrat who aided Rome’s founder Romulus in his wars against Titus Tatius. Although these two men are portrayed nude (in the manner of mythological figures) there is some evidence that both were considered historical figures.

These paintings represent an important potential link between ancient visual and textual sources. The Roman emperor Claudius claimed in a speech that Mastarna was the Etruscan name of Rome’s sixth king, Servius Tullius, who was a friend of Caelius Vibenna (ILS 212). This is very similar to what is portrayed in the frescoes in the François tomb, and so the tomb’s iconography seems to provide independent confirmation of Claudius’ account.

Many scholars interpret the tomb’s iconography as being pro-Etruscan and anti-Roman. Since the Roman state made substantial territorial conquests in Etruria during the fourth century B.C.E., when the tomb was founded, the deployment of the iconography of Caelius Vibenna and Mastarna could have been a symbol of cultural pride among the Etruscans.

Unanswered Questions

Despite widespread agreement about the fresco of Mastarna and Caelius Vibenna, questions remain about the meaning of many of the other frescoes in the François tomb.  The atrium fresco depicts Camillus killing a figure identified as “Gaius Tarquinius of Rome.”

While both Camillus and Tarquinius are figures from early Roman history, their presence in the painting is not clearly understood. The name Tarquinius may refer to either of two male Tarquin rulers (or Tarquinii) from early Roman history; however, their first names were not Gaius, but Lucius, and neither of these men was killed by Camillus. Both Tarquinii lived around the time of Mastarna in the 6th century B.C.E., whereas Roman authors believed that Camillus lived about a century later, closer in time to the date of the tomb’s construction. To further complicate things, according to Roman tradition, Camillus was famous for defeating Etruscans. His presence in the tomb and his killing of Tarquinius are thus both mysterious.

Scholarly opinion is also divided on the relationship between the Camillus/Tarquinius fresco and the other historical fresco. Many scholars see them as part of the same narrative; others, however, argue that the two must be kept separate. This debate is unlikely to be resolved unless new evidence is discovered.

Mysteries remain

The François Tomb is rightly celebrated for its elaborate decor. Although we cannot fully understand the choices made by the tomb’s patron, it seems likely that the frescoes were created to deliver a specific message. This message may have been political (pro-Etruscan/anti-Roman), religious (since most scenes focus on bloodshed), familial (portraying the family history of the owners), or ethical (illustrating moral qualities that were important to the owners). All of these interpretations have been suggested, and it is possible that all of them are correct—that is, that the owner of the tomb had all of these aspects in mind when choosing the iconography. It is the historical fresco, however, that has captured the most interest, as it seems to preserve rare information about Etruscan historical thought.

We may never know the answers to many of these questions, but the François Tomb remains a shining example of Etruscan fresco painting that offers us a glimpse into the tumultuous history of the ancient Mediterranean world.

[1] See Lisa C. Pieraccini, “Etruscan Wall Painting: Insights, Innovations, and Legacy” in Sinclair Bell and Alexandra A. Carpino, A Companion to the Etruscans (John Wiley & Sons, 2016), p. 256.

Additional resources:

The François Tomb at the Southern Etrurian Archaeological Heritage website (in Italian)

Image gallery of the frescoes

Vulci Park website with image gallery

Jaclyn Neel, Early Rome: Myth and Society (Wiley, 2017).

Cite this page as: Dr. Jaclyn Neel, “The François Tomb,” in Smarthistory, April 19, 2018, accessed January 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/francois-tomb/.

Tomb of the Reliefs

by DR. JEFFREY A. BECKER

All signs point to a party: cushions, drinking equipment, and armor hung on the wall … but a party in a tomb?

The banquet is over, the dining equipment is stowed, and the warriors sleep on in this Etruscan dining room, yet the evocative signs of a lively scene draw the viewer into the ancient world. These evocations of an Etruscan banquet—from the cushions to the drinking equipment to the armor hung on pegs on the walls—are situated firmly in the funereal sphere, one that is replete with reminders not only of life but also of death. In tomb interiors we find some of our most important and compelling evidence for an understanding of the first millennium B.C.E. world of the Etruscans.

The Tomb of the Reliefs (Italian: Tomba dei Rilievi) is a late fourth or early third century B.C.E. rock-cut tomb (hypogeum) located in the Banditaccia necropolis of the ancient Etruscan city-state of Caere (now Cerveteri) in Italy (a necropolis is a large, ancient cemetery). The tomb takes its name from a series of painted stucco reliefs that cover the walls and piers of the tomb chamber itself. Unlike some of its neighbors that are covered mounds of earth (tumulus-type tombs), the Tomb of the Reliefs is of the rock-cut type and was excavated at a considerable depth in the bedrock, approached by a steep dromos (entranceway). This elite tomb once accommodated several dozen burials and is located, likely not by accident, close to an important tumulus-type tomb from the earlier Orientalizing period.

Inside the tomb

The plan of the tomb is roughly quadrangular. The entire tomb and all of its features have been carved from the bedrock (a type of volcanic mudstone known as tufa). The central block of the room, supported by two piers, is flanked by a series of niches for burials that have been styled to resemble the dining couches (klinai) of the ancient world. Decorative pilasters with volute (scroll-shaped) capitals separate the niches one from the other (see image below).

The tomb’s bas relief (low relief) decoration consists of carved bedrock features that have been stuccoed and painted. The decorative schema evokes the interior of an aristocratic house that is prepared to host a banquet or drinking party. The provisions for banqueters include cups and strainers hanging from pegs. The soldiers’ armor—shields, helmets, greaves (protective armor for the lower leg)—has been stowed by hanging it from pegs. The pilasters are also decorated, with the items depicted including a range of tools and implements as well as the depiction of a small carnivore, perhaps a weasel.

Beneath the central niche of the rear wall we find an allusion to the afterlife. There, under the side table we find, in relief, the hellhound Cerberus and an anguiped (serpents for legs) demon—perhaps the Etruscan god Charun who conducted the souls of the departed to the afterlife? This central niche, equipped with footstool, may have been intended for the male and female heads of the family.

The Matunas family is identified as the owner by way of an inscribed cippus (a small pillar). The inscription reads “Vel Metunas, (son) of Laris, who this tomb built.” A locked strongbox included in the relief may be meant to represent the container for storing the records of the family’s deeds (res gestae).

Video URL: https://youtu.be/KvWOFoWICwk     

More information about this video and a related panoramic tour can be found here.   

Interpretation

The Tomb of the Reliefs is unusual in the corpus of Etruscan tombs, both for its richness and for its decorative scheme. The Matunas family, among the elite of Caere, make a fairly strong statement, by means of funerary display, about their familial status and accomplishments, even at a time when the cultural autonomy of the Etruscans—and of Caere itself—had already begun to wane. The funeral banquet remains an important and vibrant theme for Etruscan funerary art throughout the course of the Etruscan civilization. This convivial and festive rendering demonstrates to us that the funeral banquet not only sent the deceased off to the afterlife but also reinforced ties and status reminders among the community of the living.

Etruscan tombs at Cerveteri: View on Google Maps here

Additional resources:

Tomb of the Reliefs (from Archaeological Heritage in Southern Etruria)

Etruscan Tombs from the Toledo Museum of Art

Cite this page as: Dr. Jeffrey A. Becker, “Tomb of the Reliefs,” in Smarthistory, August 8, 2015, accessed January 6, 2026, https://smarthistory.org/tomb-of-the-reliefs/.

The Regolini-Galassi tomb and the Parade Fibula

by DR. JEFFREY A. BECKER

The interconnectedness of the ancient Mediterranean world

The material culture of the Mediterranean basin in the seventh century B.C.E. affords us a glimpse of a dynamic and increasingly interconnected world. This Proto-Archaic phase of the Mediterranean world (also sometimes still referred to as the “Orientalizing” period) offers evidence of techniques—and possibly even artists and makers themselves—transmitted and transported from one region to another. Funereal architecture and associated material objects deposited in tombs, often referred to as “grave goods,” provide important indications about contemporary customs, materials, and monuments and serve as revealing indicators of the priorities and preferences of a culture.

An Etruscan Tomb

In 1836 an Etruscan tomb located in the Sorbo necropolis of ancient Caere (now Cerveteri, Italy) was opened and its contents revealed. The tomb was of the tumulus-type, meaning a tomb covered with a mound of earth, and was of the sort used by the members of the social elite of the Etruscan culture. The seventh-century B.C.E. tomb had remained intact and undisturbed since antiquity (a fortuitous circumstance since such tombs are frequently discovered in a disturbed or looted state).

The funereal objects (now in the Gregorian Etruscan Museum of the Vatican Museums), demonstrate how objects and materials can communicate messages about a person’s social or economic status. The assemblage of objects in the Regolini-Galassi tomb represents a broad geographic range and an aesthetic that indicates the influence of the ancient Near East. This is especially evident in metal-working techniques used to produce objects in the tomb and, in the broader landscape of funereal culture, objects either imported from the Near East or manufactured by Near Eastern craftspeople for elite consumption (such as their use as grave goods). Social elites not only desired to own and display such objects but also used them to reinforce their status and that of their family. The conspicuous deposition of these objects in the tomb would indicate to viewers or onlookers that not only was the deceased an important person but also that her surviving family members were important people in the community. In this way, the objects themselves facilitate a conversation about wealth and status among the Etruscans.

The architecture of the tomb and its context

The explorers of the tomb—General Vincenzo Galassi, a military officer, and Alessandro Regolini, the archpriest of Cerveteri—discovered that the tomb’s primary occupant was an adult female and that, judging both by the tomb architecture and the grave goods, she would have numbered among the social elite of ancient Caere.

The tomb is monumental in scale and was partially carved from the tuff bedrock of Caere. The tomb is approached by a short, narrow dromos and is composed of a 37-meter long corridor off of which two side chambers open. A corbelled vault covers the dromos. The exterior of the tomb was covered by an initial mound of earth known as a tumulus that measured some 46 meters in diameter; a second tumulus covered the tomb in the sixth century B.C.E. when additional tombs were added.

Once built, the tomb was stocked with grave goods to accompany the descendants; no fewer than 327 objects have been recorded. Many of these objects were manufactured of precious metals, including a significant quantity of gold. The tomb’s side chambers were used, respectively, for storage and the burial of a cremated male. The closed chamber at the end of the lateral corridor contained the principal burial, that of an elite female, and the majority of the grave goods (no. 1 to 226 in Pareti’s documentation). Some of the grave objects are inscribed mi larthia, meaning “I am the property of Larth.” This suggests that Larth, being a male, is the father of the deceased woman. Additional epigraphic evidence has led to the identification of the woman herself as one Larthia Velthurus. The parade fibula was found associated with this female burial, although precise documentation of the findspot is unclear since the tomb’s opening predates modern archaeology. The conventional date for the tomb and its contents is c. 675 to 650 B.C.E., although some scholars will move the date forward to the 640s B.C.E.

The so-called Parade Fibula and its design

The so-called parade fibula itself measures 31.5 cm high by 24.4 cm thick; the disc ranges in thickness from 0.11 to 0.19 mm. The fibula weighs 173 grams (6.1024 ounces). While a normal-sized fibula would have functioned as a pin to fasten garments together (much like a modern safety pin operates), the functionality of this example, given its size and splendor, has long been debated. It is possible that this example was prepared especially as a grave offering for the deceased female.

Scholars have debated the function of the parade fibula since the tomb’s discovery. Various theories have been proposed, including that the fibula could have been displayed as a sort of headdress (and so not a fibula at all?), including one that imagines it positioned atop the face and forehead of the decedent. Most interpretations pair the fibula with the so-called gold pectoral from the same tomb that similarly demonstrates the influence of Near Eastern metal-working techniques and geometric patterns.

Three elements make up the so-called parade fibula. These are, from bottom to top, an oval-shaped, arched element, a flat semi-circular disc, and a pair of transverse, hollow cylinders that are attached to the other elements by a hinge. A long pin is attached to the back of the fibula.

Decorative techniques

The techniques that were used to decorate the surface of the fibula are indicative of artistic trends and technologies originating in the ancient Near East that were overspreading the Mediterranean basin. These techniques—granulation, filigree, and repoussé —all originated in the east, with granulation appearing in tombs at Ur in Mesopotamia by c. 2500 B.C.E. The granulation technique is attested in Etruria beginning in the middle of the eighth century B.C.E.

The decorative motifs that reference the afterlife, including the presence of the Egyptian goddess Hathor seem to confirm the fibula’s funeral function. Hathor is visible on the terminus of the lower element of the fibula. Although the Regolini-Galassi parade fibula is unique, it finds comparison with other contemporary disc fibulae such as the one in the collection of The British Museum.

A group of five lions occupies the center of the semicircular disc of the fibula. These lions were made by the use of stamps and then attached to the disc of the fibula. A border achieved with the granulation technique frames the lions. The surface of the horizontal tubular elements are covered with granulation, while the lower ovoid element includes patterns like a frieze of griffins that indicates the influence of the ancient Near East. The composition of the iconography of the fibula stresses elite themes and status, since an item of foreign manufacture that reinforces royal icons reinforces the status and activities of social elites and the behaviors they used to maintain their position. Ritual themes are important as well and, overall, the group of grave goods represents the outlook of Mediterranean social elites of the Proto-Archaic period.

A world increasingly connected

The iconographic motifs (the griffins and lions) of the parade fibula speaks to the influence of the ancient Near East and possibly even to manufacture by artisans from Syro-Palestine.

Taken as part of the larger assemblage of artifacts, the fibula speaks volumes about the needs of Etruscan elites in the seventh century B.C.E. These elites felt it necessary to communicate and reinforce their own socio-economic status by accumulating and displaying certain types of objects that matched their apparent status. Not only were many of these objects crafted from intrinsically valuable materials like gold they also had the appeal of being examples of imported and exotic items. Similar items likely were to be found in the homes and tombs of the social peers of the occupants of the Regolini-Galassi tomb, as proto-archaic elites jockeyed for position and used objects and materials acquired by means of long-distance supply chains to signal their primacy and relevance in a world that was increasingly interlinked and moving ever more quickly.

Additional resources:

Large Parade Fibula, Musei Vaticani, Large parade Fibula (Vatican Museum)

Etruscanning: digital encounters with the Regolini-Galassi Tomb with blog posts.

Cite this page as: Dr. Jeffrey A. Becker, “The Regolini-Galassi tomb and the Parade Fibula,” in Smarthistory, June 7, 2021, accessed January 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/regolini-galassi-tomb-and-parade-fibula/.

Sculpture

Chimera of Arezzo

by DR. JEFFREY A. BECKER

A vicious mythic beast, the Chimera is a terrifying mix of animals—that even attacks itself.

The Chimera of Arezzo is one of the best known pieces of Etruscan sculpture to survive from antiquity. Discovered near the Porta San Lorentino of Arezzo, Italy (ancient Arretium) in 1553, the statue was added to the collection of Cosimo I de’ Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany in the sixteenth century and is currently housed in the Museo Archeologico Nazionale in Florence.

When the statue was discovered along with a collection of small bronzes, it was cleaned by Cosimo I and the artist Benvenuto Cellini; it was then displayed as part of the duke’s collection in the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence. Giorgio Vasari (16th century artist, writer, and historian), studied the statue and declared it a bona fide antiquity.

What is a chimera?

The Chimera was a legendary, fire-breathing monster of Greek myth that hailed from Lycia (southwestern Asia Minor). The offspring of Typhon and Echidna, the Chimera ravaged the lands of Lycia until Bellerophon, a hero from Corinth, mounted on the winged horse Pegasus was able to slay it (Hesiod Theogony 319-25). Typically the Chimera is a hybrid—often shown with elements from more than one animal incorporated into the whole; most often these include a lion’s head, with a goat rising from its back, and a snaky tail.

The Chimera of Arezzo presents a complex composition that seems conceived for viewing in the round. The contortions of the fire-breathing beast, obviously wounded in combat, evoke emotion and interest from the viewer. Its writhing body parts invite contemplation of the movement, pose, and musculature of the figure. While the tail was restored post-discovery, enough of the original composition confirms this dynamism. The lean body also emphasizes the tension in the arched back, the extended claws, and the roaring mouth set amidst the bristling mane.

The right foreleg (below) bears a dedicatory inscription in the Etruscan language. The inscription reads, “tinścvil” meaning “Offering belonging to Tinia” (TLE 663; Bonfante and Bonfante 2002, no. 26 p. 147). This indicates that the statue was a votive object, offered as a gift to the sky god Tinia.

Interpretation

The Chimera of Arezzo is a masterwork of Etruscan bronze working, demonstrating not only a high level of technical proficiency on the part of the artist (or workshop) that produced it but also clearly showing a fine-tuned awareness of the themes of Greek mythology that circulated around the Mediterranean. A. Maggiani discusses the wider Italiote context in which the statue was likely produced—pointing out iconographic comparisons from sites in Magna Graecia such as Metaponto and Kaulonia (Italiote refers to pre-Roman Greek speaking peoples of southern Italy, while Magna Graecia refer to the Greek colonies established in Southern Italy from the 8th century B.C.E. onward).

These iconographic trends, indicative of increasing Attic (derived from the area around Athens, Greece) influence, suggests that the Chimera of Arrezo was produced by Italiote craftsmen who were influenced by the spread of Attic trends in art in the last years of the fifth century continuing through to the early fourth century B.C.E. The dedication of the statue as a votive offering to Tinia further reminds us of the wealth and sophistication of Etruscan elites who, in this case, could not only afford to commission the statue but could also afford to part with it in what may have been an ostentatious fashio.

The Chimera of Arezzo   by Matthew Brennan  on Sketchfab

Cite this page as: Dr. Jeffrey A. Becker, “Chimera of Arezzo,” in Smarthistory, August 8, 2015, accessed January 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/chimera-of-arezzo/.

Mars of Todi

by DR. JEFFREY A. BECKER

Lightning struck this statue dedicated to the Etruscan god of war, marking it as a particularly sacred object.

The religious sanctuaries of ancient Italy were busy and multi-faceted places, playing roles not only in religion and ritual, but also in commerce and connectivity. People visited sanctuaries to participate in ritual, connect with their community, and to commune with the gods. The religions of ancient Italy relied heavily on votive practices—that is the giving of gifts or offerings to the divinities that helped to affirm a pact or agreement between the worshipper and a god or goddess. Votives could be humble objects from everyday life, or they could be purpose-made prestige objects. In all cases, votives are particularly instructive in informing us about ritual practice in the ancient world.

The statue

The so-called Mars of Todi is an inscribed Etruscan bronze statue dating to the late fifth or early fourth century B.C.E. It was discovered in 1835 on the slopes of Mount Santo near Todi, Italy (ancient Tuder). The hollow-cast bronze statue is the product of an Etruscan workshop but was likely produced for the market in Umbria (a region in central Italy).

The statue measures 141 cm in height, making it nearly life-sized. The Etruscans were adept metalworkers and Orvieto (Etruscan Velzna, Roman Volsinii) was particularly known for the production of bronze statues. The Romans reportedly removed 2,000 bronzes from Volsinii when they captured it in 265 B.C.E. (Pliny, Natural History 34.33). It is possible that the Mars of Todi was originally produced there.

The warrior is clearly a prestige object, a worthy votive dedication. It is likely that the object was dedicated to Laran, the Etruscan god of war. Dressed in intricately worked plate armor, the figure takes a contrapposto stance and indicates that the Etruscan artist was aware of the formal elements of the Classical style of sculpture. These classicizing elements indicates that the artists of Etruria are not only aware of Mediterranean stylistic conventions but also that they are comfortable enough with these stylistic trends that they can in turn adapt and apply them to local tastes and demand. Likely attached elements—including a patera (a libation bowl) held in the right hand and a spear in the left—have not survived, nor has the helmet that he wore atop his head.

The inscription

The bronze statue bears an inscription in the Umbrian language that has been written using Etruscan characters. This dedication is inscribed on the skirt that is attached to the breastplate and reads “Ahal Trutitis dunum dede” (“Ahal Trutitis gave [this as a] gift”). The dedicant—Ahal Trutitis—has a name that is Celtic in origin, which lends this dedication of an Etruscan object in an Umbrian sanctuary a particularly cosmopolitan element.

Interpretation

The Mars of Todi is a rare object in that many prestige votives of its stature have not survived from antiquity. The careful burial of this object—perhaps after it had been struck by lightning*—accounts for its survival. The composition represents the tradition of libations made by soldiers prior to battle, an opportunity for beseeching the gods for support and success in battle. The dedication of this object is also indicative of the dynamic human landscape of ancient Italy—within that human landscape sanctuaries often served as nodal points where diverse cultures came into contact with one another. This votive statue, then, tells us a great deal not only about ritual practice and iconography, but also about those who frequented sanctuaries in ancient Italy.

*Note on lightning as sacred
In ancient Italic religion lightning was sacred, as it was connected to the chief sky god, called Iuppiter (Jupiter) by the Romans and Tinia by the Etruscans. Thus on occasions when lightning struck the Earth, the spot which—or the object which—the lightning “selected” (fulgur conditum) would become even more sacred. Roman ritual doctrine considered these consecrated spots special and thus they were often marked in some way. The Puteal Libonis (also known as Puteal Scribonianum) in the Comitium of the Forum Romanum provides such an example; after a spot in the Comitium had been struck by lightning, it was marked with a puteal (a marble wellhead) (Festus 333). The Romans considered these special shrines, which often had a circular templum (a sacred, inaugurated precinct), as bidentalia (from the Latin noun bidental, bidentalis “a place struck by lightning”) and it was forbidden to tread on them.  In the case of the Mars of Todi, the statue was found carefully buried in a stone-lined cist, leading to the conclusion that the statue had been struck by lightning, which caused it to fall from its podium and that it was subsequently ritually buried. The ritual burial of votive objects is a common practice in ancient Mediterranean religions, but the treatment of these bidentalia was special in its own right.

Additional resources:

This sculpture in the Gregorio Etruscan Museum (Vatican Museums)

Source: Dr. Jeffrey A. Becker, “Mars of Todi,” in Smarthistory, August 8, 2015, accessed October 1, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/mars-of-todi/.

Aule Metele (Arringatore)

by DR. JEFFREY A. BECKER

The image, status, and stature of the magistrate in the course of performing the duties of his office commands respect—and no pose is more riveting than that of the orator.

L’Arringatore (“The Orator”) is a hollow-cast bronze statue that was recovered from Lake Trasimeno in 1566. The statue is an important example of bronze sculpture in later first millennium B.C.E. Italy and indicates the gradual Romanization of Etruscan art.

The statue

The life-size statue depicts a draped adult male, standing with his right arm outstretched. The figure adopts a frontal pose with a slight contrapposto stance (contrapposto refers to the figure shifting his weight onto his right leg). Based on the inscription on the statue, the figure is identified as Aulus Metellus (or Aule Metele in Etruscan). He is clearly a magistrate and his posture seems to be that of the orator who is in the process of addressing the crowd. He wears a tunic over which is draped a toga—the formal attire of the magistrate. The toga is wrapped around the body, leaving the right arm free. On his feet are the high boots that were commonly worn by Roman senators. His expression and slightly opened mouth make him a compelling figure. The statue was originally erected by the community in honor of Aulus Metellus.

The inscription

The lower hem of the short toga carries an Etruscan inscription: “auleśi meteliś ve[luś] vesial clenśi / cen flereś tece sanśl tenine / tu θineś χisvlicś” which can be interpreted as reading, “To (or from) Auli Meteli, the son of Vel and Vesi, Tenine (?) set up this statue as a votive offering to Sans, by deliberation of the people” (TLE 651; CIE 4196).

Interpretation

The statue of Aulus Metellus offers us a glimpse of the changing socio-political landscape of the Italian peninsula during the latter first millennium B.C.E.—a period in which sweeping change brought on by the hegemonic fortunes of Rome and its booming population, signalled profound and lasting change for other Italic peoples, including the Etruscans. As Rome’s territory expanded during the fifth through first centuries B.C.E., her neighbors were gradually absorbed into the sphere of Roman cultural, economic, and political influence. Some groups, of course, resisted in one way or another, while others gladly “joined up” through political and military treaties and through adopting a Roman lifestyle. This process of acculturation–or Romanization, to use a term that is considered outmoded by some scholars—means that cultural heterogeneity becomes less visible in the archaeological record, replaced instead by a more homogeneous cultural model. These were the fortunes of the Etruscans—as the autonomy of the various Etruscan states eroded, the Etruscans themselves elected to adopt the trappings of a Roman culture that was, in turn, indicative of wider, pan-Mediterranean dynamics. Etruscan art, politics, and even language gradually slipped away.

Thus L’Arringatore is one of our latest surviving examples of a sculptural masterwork that still demonstrates the traits of an Etruscan workshop, all the while packaged for an increasingly Roman world. The statue clearly wears the short toga exigua (a kind of narrow toga) and senatorial boots that come from the Roman sphere. He is posed as an orator—highlighting his political career as both Etruscan and Roman aristocrats did. His haircut is in keeping with those of Roman aristocrats and his face may betray some evidence of the verism (truthfulness) popular among Roman elites of the late Republic. The statue still carries an inscription in Etruscan, though, and the working of the bronze is in keeping with the tendencies of Etruscan craftsmanship. Surely the historical Aulus Metellus witnessed a world that was changing rapidly and this statue that carries his inscribed name still bears silent witness to the patterns and dynamics of socio-cultural change in the Roman Mediterranean.
Additional resources:
Museo Archeologico Nazionale in Florence

Source: Dr. Jeffrey A. Becker, “Aule Metele (Arringatore),” in Smarthistory, August 8, 2015, accessed January 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/larringatore/.

ROME

Introduction – architecture, cities, tombs and wall painting

Introduction to ancient Rome

by THE BRITISH MUSEUM

From a republic to an empire

Legend has it that Rome was founded in 753 B.C.E. by Romulus, its first king. In 509 B.C.E. Rome became a republic ruled by the Senate (wealthy landowners and elders) and the Roman people. During the 450 years of the Republic, Rome conquered the rest of Italy and then expanded into France, Spain, Turkey, North Africa, and Greece.

Rome became very Greek-influenced or “Hellenized,” and the city was filled with Greek architecture, literature, statues, wall-paintings, mosaics, pottery, and glass. But with Greek culture came Greek gold, and generals and senators fought over this new wealth. The Republic collapsed in civil war and the Roman empire began.

In 31 B.C.E. Octavian, the adopted son of Julius Caesar, defeated Cleopatra and Mark Antony at Actium. This brought the last civil war of the Republic to an end. Although it was hoped by many that the Republic could be restored, it soon became clear that a new political system was forming: the emperor became the focus of the empire and its people. Although, in theory, Augustus (as Octavian became known) was only the first citizen and ruled by consent of the Senate, he was in fact the empire’s supreme authority. As emperor he could pass his powers to the heir he decreed and was a king in all but name.

The empire, as it could now be called, enjoyed unparalleled prosperity as the network of cities boomed, and goods, people, and ideas moved freely by land and sea. Many of the masterpieces associated with Roman art, such as the mosaics and wall paintings of Pompeii, gold and silver tableware, and glass, including the Portland Vase, were created in this period. The empire ushered in an economic and social revolution that changed the face of the Roman world: service to the empire and the emperor, not just birth and social status, became the key to advancement.

Successive emperors, such as Tiberius and Claudius, expanded Rome’s territory. By the time of the emperor Trajan, in the late first century C.E., the Roman empire, with about fifty million inhabitants, encompassed the whole of the Mediterranean, Britain, much of northern and central Europe, and the Near East.

A vast empire

Starting with Augustus in 27 B.C.E., the emperors ruled for five hundred years. They expanded Rome’s territory and by about 200 C.E., their vast empire stretched from Syria to Spain and from Britain to Egypt. Networks of roads connected rich and vibrant cities, filled with beautiful public buildings. A shared Greco-Roman culture linked people, goods and ideas.

The imperial system of the Roman Empire depended heavily on the personality and standing of the emperor himself. The reigns of weak or unpopular emperors often ended in bloodshed at Rome and chaos throughout the empire as a whole. In the third century C.E. the very existence of the empire was threatened by a combination of economic crisis, weak and short-lived emperors and usurpers (and the violent civil wars between their rival supporting armies), and massive barbarian penetration into Roman territory.

Relative stability was re-established in the fourth century C.E., through the emperor Diocletian’s division of the empire. The empire was divided into eastern and western halves and then into more easily administered units. Although some later emperors such as Constantine ruled the whole empire, the division between east and west became more marked as time passed. Financial pressures, urban decline, underpaid troops, and consequently overstretched frontiers—all of these finally caused the collapse of the western empire under waves of barbarian incursions in the early fifth century C.E. The last western emperor, Romulus Augustus, was deposed in 476 C.E., though the empire in the east, centered on Byzantium (Constantinople), continued until the fifteenth century.

© Trustees of the British Museum

Introduction to ancient Roman art

Roman art: when and where

Roman art is a very broad topic, spanning almost 1,000 years and three continents, from Europe and Africa and Asia. The first Roman art can be dated back to 509 B.C.E., with the legendary founding of the Roman Republic, and lasted until 330 C.E. (or much longer, if you include Byzantine art). Roman art also encompasses a broad spectrum of media including marble, painting, mosaic, gems, silver, bronze work, and terracottas, just to name a few. The city of Rome was a melting pot, and the Romans had no qualms about adapting artistic influences from the other Mediterranean cultures that surrounded and preceded them. For this reason it is common to see Greek, Etruscan, and Egyptian influences throughout Roman art. This is not to say that all of Roman art is derivative, though, and one of the challenges for specialists is to define what is “Roman” about Roman art.

Greek art certainly had a powerful influence on Roman practice; the Roman poet Horace famously said that “Greece, the captive, took her savage victor captive,” meaning that Rome (though it conquered Greece) adapted much of Greece’s cultural and artistic heritage (as well as importing many of its most famous works). It is also true that many Romans commissioned versions of famous Greek works from earlier centuries; this is why we often have marble versions of lost Greek bronzes such as the Doryphoros by Polykleitos.

The Romans did not believe, as we do today, that to have a copy of an artwork was of any less value that to have the original. The copies, however, were more often variations rather than direct copies, and they had small changes made to them. The variations could be made with humor, taking the serious and somber element of Greek art and turning it on its head. So, for example, a famously gruesome Hellenistic sculpture of the satyr Marsyas being flayed was converted in a Roman dining room to a knife handle (currently in the National Archaeological Museum in Perugia). A knife was the very element that would have been used to flay the poor satyr, demonstrating not only the owner’s knowledge of Greek mythology and important statuary, but also a dark sense of humor. From the direct reporting of the Greeks to the utilitarian and humorous luxury item of a Roman enthusiast, Marsyas made quite the journey. But the Roman artist was not simply copying. He was also adapting in a conscious and brilliant way. It is precisely this ability to adapt, convert, combine elements, and add a touch of humor that makes Roman art Roman.

Republican Rome

The mythic founding of the Roman Republic is supposed to have happened in 509 B.C.E., when the last Etruscan king, Tarquinius Superbus, was overthrown. During the Republican period, the Romans were governed by annually elected magistrates, the two consuls being the most important among them, and the Senate, which was the ruling body of the state. Eventually the system broke down and civil wars ensued between 100 and 42 B.C.E. The wars were finally brought to an end when Octavian (later called Augustus) defeated Mark Antony in the Battle of Actium in 31 B.C.E.

In the Republican period, art was produced in the service of the state, depicting public sacrifices or celebrating victorious military campaigns (like the Monument of Aemilius Paullus at Delphi). Portraiture extolled the communal goals of the Republic; hard work, age, wisdom, being a community leader and soldier. Patrons chose to have themselves represented with balding heads, large noses, and extra wrinkles, demonstrating that they had spent their lives working for the Republic as model citizens, flaunting their acquired wisdom with each furrow of the brow. We now call this portrait style veristic, referring to the hyper-naturalistic features that emphasize every flaw, creating portraits of individuals with personality and essence.

Imperial Rome

Augustus’s rise to power in Rome signaled the end of the Roman Republic and the formation of Imperial rule. Roman art was now put to the service of aggrandizing the ruler and his family. It was also meant to indicate shifts in leadership. The major periods in Imperial Roman art are named after individual rulers or major dynasties, they are:

Augustan (27 B.C.E.–14 C.E.)
Julio-Claudian (14–68 C.E.)
Flavian (69–98 C.E.)
Trajanic (98–117 C.E.)
Hadrianic (117–38 C.E.)
Antonine (138–93 C.E.)
Severan (193–235 C.E.)
Soldier Emperor (235–84 C.E.)
Tetrarchic (284–312 C.E.)
Constantinian (307–37 C.E.)

Imperial art often hearkened back to the Classical art of the past. “Classical”, or “Classicizing,” when used in reference to Roman art refers broadly to the influences of Greek art from the Classical and Hellenistic periods (480–31 B.C.E.). Classicizing elements include the smooth lines, elegant drapery, idealized nude bodies, highly naturalistic forms and balanced proportions that the Greeks had perfected over centuries of practice.

Augustus and the Julio-Claudian dynasty were particularly fond of adapting Classical elements into their art. The Augustus of Primaporta was made at the end of Augustus’s life, yet he is represented as youthful, idealized and strikingly handsome like a young athlete—all hallmarks of Classical art. The emperor Hadrian was known as a philhellene, or lover of all things Greek. The emperor himself began sporting a Greek “philosopher’s beard” in his official portraiture, unheard of before this time. Décor at his rambling Villa at Tivoli included mosaic copies of famous Greek paintings, such as Battle of the Centaurs and Wild Beasts by the legendary ancient Greek painter Zeuxis.

Later Imperial art moved away from earlier Classical influences, and Severan art signals the shift to art of Late Antiquity. The characteristics of Late Antique art include frontality, stiffness of pose and drapery, deeply drilled lines, less naturalism, squat proportions, and lack of individualism. Important figures are often slightly larger or are placed above the rest of the crowd to denote importance.

In relief panels from the Arch of Septimius Severus from Lepcis Magna, Septimius Severus and his sons, Caracalla and Geta ride in a chariot, marking them out from an otherwise uniform sea of repeating figures, all wearing the same stylized and flat drapery. There is little variation or individualism in the figures and they are all stiff and carved with deep, full lines. There is an ease to reading the work; Septimius is centrally located, between his sons and slightly taller; all the other figures direct the viewer’s eyes to him.

Constantinian art continued to integrate the elements of Late Antiquity that had been introduced in the Severan period, but they are now developed even further. For example, on the oratio relief panel on the Arch of Constantine, the figures are even more squat, frontally oriented, similar to one another, and there is a clear lack of naturalism. Again, the message is meant to be understood without hesitation: Constantine is in power.

Who made Roman art?

We don’t know much about who made Roman art. Artists certainly existed in antiquity but we know very little about them, especially during the Roman period, because of a lack of documentary evidence such as contracts or letters. What evidence we do have, such as Pliny the Elder’s Natural History, pays little attention to contemporary artists and often focuses more on the Greek artists of the past. As a result, scholars do not refer to specific artists but consider them generally, as a largely anonymous group.

What did they make?

Roman art encompasses private art made for Roman homes as well as art in the public sphere. The elite Roman home provided an opportunity for the owner to display his wealth, taste and education to his visitors, dependents, and clients. Since Roman homes were regularly visited and were meant to be viewed, their decoration was of the utmost importance. Wall paintings, mosaics, and sculptural displays were all incorporated seamlessly with small luxury items such as bronze figurines and silver bowls. The subject matter ranged from busts of important ancestors to mythological and historical scenes, still lifes, and landscapes—all to create the idea of an erudite patron steeped in culture.

When Romans died, they left behind imagery that identified them as individuals. Funerary imagery often emphasized unique physical traits or trade, partners or favored deities. Roman funerary art spans several media and all periods and regions. It included portrait busts, wall reliefs set into working-class group tombs (like those at Ostia), and elite decorated tombs (like the Via delle Tombe at Pompeii). In addition, there were painted Faiyum portraits placed on mummies and sarcophagi. Because death touched all levels of society—men and women, emperors, elites, and freedmen—funerary art recorded the diverse experiences of the various peoples who lived in the Roman empire

The public sphere is filled with works commissioned by the emperors such as portraits of the imperial family or bath houses decorated with copies of important Classical statues. There are also commemorative works like the triumphal arches and columns that served a didactic as well as a celebratory function. The arches and columns (like the Arch of Titus or the Column of Trajan), marked victories, depicted war, and described military life. They also revealed foreign lands and enemies of the state. They could also depict an emperor’s successes in domestic and foreign policy rather than in war, such as Trajan’s Arch in Benevento. Religious art is also included in this category, such as the cult statues placed in Roman temples that stood in for the deities they represented, like Venus or Jupiter. Gods and religions from other parts of the empire also made their way to Rome’s capital including the Egyptian goddess Isis, the Persian god Mithras, and ultimately Christianity. Each of these religions brought its own unique sets of imagery to inform proper worship and instruct their sect’s followers.

It can be difficult to pinpoint just what is Roman about Roman art, but it is the ability to adapt, to take in and to uniquely combine influences over centuries of practice that made Roman art distinct.

Cite this page as: Dr. Jessica Leay Ambler, “Introduction to ancient Roman art,” in Smarthistory, August 8, 2015, accessed January 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/introduction-to-ancient-roman-art/.

Damnatio memoriae—Roman sanctions against memory

We know that Roman emperors were often raised to the status of gods after their deaths. However, just as many were given the opposite treatment—officially erased from memory.

Condemning memory

Damnatio memoriae is a term we use to describe a Roman phenomenon in which the government condemned the memory of a person who was seen as a tyrant, traitor, or other sort of enemy to the state. The images of such condemned figures would be destroyed, their names erased from inscriptions, and if the doomed person were an emperor or other government official, even his laws could be rescinded. Coins bearing the image of an emperor who had his memory damned would be recalled or cancelled. In some cases, the residence of the condemned could be razed or otherwise destroyed. [1]

This was more than a form of casual, politically-motivated vandalism, carried out by disgruntled individuals, since the condemnation required approval of the Senate and the effects of the official denunciation could be seen far from Rome. There are many examples of damnatio memoriae throughout the history of the Roman Republic and Empire. As many as 26 emperors through the reign of Constantine had their memories condemned; conversely, about 25 emperors were deified after their deaths. The damning of memory phenomenon, however, is not unique to the Roman world. Egyptian pharaohs Hatshepsut and Akhenaten likewise had many of their their images, monuments, and inscriptions destroyed by political opponents or religious purists. [2]

Did it work?

Instances of damnatio memoriae were not always completely successful in wiping out the memory of an individual. Among the emperors who suffered damnatio memoriae are some of the best-known figures from Roman history, including Gaius (a.k.a. Caligula) and Nero. The notoriety of these men comes to us not only from texts written during their lifetimes and later, but also from images which survived the immediate violence of the damnatio memoriae and then centuries of neglect.

For instance, one marble portrait preserves not only the image of Caligula, but also traces of paint, informing us of the existence of this condemned emperor as well as the polychromy of ancient sculpture. In antiquity, these types of images were considered very powerful and closely linked with the identity of the person they represented.

Small heads, big reputations

Caligula was the first emperor to have his images purposefully destroyed after his death. It is impossible to know how many portraits in bronze or other precious metals were melted down, but a number of marble portraits show traces of being re-cut or simply dismantled and disposed of. Workshop procedures for official imperial portraits dictated that many full-length statues in stone were to be created in two pieces. So heads of Caligula, like those now in the Getty Villa and the Yale University Art Gallery (above), could be fairly easily detached from the bodies and tossed aside and a portrait head of the new emperor would swiftly replace the offending one.

A full-length, one-piece statue of a pontifex maximus (chief state priest, a title held by the emperor) from Velleia, however, apparently underwent a kind of sculptural recycling. The face of Caligula’s successor Claudius appears rather small in comparison to the head and the rest of the body—suggesting to some scholars that it was cut down from a portrait of Caligula.

Cancelleria Reliefs: Nerva replaces Domitian

A similar re-cutting is evident on a set of reliefs found in Rome and now housed in the Vatican Museums (below). The so-called Cancelleria Reliefs show mythological and allegorical figures celebrating members of the Flavian dynasty for their military successes.

In one, Domitian departs from Rome on a military campaign, ushered out of the city by Victoria, Mars, and Minerva, as well as personifications of the Senate and the Roman people. Yet the head atop the stately tunic-clad body of the emperor is not that of Domitian. Instead it is Nerva, who succeeded Domitian after his assassination and subsequent damnatio memoriae. As in the Claudius pontifex maximus statue from Velleia, Nerva’s face is far too small for the relief and even appears comical when compared to the divinities surrounding him.[3] Apparently the sculpture was recarved.

Slightly more elegant solutions for damnatio memoriae could be executed in metal statuary. The face of a bronze equestrian portrait of Domitian (below) was sawed off and replaced with that of his successor, Nerva. The result is much less jarring than on the Cancelleria relief, as the bronze “mask” was made to the same scale as the rest of the statue and the join is mostly unnoticeable.

Caracalla removes the image of Geta

Perhaps the most striking and widespread examples of damnatio memoriae come from the reign of Caracalla, a member of the Severan Dynasty who ruled from 211-217 C.E. He was initially co-emperor with his younger brother Geta, but after months of squabbling between the sibling rulers, Caracalla had Geta assassinated. This death was quickly followed by a damnatio memoriae, one in which it became a capital offense to even speak the name of the younger co-emperor.

In Rome, Geta’s image was eliminated from reliefs on the Arch of the Argentarii. No attempt at an elegant recarving was made as in the Cancelleria Reliefs; in a panel showing Septimius Severus and Julia Domna (the parents of Caracalla and Geta) sacrificing at an altar, a caduceus floats over an empty space where Geta must have stood.[4] Even images of Geta’s wife and father-in-law were carved out of the Arch of the Argentarii panels, as they too had suffered a damnatio memoriae. The names of all the condemned individuals were erased from the arch and replaced with new inscriptions honoring Caracalla.

Erasing memory across time and space

A painted panel found in Egypt demonstrates the very long reach of Roman vengeance when enacting a damnatio memoriae.  The panel shows the Severan family: Julia Domna wears heavy pearl earrings and necklaces; Septimius’s hair and beard are tinged with gray; and highlights in the eyes of all the figures add a lifelike quality. Caracalla’s boyish face—painted when he was merely heir to the throne—peers out to the viewer’s left. Next to him is a circular erasure in the paint where Geta once appeared. This deletion is dramatic when considering the procedures of damnatio memoriae. Someone in the province of Egypt, far from the center of the Empire, was charged with erasing the image of a child—a child who grew up to be co-emperor, only to be killed by his own brother. The tyranny of Caracalla and the thoroughness of damnatio memoriae meant that practically no image of the emperor’s enemies, no matter how small or out-of-date, would escape destruction.

Damnatio memoriae continued in the Roman world through the fourth century C.E., as seen in disfigured portraits of Constantine’s rival Maxentius. With Christianity made official in the Roman world, vandalism of imperial portraits continued, but with more of a religious bent than a political one. The fact that Roman portraits were removed, damaged, or destroyed because of dramatic changes in the subjects’ reputations is unmistakable evidence that such images are more than just “pictures.” A portrait can carry meaning over decades and centuries—whether it is of a Roman emperor, a Communist leader like Joseph Stalin, a dictator like Saddam Hussein, or Confederate generals in the United States.

Notes:

1. Nero’s Domus Aurea (Golden House) in downtown Rome was eventually filled in and built over by his successors in the Flavian Dynasty, but it was not a systematic destruction. In fact, there is evidence Vespasian lived in the controversial villa before he and his sons turned the land from Nero’s private estate back over to the public.
2. Hatshepsut’s successor, Thutmose III, ordered her images, cartouches, and monuments destroyed as she was seen as a usurper to his throne. Akhenaten, who brought monotheism briefly to Egypt, suffered a sort of damnatio memoriae by those who enthusiastically returned to polytheism after his death.
3. In a coup de grâce for the Cancelleria Reliefs, they seem to have never been displayed, instead discarded in a Republican-period cemetery after Nerva died just fifteen months into his reign. The Flavian Dynasty was over and it would have been too challenging to re-recarve the portrait of Nerva into Trajan.
4. It appears that Julia Domna’s left arm was carved in the space where Geta’s body once was; in the original format, she was probably holding the caduceus.

Additional Resources:

Essay on Roman portrait sculpture from the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History

Sarah Bond, “Erasing the Face of History,” The New York Times, May 14, 2011

Digging through time

Pompeii, an introduction

by DR. FRANCESCA TRONCHIN

Preserved under volcanic ash

Pompeii may be famous today, with millions of tourists visiting each year, but in the ancient world It was simply a market and trading town specializing in a fish-based condiment (called garum); other sites on the Bay of Naples were far better known as sumptuous vacation spots.

Pompeii was destroyed by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius (a volcano near the Bay of Naples) in 79 C.E. making the town one of the best-preserved examples of a Roman city, and tourists today marvel at the sensation of walking through a real ancient city.

While the volcano took thousands of lives and made the region uninhabitable for centuries, the layers of volcanic ash preserved Pompeii in a manner unparalleled at other ancient Roman sites. Not only have the magnificent temples and villas of the town been preserved, but also one-room workshops, graves of lower-class citizens, and modest take-out restaurants frequented by the hoi polloi. Organic materials like food, clothing, and wood are more often preserved in nearby Herculaneum, because of the differences in volcanic materials covering the two towns. And so, Pompeii, this “city of death” in fact tells us more about daily life in first-century Italy than even the city of Rome itself.

Not always Roman

Pompeii, however, was not always a Roman town. By the mid-sixth century B.C.E. both Etruscans and Greeks had settled in this area, yet their specific contributions to the founding of Pompeii as a city are currently poorly understood since archaeological exploration of the earliest phases of the town have been scarce. The Doric Temple in Pompeii’s Triangular Forum, nevertheless, suggests a stronger Greek than Etruscan presence.

The 5th and 4th centuries B.C.E. at Pompeii were a time of dominance by the Samnites—an indigenous people of south-central Italy who spoke the Oscan language. Their settlement occupied what is now the south-west corner of Pompeii, a site strategically placed at the mouth of the Sarno River near the Bay of Naples. By the middle of the 4th century, the melting-pot of cultures in this region had reached a boiling point, with Greek, Samnite, and Roman residents coming into conflict.

Over the course of the 3rd century B.C.E., Pompeii was one of many Italian towns that came to be dominated by the Romans. This power shift put Pompeii on a path to prosperity and many large, new, public buildings were constructed in the late 3rd century and into the 2nd. This was the time at which the Forum acquired its general footprint and large high-status houses replaced simpler ones.

Pompeii becomes Roman

The years 91-88 B.C.E. were dramatic ones for Pompeii, as it took part in a rebellion against Rome (the Social Wars). Having lost this battle of allied cities against the capital, the Roman general Sulla re-founded the city as a proper Roman colony and settled his army veterans in Pompeii. The existing inhabitants of Pompeii must have resented this move, but when new public buildings, including the Amphitheater, were constructed to meet the needs and desires of the new residents, this resentment may have eased. Later, the period of the early Roman Empire (c. 27 B.C.E.-69 C.E.) was a prosperous one for Pompeii; large, luxurious homes as well as imported goods from around the Mediterranean show up at this time.

The City Plan and its Major Features

The vast majority of the buildings visible at Pompeii today are from the Roman period, but some earlier features remain. The nucleus of the city in the 6th century B.C.E. was situated on a plateau overlooking the Sarno River at the southwest corner of what became the final “version” of Pompeii, and was organized around sanctuaries dedicated to Apollo and Minerva (or possibly Hercules). This early city had walls and a roughly grid-shaped street plan.

As Pompeii grew in size and population, the city walls were expanded, with gates at the ends of major roads. Slowly, the largely agricultural land inside the walls was built over with homes, places of production, markets, and other urban amenities. The east-west streets (known today by their modern names via della Fortuna, via di Nola, via dell’Abbondanza) and north-south ones (via Stabiana, via di Mercurio) formed the basis for the creation of insulae (city blocks), most of which are generally rectangular and contained a mix of domestic, commercial, and industrial buildings.

The Forum, “theater district,” amphitheater, and baths

Ancient Roman cities were almost never zoned or planned for specific activities. There are two main areas of Pompeii, however, that were loosely organized around a general function. The Forum, at the southwest corner of the city, was the site of various services and structures, and could be considered a sort of “downtown” for Pompeii.

Additionally, a kind of “entertainment district” in the south-central section of Pompeii included two theaters—one open-air, the other smaller and roofed. In these theaters, one could see plays, hear musical performances, and perhaps hold civic or social gatherings. These entertainments differ drastically from those enjoyed in the amphitheater at Pompeii.

Built more than 150 years before the Colosseum in Rome, Pompeii’s facility is the first known Roman amphitheater, where gladiators fought one another or hunted wild animals as a spectacle. It is estimated that between 10,000-15,000 people could be accommodated in Pompeii’s amphitheater. A fresco from a house at Pompeii illustrates in a shorthand way the spectacula (seating area) and arena (playing surface) as well as the velarium (sun shade) of the amphitheater.

As in Rome, Pompeii also had public establishments for bathing. At least five public baths (and scores of private ones within homes) provided not simply a place to get clean, but also opportunities for social interaction and exercise. Communal bathing was a custom for middle- and upper-class Romans; men especially would spend their afternoons in the baths, enjoying heated pools, steam rooms, cold plunge tubs, massages, ball games, and so forth, in the company of their peers and surrounded by beautiful decoration in mosaic, stucco, and sculpture.

Both the Stabian and the Forum Baths were initially constructed with public funds, indicating the extent to which such establishments were considered essential for Pompeii’s residents. Surviving inscriptions, however, indicate that a wealthy citizen could contribute financing for an addition to (or renovation of) the baths, as in the case of a large marble fountain in the caldarium (hot-water room) of the Forum Baths.

An aqueduct fed both private and public baths, although many residents of Pompeii relied on rainwater or abundant wells in the city to supply their water. The high state of preservation at Pompeii provides a view of the city’s water supply, from the aqueduct, through a distribution center at the high northern part of the town, through water towers and public fountains, and into private homes by way of terracotta and lead pipes. The most luxurious homes in Pompeii had fountains decorated with mosaics, sea shells, sculpture, and even frescoes.

The Forum

The religious, political, and commercial center of any Roman city was its forum. A kind of town center existed in the earliest phases of Pompeii at its southwest corner, but the forum only received monumental form and decoration in the 2nd century B.C.E. At that time, the Temple of Jupiter (eventually the Capitolium), Macellum (market), and Basilica (law court) were constructed and the open piazza of the forum was paved with stone. Statues of illustrious Pompeians, civic benefactors, and the imperial family stood under the forum colonnades and in the open areas of the piazza as well as in two buildings dedicated to the worship of divinized emperors—the Imperial Cult Building and the Sanctuary of Augustus (these statues are now entirely lost, save for their bases).

The forum provided ample opportunity for the citizens of Pompeii to worship their various gods as well as divinized members of the imperial family. Temples to Apollo and Venus stood just outside the forum proper and represent both early (6th century B.C.E.) and later (post-80 B.C.E.) historical building periods, respectively. Smaller temples throughout Pompeii honored Jupiter, Asclepius, and Minerva (in the Greek temple in the Triangular Forum). Even more modest shrines stood at important crossroads and inside the atria of private homes. These lararia, dedicated to somewhat mysterious guardian deities called Lares, were decorated with paintings and received small votive offerings.

A small, yet impressive temple to the Egyptian goddess Isis stands just to the north of the Large Theater. The cult of Isis had been introduced to Italy as early as the 2nd century B.C.E. and was apparently very popular at Pompeii, as indicated by the sumptuous painted stucco decoration of the precinct walls, Fourth Style wall paintings, a marble statue of Isis herself (now in the Naples Archaeological Museum), and abundant finds of votive offerings, some of which were imported from Egypt

Death and Burial

Because of the circumstances of its destruction, Pompeii often encourages macabre interest in those who perished in the city during the 79 C.E. eruption of Vesuvius. Yet for centuries, citizens of Pompeii had been solemnly commemorating their dead with sometimes elaborate tombs and costly grave goods. Longstanding traditions among ancient Mediterranean cultures generally prohibited burials within a city’s walls and Pompeii followed that tradition. The roads leading from the various city gates are lined on both sides with tombs—some were for individual burials while others were designed for multiple occupancy (usually of the lower classes or freed slaves). The most prestigious burials can be recognized both by their forms and by their location just outside a city gate, where they could be seen by as many passers-by as possible.

There was no standard shape for Roman tombs and Pompeiian funerary monuments could be decorated with statues of the deceased, pseudo-autobiographical relief sculpture, wall paintings, and even functional features like benches. Multiple-occupancy “house tombs,” popular in the last century of Pompeii’s existence, contained the cremated remains of various members of a single family or social group. These lower-cost tombs had brief inscriptions about the deceased persons and small niches held the stone, ceramic, or glass ash urns.

An open-air museum

At the time of the destruction of the city, an estimated 15,000 people lived in Pompeii. As many as 2,000 died in the ash and toxic gases of Vesuvius’ eruption in 79 C.E. The city today is an open-air museum dedicated to the experience of walking through an ancient Roman town. And while the houses and wall paintings from the last phase of Pompeii are what attracts the most visitors, the city’s complex social and building history, as well as the urban infrastructure, are worth noting as well.

Reconstruction of the house of Caecilius Iucundus from Lund University  URL: https://youtu.be/ETd7pszxhnc

Additional Resources:

Ancient Graffiti Project

Pompeii Bibliography and Mapping Project

Pompeii in Pictures

The rediscovery of Pompeii and the other cities of Vesuvius

by DR. FRANCESCA TRONCHIN

The eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 CE destroyed and largely buried the cities of Pompeii and Herculaneum and other sites in southern Italy under ash and rock. The rediscovery of these sites in the modern era is as fascinating as the cities themselves and provides a window onto the history of both art history and archeology.

Pompeii today

Today the site of Pompeii is open to tourists from all over the world. Major projects in survey, excavation, and preservation are supervised by Italian and American universities as well as ones from Britain, Sweden, and Japan. Currently, the major concern at Pompeii is conservation—officials must deal with the intersection of increased tourism, the deterioration of buildings to a sometimes dangerous state, and shrinking funding for archaeological and art historical monuments. The 250-year-long story of the unearthing of Pompeii, Herculaneum, and the other sites destroyed by Vesuvius in 79 C.E. has always been one of shifting priorities and methodologies, yet always in recognition of the special status of this archaeological zone.

Hidden for centuries?

The popular understanding of the immediate aftermath of the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius is that Pompeii, Herculaneum, and sites like Oplontis and Stabiae, lay buried under ash and volcanic material—completely sealed off from human intervention, undisturbed and hidden for centuries. Archaeological and geological evidence, however, indicates that there were rescue operations soon after the eruption (see, for example, the tunnels dug through the House of the Menander) and that some parts of these cities remained visible for some time (the forum colonnade at Pompeii was not completely covered). Throughout the Middle Ages, Pompeii was entirely deserted, yet locals referred to the area as La Cività (“the settlement”), perhaps informed by folk memory of the city’s existence.

Excavations begin

While Renaissance scholars must have been aware of Pompeii and its destruction through various ancient written sources, the first “archaeologist” in the area was apparently unimpressed with his discoveries. From 1594-1600, the architect Domenico Fontana worked on new constructions in the area and accidentally excavated a number of wall paintings, inscriptions, and architectural blocks while digging a canal. No one undertook follow-up explorations for nearly a century and a half, despite the general interest in antiquity and rudimentary archaeology at the time.

The eighteenth century saw the first large-scale excavations in this region, motivated by the desire to collect works of ancient art as much as by a scientific curiosity about the past. Further incidental discoveries in the early decades of the 1700s prompted Charles VII, King of Spain, Naples, and Sicily, to commission a survey of the area of Herculaneum.

Official excavation began in October 1738, under the supervision of Rocque Joaquin de Alcubierre, a military engineer who tunneled through the practically petrified volcanic material with dynamite to find remains of Herculaneum more than 20 meters under the surface. This dangerous work (tunnel collapse and toxic gases were a constant threat), yielded wall paintings, life-size sculpture in both bronze and marble, and papyrus scrolls from the Villa of the Papyri. Many of these recovered works went to decorate the palace of the king. Archaeology was still in its infancy as a practical field of study at this time, and was often more about “treasure-hunting” than careful research or documentation.

A Swiss engineer, Karl Jakob Weber, took over the excavation of Herculaneum from de Alcubierre in 1750 and brought more cautious methods to the site. Weber’s practices of recording the findspots of important objects in three dimensions and making detailed plans of architectural remains laid the foundations for the indispensable procedures of modern archaeology. De Alcubierre shifted his focus to Pompeii, which had just been (re)discovered in 1748. Among the early excavations there were the amphitheater and an inscription confirming the town’s name: REI PUBLICAE POMPEIANORUM. With finds from Herculaneum and Pompeii increasing exponentially, King Charles inaugurated a Royal Academy in Naples in 1755, dedicated to mapping the sites and publishing significant discoveries.

The new fields of archaeology and art history and the building of a royal collection

The field of art history was emerging concurrently with these early excavations and naturally sites like Pompeii and Herculaneum were of great interest to the man who coined the term “history of art”—the German scholar Johann Joachim Winckelmann. His reports on the finds from this area fanned the flames of European fervor for classical antiquity (ancient Greece and Rome), and Grand Tour travelers from Britain and elsewhere beat a path to Pompeii and Herculaneum in the late 18th century.

Although Winckelmann was most concerned with categorizing Greek and Roman sculpture, he was also keenly interested in the new field of archaeology: he knew enough of this science to criticize the secrecy and aggressive methods of de Alcubierre, an action that got Winckelmann effectively banned from Pompeii.

It was actually King Charles’s desire (and that of his successor Ferdinand) for beautiful artifacts that closed much of the excavations off to outside scholars, with most of the important finds going directly into the private royal collection. The king also enacted laws forbidding the export of antiquities from the Kingdom of Naples. Even the publication of the monumental Le antichità di Ercolano esposte (The antiquities of Herculaneum displayed, 1757-92)  was tightly controlled and the illustrated volumes were only selectively presented to other European monarchs by the king himself.

Preservation and access

With the arrival of Francesco la Vega as director of excavations in Pompeii in 1780, the conservation of buildings and artifacts became a priority. Francesco, and his brother Pietro after him, removed valuable artifacts to the new Naples Museum, where they joined other pieces from the royal collection. Francesco la Vega also embraced Weber’s concerns for recording three-dimensional contexts, and it was under his leadership that the Triangular Forum, the Temple of Isis, and the theater district were uncovered. However, like many archaeologists at Pompeii, la Vega struggled with a significant conflict: a desire to preserve the rare ancient wall paintings in situ while maintaining the site as a singular opportunity for visiting an ancient Roman city whose walls and roofs still stood. Paintings and buildings were left open to both treasure-hungry visitors and the elements, resulting in both natural and man-made deterioration at Pompeii.

Perhaps no archaeologist had such a significant influence on the exploration of Pompeii as Giuseppe Fiorelli. He was superintendent of Pompeii for twelve years (1863-1875) during a supremely patriotic moment after the unification of Italy in 1860 when the country’s archaeological heritage was a tremendous source of pride. Fiorelli did not meet his goal of uncovering the entire city—only about one third of the Pompeii was excavated—but he accomplished other important tasks and brought new techniques to the site.

Opening the site to visitors and the first entrance fee

Fiorelli systematically organized the site by dividing it into nine regions and providing a system of “addresses” for insulae (city blocks) and doorways. In a dramatic shift from the restrictive 18th-century approach to tourism in Pompeii, Fiorelli opened the site up to visitors from all over the world—and he also introduced the first entrance fee. His exhaustive reports on the excavations kept scholars apprised of developments on the site.

Fiorelli is best known for his use of plaster casting techniques which permitted a kind of preservation of otherwise ephemeral archaeological finds like wood and human remains. By pouring plaster into voids in the ash left by decomposed organic material, Fiorelli’s casts gave form to things like wooden doors, window frames, furniture, and of course the victims of the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius. The casts of human remains—including adults and children, not to mention a pet dog—remind visitors to this day that the great gift of Pompeii’s archaeology came at tremendous cost (as many as 2,000 people lost their lives).

Archaeological investigation continues—as an international project

In the late 19th century, exploration of Pompeii and Herculaneum became a more international project. The British diplomat Sir William Hamilton had already published studies of volcanic activity and painted pottery from the region in the late 18th century. German scholars of the 1800s studied inscriptions (Theodor Mommsen), outlined the city plan (Heinrich Nissen), and created typologies of wall painting (Wolfgang Helbig). August Mau’s thorough categorization of the Four Styles of Pompeian frescoes, published in 1882, remains the basis for wall painting studies today. The late 19th century also saw the excavation and restoration of two of Pompeii’s most spectacular houses—the House of the Vettii and the House of the Silver Wedding.

Pompeii in the 20th century: interruptions to archaeological work and bombing

The 20th century continued to be a very productive time at Pompeii for Italian archaeologists, even though work was interrupted by world events. Vittorio Spinazzola (director, 1911-1923) opened a massive excavation campaign along the Via dell ‘ Abbondanza [/ simple_tooltip]. His work not only uncovered important residences like the House of Octavius ​​Quartio, but also contributed to our understanding of upper floors of Pompeian buildings. Spinazzola’s work was interrupted by the outbreak of World War I and he was forced to step down from his position by Italy’s Fascist government. Amedeo Maiuri was the director of excavations from 1923-1962 and oversaw the discovery of the Villa of Mysteries and the House of the Menander.

Although work was stopped again at Pompeii during the Second World War, Maiuri succeeded in broadening the excavations to the extent seen today: about two-thirds to three-quarters of the city’s final phase has been uncovered. Maiuri was also concerned with pre-Roman Pompeii, opening excavations below the most recent layer; he also undertook extensive restoration and conservation work.

A terrible moment for Pompeii occurred in 1943 when the Allies dropped more than 150 bombs on the site, believing Germans were hiding soldiers and munitions among the ruins. At least one bomb fell on the on-site museum, destroying some of the more interesting artifacts discovered by that time.

Nevertheless, thanks to the efforts of the many archaeologists and researchers who have worked to uncover the remains of Pompeii and Herculaneum over the last three centuries, today we can again walk the streets of these fascinating ancient Roman towns.

Additional resources:

The eruption story from The British Museum

Dr. Damian Robinson, “The Elite House and Commercial Life along the Via dell’Abbondanza”

Dr. John J. Dobbins, “Public Space and via dell’Abbondanza”

Archaeological Areas of Pompei, Herculaneum and Torre Annunziata (UNESCO)

Roman domestic architecture – the insula

Roman wall painting styles

Source: Dr. Francesca Tronchin, “The rediscovery of Pompeii and the other cities of Vesuvius,” in Smarthistory, July 2, 2018, accessed January 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/the-rediscovery-of-pompeii-and-the-other-cities-of-vesuvius/.

An introduction to ancient Roman architecture

 

Roman architecture was unlike anything that had come before. The Persians, Egyptians, Greeks and Etruscans all had monumental architecture. The grandeur of their buildings, though, was largely external. Buildings were designed to be impressive when viewed from outside because their architects all had to rely on building in a post-and-lintel system, which means that they used two upright posts, like columns, with a horizontal block, known as a lintel, laid flat across the top. A good example is this ancient Greek Temple in Paestum, Italy.

Since lintels are heavy, the interior spaces of buildings could only be limited in size. Much of the interior space had to be devoted to supporting heavy loads.

Roman architecture differed fundamentally from this tradition because of the discovery, experimentation and exploitation of concrete, arches and vaulting (a good example of this is the Pantheon, c. 125 C.E.). Thanks to these innovations, from the first century C.E. Romans were able to create interior spaces that had previously been unheard of. Romans became increasingly concerned with shaping interior space rather than filling it with structural supports. As a result, the inside of Roman buildings were as impressive as their exteriors.

Materials, methods and innovations

Long before concrete made its appearance on the building scene in Rome, the Romans utilized a volcanic stone native to Italy called tufa to construct their buildings. Although tufa never went out of use, travertine began to be utilized in the late 2nd century B.C.E. because it was more durable. Also, its off-white color made it an acceptable substitute for marble.

Marble was slow to catch on in Rome during the Republican period since it was seen as an extravagance, but after the reign of Augustus (31 B.C.E. – 14 C.E.), marble became quite fashionable. Augustus had famously claimed in his funerary inscription, known as the Res Gestae, that he “found Rome a city of brick and left it a city of marble” referring to his ambitious building campaigns.

Roman concrete (opus caementicium), was developed early in the 2nd c. BCE.  The use of mortar as a bonding agent in ashlar masonry wasn’t new in the ancient world; mortar was a combination of sand, lime and water in proper proportions. The major contribution the Romans made to the mortar recipe was the introduction of volcanic Italian sand (also known as “pozzolana”).  The Roman builders who used pozzolana rather than ordinary sand noticed that their mortar was incredibly strong and durable. It also had the ability to set underwater. Brick and tile were commonly plastered over the concrete since it was not considered very pretty on its own, but concrete’s structural possibilities were far more important. The invention of opus caementicium initiated the Roman architectural revolution, allowing for builders to be much more creative with their designs. Since concrete takes the shape of the mold or frame it is poured into, buildings began to take on ever more fluid and creative shapes.

The Romans also exploited the opportunities afforded to architects by the innovation of the true arch (as opposed to a corbeled arch where stones are laid so that they move slightly in toward the center as they move higher). A true arch is composed of wedge-shaped blocks (typically of a durable stone), called voussoirs, with a key stone in the center holding them into place. In a true arch, weight is transferred from one voussoir down to the next, from the top of the arch to ground level, creating a sturdy building tool. True arches can span greater distances than a simple post-and-lintel. The use of concrete, combined with the employment of true arches allowed for vaults and domes to be built, creating expansive and breathtaking interior spaces.

Roman architects

We don’t know much about Roman architects.  Few individual architects are known to us because the dedicatory inscriptions, which appear on finished buildings, usually commemorated the person who commissioned and paid for the structure. We do know that architects came from all walks of life, from freedmen all the way up to the Emperor Hadrian, and they were responsible for all aspects of building on a project. The architect would design the building and act as engineer; he would serve as contractor and supervisor and would attempt to keep the project within budget.

Building types

Roman cities were typically focused on the forum (a large open plaza, surrounded by important buildings), which was the civic, religious and economic heart of the city. It was in the city’s forum that major temples (such as a Capitoline temple, dedicated to Jupiter, Juno and Minerva) were located, as well as other important shrines. Also useful in the forum plan were the basilica (a law court), and other official meeting places for the town council, such as a curia building. Quite often the city’s meat, fish and vegetable markets sprang up around the bustling forum. Surrounding the forum, lining the city’s streets, framing gateways, and marking crossings stood the connective architecture of the city: the porticoes, colonnades, arches and fountains that beautified a Roman city and welcomed weary travelers to town. Pompeii, Italy is an excellent example of a city with a well preserved forum.

Romans had a wide range of housing. The wealthy could own a house (domus) in the city as well as a country farmhouse (villa), while the less fortunate lived in multi-story apartment buildings called insulae. The House of Diana in Ostia, Rome’s port city, from the late 2nd c. C.E. is a great example of an insula. Even in death, the Romans found the need to construct grand buildings to commemorate and house their remains, like Eurysaces the Baker, whose elaborate tomb still stands near the Porta Maggiore in Rome.

The Romans built aqueducts throughout their domain and introduced water into the cities they built and occupied, increasing sanitary conditions.  A ready supply of water also allowed bath houses to become standard features of Roman cities, from Timgad, Algeria to Bath, England.  A healthy Roman lifestyle also included trips to the gymnasium.  Quite often, in the Imperial period, grand gymnasium-bath complexes were built and funded by the state, such as the Baths of Caracalla which included running tracks, gardens and libraries.

Entertainment varied greatly to suit all tastes in Rome, necessitating the erection of many types of structures.  There were Greek style theaters for plays as well as smaller, more intimate odeon buildings, like the one in Pompeii, which were specifically designed for musical performances.  The Romans also built amphitheaters—elliptical, enclosed spaces such as the Colloseum—which were used for gladiatorial combats or battles between men and animals. The Romans also built a circus in many of their cities. The circuses, such as the one in Lepcis Magna, Libya, were venues for residents to watch chariot racing.

The Romans continued to perfect their bridge building and road laying skills as well, allowing them to cross rivers and gullies and traverse great distances in order to expand their empire and better supervise it. From the bridge in Alcántara, Spain to the paved roads in Petra, Jordan, the Romans moved messages, money and troops efficiently.

Republican period

Republican Roman architecture was influenced by the Etruscans who were the early kings of Rome; the Etruscans were in turn influenced by Greek architecture. The Temple of Jupiter on the Capitoline Hill in Rome, begun in the late 6th century B.C.E., bears all the hallmarks of Etruscan architecture. The temple was erected from local tufa on a high podium and what is most characteristic is its frontality. The porch is very deep and the visitor is meant to approach from only one access point, rather than walk all the way around, as was common in Greek temples. Also, the presence of three cellas, or cult rooms, was also unique. The Temple of Jupiter would remain influential in temple design for much of the Republican period.

Drawing on such deep and rich traditions didn’t mean that Roman architects were unwilling to try new things.  In the late Republican period, architects began to experiment with concrete, testing its capability to see how the material might allow them to build on a grand scale.

The Sanctuary of Fortuna Primigenia in modern day Palestrina is comprised of two complexes, an upper and a lower one. The upper complex is built into a hillside and terraced, much like a Hellenistic sanctuary, with ramps and stairs leading from the terraces to the small theater and tholos temple at the pinnacle. The entire compound is intricately woven together to manipulate the visitor’s experience of sight, daylight and the approach to the sanctuary itself. No longer dependent on post-and-lintel architecture, the builders utilized concrete to make a vast system of covered ramps, large terraces, shops and barrel vaults.

Left: Severus and Celer, the dome of the octagon room, Domus Aurea, Rome, c. 64–68 C.E. (photo: Rob Larsen, CC BY 2.0); right: Severus and Celer, walls at the octagon room, Domus Aurea, Rome, c. 64–68 C.E. (photo: Rob Larsen, CC BY 2.0)

Imperial period

The Emperor Nero began building his infamous Domus Aurea, or Golden House, after a great fire swept through Rome in 64 C.E. and destroyed much of the downtown area. The destruction allowed Nero to take over valuable real estate for his own building project; a vast new villa. Although the choice was not in the public interest, Nero’s desire to live in grand fashion did spur on the architectural revolution in Rome. The architects, Severus and Celer, are known (thanks to the Roman historian Tacitus), and they built a grand palace, complete with courtyards, dining rooms, colonnades and fountains. They also used concrete extensively, including barrel vaults and domes throughout the complex.  What makes the Golden House unique in Roman architecture is that Severus and Celer were using concrete in new and exciting ways; rather than utilizing the material for just its structural purposes, the architects began to experiment with concrete in aesthetic modes, for instance, to make expansive domed spaces.

Nero may have started a new trend for bigger and better concrete architecture, but Roman architects, and the emperors who supported them, took that trend and pushed it to its greatest potential.  Vespasian’s Colosseum, the Markets of Trajan, the Baths of Caracalla and the Basilica of Maxentius are just a few of the most impressive structures to come out of the architectural revolution in Rome. Roman architecture was not entirely comprised of concrete, however.  Some buildings, which were made from marble, hearkened back to the sober, Classical beauty of Greek architecture, like the Forum of Trajan.  Concrete structures and marble buildings stood side by side in Rome, demonstrating that the Romans appreciated the architectural history of the Mediterranean just as much as they did their own innovation.  Ultimately, Roman architecture is overwhelmingly a success story of experimentation and the desire to achieve something new.

Source: Dr. Jessica Leay Ambler, “An introduction to ancient Roman architecture,” in Smarthistory, August 8, 2015, accessed October 1, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/roman-architecture/.

Italo-Roman building techniques

by DR. JEFFREY A. BECKER

Building techniques represent an important means through which to study and understand ancient structures. The building technique chosen for a given project can indirectly provide a good deal of information about the building itself, in terms of helping archaeologists and art historians to understand scale, scope, expense, and technique, alongside other, more aesthetic considerations. The building technique can also inform the chronology of the structure and can indicate, in some cases, other economic factors based on the building materials employed. The masonry techniques discussed here cover a broad chronological range from the second millennium B.C.E. to Late Antiquity.

Megalithic techniques

From the second millennium B.C.E. onwards techniques of megalithic architecture were used in Italy and on the island of Sardinia. As the name suggests, such techniques involved the use of large unworked (or roughly worked) stones to create walls and structures. Such walls tend to be built in a dry stone technique, meaning that no bonding agents are used to join stones, rather the tight fit and gravity itself are relied upon to hold the stones in place. Such techniques are frequently referred to under the general heading of “Cyclopean masonry”, indicative of the great bulk of the stones used.

On Sardinia, distinctive tower structures known as nuraghe built during the second and first millennia B.C.E. utilized megalithic techniques, including the construction of corbel vaults. In peninsular Italy, the distinctive style of polygonal masonry emerged by the second half of the first millennium B.C.E. Often used to construct defensive walls, retaining walls, and terraces, this type of megalithic architecture assumed a distinctive polygonal pattern.

Ashlar masonry (opus quadratum)

Ashlar or cuboidal masonry (cut, squared stones), referred to as opus quadratum by the Romans, represents an important advance in building technology. In Italy, the widespread use of ashlar masonry occurs from the sixth century B.C.E. onward. At Rome, this adoption corresponded to a marked increase in monumental construction projects during the late archaic period. Initially, Romans made use of a locally available tufo type known as cappellaccio. While a prestige material, its overall low quality led to the Romans being eager for other sources of superior tufo — a new source of tufo became available once Rome sacked the Etruscan city of Veii in 396 B.C.E.

Ashlar masonry, in general, is used primarily where underlying bedrock is softer and more easily shaped, such as the tufo plateaus on which the city of Rome and many of her Etruscan neighbors sit. Ashlar masonry is phased in for use in monumental construction projects. Notable examples in the city of Rome include the so-called “Servian walls” surrounding the city of Rome and the late sixth century B.C.E. podium of the Temple of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus. Although ashlar techniques would never completely disappear, the emergence of Roman concrete (opus caementicium) during the second century B.C.E. came to offer greater flexibility and strength than ashlar masonry could.

Opus caementicium (“cement work”)

“Roman concrete” describes a category of building technology that involves the use of concrete. Concrete is defined as a heavy, durable building material made from a mixture of sand, lime, water, and inclusions (caementa) such as stone, gravel or terracotta. It can either be spread or poured into molds or frames; it forms a stone-like mass upon hardening. In chronological terms, the ancient Roman usage of concrete stretches from sometime in the second century B.C.E. to Late Antiquity (and beyond). Within that chronological span, the technology of concrete changed and developed over time so that we may observe differences that relate to both function and aesthetics.

The basic concept of Roman concrete walling is to create a concrete core that is then faced with stone or brick and perhaps faced even further with stucco, paint, or polished stone veneers. Roman concrete is strong, practical, and functional — it is, on its own, rarely deemed aesthetically beautiful but its versatility and load-bearing potential facilitated the construction of many of the most famous buildings of Roman antiquity. The trio of the Domus Aurea of Nero, the Flavian Amphitheater, and the Pantheon could never have been realized without the innovative use of concrete building technology.

Roman concrete is famously strong and durable — even in archaeological contexts concrete is remarkable for its longevity. While the Romans did not invent concrete per se, they improved their own version of concrete by means of additions to its formula. Volcanic sand known as pozzolana (or “pit sand”) was favored by Roman builders for mixing concrete. When pozzolana, which contains high quantities of both aluminum oxide (sometimes called alumina) and silica, was added to mortar, the water-resistant properties of the mortar increased. This hydraulic concrete was then ideal for use in building piers, breakwaters, and bridge pylons, among other structures.

Typology

The Roman architectural writer Vitruvius (first century B.C.E.) provides a thorough summary of building techniques in his 10-book treatise De architectura (“On architecture”). In most cases, modern scholars continue to employ the Latin terminology used by Vitruvius. In these typological categories, the Latin term opus means “work or technique”.

Opus incertum (“irregular work”) is an early concrete technique that emerged during the earlier second century B.C.E. and continued in use until the middle of the first century B.C.E., gradually abandoned in favor of opus reticulatum. Opus incertum may be identified on the basis of its use of randomly placed, fist-sized chunks of tufo or stone that are placed into a core of opus caementicium

Opus reticulatum (“reticulate work”) is a technique that employs diamond-shaped pieces of tufo known as cubilia that are placed within a core of concrete. The resulting pattern of the flat ends of these blocks form the net-shaped pattern that lends its name to the technique. Opus reticulatum became popular during the early first century B.C.E. It would eventually be superseded by opus latericium.

Opus latericium (“brickwork”) describes a masonry technique that employs courses of laid bricks that are used to face a wall core of opus caementicium. This is a predominant technique during the Roman Imperial period. The bricks, in turn, would often be coated with stucco or another form of wall revetment.

Opus mixtum is a technique that combines opus reticulatum with opus latericium. The latter is usually found at the margins of the wall. It is a technique most common during the Hadrianic period in the mid-second century C.E.

Opus vittatum or opus listatum< is a later Roman concrete technique that is adopted in the early fourth century C.E. This technique alternated horizontal courses of tufo with alternating courses of bricks. This technique is particularly evident in building projects of Constantine I.

Cite this page as: Dr. Jeffrey A. Becker, “Italo-Roman building techniques,” in Smarthistory, July 24, 2020, accessed January 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/italo-roman-building-techniques/.

Forum Romanum (The Roman Forum)

by DR. JEFFREY A. BECKER;

The heart of ancient Rome, the Forum Romanum was the monumental center of religious, political, and social life.

Video URL: https://youtu.be/Q1hFeCS0Y3Y

Ruins in Modern Imagination: The Roman Forum (part 1), an ARCHES video. Speakers: Dr. Beth Harris and Dr. Steven Zucker
Ruins in Modern imagination: The Roman Forum (part 2)   (Renaissance and after)
Ruins in Modern imagination: The Roman Forum (part 3)  (Enlightenment to WWII)

In his play Curculio, the Latin playwright Plautus offers perhaps one of the most comprehensive and insightful descriptions of the Forum Romanum ever written (ll. 466-482). In his summary, Plautus gives the reader the sense that one could find just about every sort of person in the forum—from criminals and hustlers to politicians and prostitutes. His summary reminds us that in the city of Rome the Forum Romanum was the key political, ritual, and civic center. Located in a valley separating the Capitoline and Palatine Hills, the Forum developed from the earliest times and remained in use after the city’s eventual decline; during that span of time the forum witnessed the growth and eventual contraction of the city and her empire. The archaeological remains of the Forum Romanum itself continue to provide important insights into the phases and processes associated with urbanism and monumentality in ancient Rome.

Earliest history: from necropolis to civic space

Situated astride the Tiber river, the site of Rome is noted for its low hills that are separated by deeply cut valleys. The hilltops became the focus of settlement beginning in the Early Iron Age; the development of the settlement continued during the first millennium B.C.E., with the traditional Roman account holding that the city herself was founded in 753 B.C.E. (Livy 1.6)

The traditional foundation narrative holds that one of the first acts of Romulus, the city’s eponymous founder, was to establish a fortification wall around the Palatine Hill, the site of his new settlement. The Capitoline Hill, opposite the Palatine, emerged as the city’s citadel (arx) and site of the poliadic cult of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, among others (poliadic: the chief civic cult of an ancient city, derived from the Greek word “polis”).

Iron Age populations had used the marshy valley separating the Palatine and Capitoline hills as a necropolis (a large ancient cemetery), but the burgeoning settlement of archaic Rome had need of communal space and the valley was repurposed from a necropolis to a usable space. This required several transformations, both of human activity and the natural environment. Burial activity had to be transferred elsewhere; for this reason the main necropolis site shifted to the far side of the Esquiline Hill.

Addressing the problems of seasonal rains and flooding proved more challenging—the valley required a landfill project as well as the construction of a drainage canal to manage standing water. Since the Tiber river tended to leave its banks regularly, the valley was prone to significant flooding, as a low saddle of land known as the Velabrum connects the forum valley to the riverine zone. As coring studies conducted by Albert J. Ammerman have shown, a deliberate landfill project deposited fill in the forum valley in order to create usable, dry levels during the sixth century B.C.E. Twentieth century excavators, including Giacomo Boni and Einar Gjerstad, revealed important remains of Iron Age burials that pre-dated the establishment of the forum valley as a civic space; in particular the necropolis in the area known as the Sepulcretum along the Sacra Via (“Sacred Way,” the main sacred processional road of the city) has been extensively studied and published. The investigations of the burials themselves, and the patterns they followed, have allowed archaeologists to understand not only funeral customs but also social dynamics during Rome’s proto-urban phases.

This major investment in the creation of civic space and the organization of labor also provides important information about the socio-economic structure of early Rome (Livy 1.59.9). The drainage canal eventually came to have a vaulted covering and was known as the Cloaca Maxima or “Great Drain.” One of the clear outcomes of these civic investments was the creation of a usable space that came to be a civic focus for activities in many spheres, especially political and sacred functions.

Temples and sacred buildings

From the Early Republican period the forum space saw the construction of key temples. One of the most prominent early temples is the Temple of Saturn (often considered the earliest of the temples in the Forum Romanum), the first iteration of which dates c. 498 B.C.E. The temple was dedicated to Saturn, the god of agriculture, and housed the state treasury. The temple was rebuilt in 42 B.C.E. and again after 283 C.E. Another early Republican temple is the Temple of the Castors (a.k.a. Temple of Castor and Pollux) that was completed in 484 B.C.E. and was dedicated to the Gemini who had aided the Romans at the Battle of Lake Regillus in 496 B.C.E. The temple had several construction phases. The Sacra Via passed along the forum square en route to the Capitoline Hill and the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus. This sacred route was used for certain state-level ceremonies, especially the celebration of the victory ritual known as the Roman triumph.

Two other early, sacred buildings are important to note. These are the Regia or “king’s house” and the Temple of Vesta, both located on the downward slope of the Palatine Hill near the point where it reaches the edge of the Forum Romanum proper. Both of these sacred buildings are quite ancient and had many building phases, making it difficult to refine the chronology of the earliest phases. The Regia served as a ceremonial home for the king—later passing into the ownership of the pontifex maximus (principal state-level priesthood) once the kings had been expelled—and consisted of an irregularly planned suite of rooms surrounding a courtyard. The sixth century B.C.E. phase was decorated with painted plaques of architectural terracotta, clearly indicating both elite function and investment. Across the way was the Temple of Vesta, focused on the maternal elements of the archaic state as well as safeguarding the cult of Vesta and the sacred, eternal hearth flame of the Roman people. Both the Regia and the Temple of Vesta developed from crude structures in earlier phases to stone-built architecture in later phases. The Severan family carried out the final significant restoration of the Temple of Vesta in 191 C.E.

Meeting spaces

Important meeting spaces for political bodies emerged at the northwest side of the forum, namely a pair of complexes known as the Curia and Comitium. The Curia served as the council house for the Roman Senate, although the Senate could convene in any inaugurated space (i.e. a space ritually demarcated by Roman priests). The Curia emerged perhaps in the seventh century B.C.E., although little is known about its earliest phases. The surviving Curia is an imperial rebuilding of the Late Republican phase known as the Curia Julia, since Julius Caesar was its architectural patron. The Comitium was a tiered space that lay in front of the Curia that served as an open-air meeting space for public assemblies. Little of the Comitium remains today but it was a key architectural complex for political and sacred events during the time of the Roman Republic.

From Republic to Empire

During the fourth and third centuries B.C.E. the Forum Romanum certainly continued to develop, but material remains of large-scale architecture have proven elusive and thus our understanding of the space during those centuries is less clear than in other periods. One middle Republican development is the continued elaboration of the Rostra, the platform from which orators would speak to those assembled in the forum square. This monument would continue to develop over time and took its name from the prows (rostra) of defeated enemy warships that were mounted on its façade.

The later second and first centuries B.C.E., the Late Republican period, witnessed many changes in the city and in the Forum Romanum. The successes of Rome and her growing empire during the second and first centuries B.C.E. led to a great deal of monumental construction in the city, including in the Forum Romanum itself. It was during this Late Republican phase that Rome became a metropolitan center, equipped with the monumental architecture that could compete with—if not eclipse—that of the foreign powers Rome had tamed during the Punic Wars and those against the Hellenistic kingdoms of the eastern Mediterranean. In particular the Romans established a tradition of constructing monuments commemorating famous men who had achieved great success in military and public careers. The first of these was the Columna Rostrata that marked the naval victory of Caius Duilius at the naval battle of Mylae in 260 B.C.E. The Roman interest in monumental, commemorative monuments, now referred to as triumphal arches, would soon follow. The first of these, the Fabian arch (fornix Fabianus), was dedicated on the Sacra Via toward the eastern end of the Forum Romanum in 121 B.C.E., commemorating the military victories (and family) of Quintus Fabius Allobrogicus (Cicero pro Planc. 17). While the Fabian monument is no longer extant, its construction established a tradition (and a traditional form) for official commemorative and honorific monuments in the context of Roman public art.

The Basilica

The second century B.C.E. saw the creation and introduction of a unique Roman building type, the basilica. The basilica was a columnar hall that often had a multi-purpose use—from law courts to commerce to entertainments. Roman planners came to prefer them for lining the long sides of open squares, in a way not dissimilar from the Greek stoa. The sources claim that the Basilica Porcia (c. 184 B.C.E.) was the first basilica built at Rome, although no trace of it remains. The Basilica Porcia served as an office for the tribunes of the plebs. Other, more elaborate basilicae were soon to be built, including the famous Basilica Aemilia, first built in 179 B.C.E., and remodeled from c. 55 to 34 B.C.E. as the Basilica Paulli. Restored again after a fire in 14 B.C.E., the famous basilica was deemed by Pliny the Elder to be one of the three most beautiful monuments in Rome (Plin. HN 36.102.5)

Imperial period

The advent of the principate of Augustus (27 B.C.E. – 14 C.E.) brought about additions and renovations to the Forum Romanum. With the deification of Julius Caesar, Augustus’ adoptive father, a temple dedicated to Caesar’s cult (templum divi Iulii) was constructed on the edge of the forum square (15 in the diagram below).

Augustus restored existing buildings, completed incomplete projects, and added commemorative projects to celebrate his own accomplishments and those of his family members. In this latter group, the Arch of Augustus (#16 above) and the Porticus of Caius and Lucius are notable. The former was a triumphal arch celebrating significant military and diplomatic accomplishments of the emperor, while the latter honored the emperor’s grandsons.

Augustus also followed Julius Caesar in creating yet another new forum space beyond the Forum Romanum that was named the Forum of Augustus. (dedicated in 2 B.C.E.). These new Imperial Fora in some cases provided additional space and, in turn, shifted attention away from the Forum Romanum.

During the Imperial period the Forum Romanum itself saw only sporadic new construction, although the maintenance of the existing structures would have provided a pressing and ongoing obligation. Just beyond the limit of the forum proper the second century C.E. temple of Antoninus Pius and his wife Faustina was constructed in 141 C.E. (and then modified in 161 C.E. following the emperor’s death).

Decline

 

Declining imperial fortunes led inevitably to urban decay at Rome. After the Severan and Tetrarchic building programs of the third century C.E. and Constantinian investment in the early fourth century C.E., the forum and its environs began to decline and decay. Constantine I officially relocated the administrative center of the Roman world to Constantinople in 330 C.E. and Theodosius I suppressed all “pagan” religions and ordered temples shut permanently in 394 C.E. These changes, coupled with population decline, spelled the gradual demise of spaces like the Forum Romanum. Roman monuments were cannibalized for building materials and open, unused spaces were re-purposed—sometimes as ad hoc dwellings and other times for the deposition of rubbish and fill. Thus the forum slowly yielded its sacro-civic functions to more mundane concerns like pasturage—in fact it eventually came to be known as the “Campo Vaccino” (cow field).

The beauty of the ruins

The monument that is considered to be the final ancient structure erected in the Forum Romanum is a re-purposed monumental column set in place by the emperor Phocas in August of 608 C.E. The anonymous Einsiedeln itinerary, written in the eighth century C.E., mentions a general state of decay in the forum. A major earthquake in 847 C.E. wreaked considerable damage on remaining Roman monuments in the forum and in its environs. During the Middle Ages ancient structures provided reusable buildings materials, as well as reusable foundations, for Medieval structures.
The ruins themselves provided endless inspiration for artists, including painters the likes of Canaletto who became interested in the romanticism of the ruins of the ancient city as well as for cartographers and engravers the likes of G. B. Piranesi and G. Vasi, among others, who created views of the ruins themselves and restored plans of the ancient city.

Interpretation

The Forum Romanum, despite being a relatively small space, was central to the function and identity of the city of Rome (and the wider Roman empire). The Forum Romanum played a key role in creating a communal focal point, one toward which various members of a diverse socio-economic community could gravitate. In that centralized space community rituals that served a larger purpose of group unity could be performed and observed and elites could reinforce social hierarchy through the display of monumental art and architecture. These devices that could create and continually reinforce not only a sense of community belonging but also the existing social hierarchy were of vital importance in archaic states. Even as the Forum Romanum changed over time, it remained an important space. After a series of emperors chose to build new forum complexes (the Imperial Fora) adjacent to the Forum Romanum, it retained its symbolic importance, especially considering that, as a people, ancient Romans were incredibly loyal to ancestral practices and traditions.

Rediscovery and excavation

Many of the monuments of the Forum Romanum, along with ancient occupation levels, gradually disappeared from view. Systematic exploration and study began under archaeologist Carlo Fea who started to clear the area near the Arch of Septimius Severus in 1803. Study continued during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, with prominent scholars including Rodolfo Lanciani, Giacomo Boni, Einar Gjerstad, and Andrea Carandini, among others, leading major campaigns. Study and excavation—as well as the hugely important obligation of preservation—continue in the Forum Romanum today. The bulk of the forum is accessible to visitors who have the opportunity to experience one of the great documents of urban archaeology.

Additional resources:

Digital Roman Forum (UCLA)
Digital Augustan Rome
Rome Reborn
Roman Forum and Palatine Hill
Cite this page as: Dr. Jeffrey A. Becker, “Forum Romanum (The Roman Forum),” in Smarthistory, August 8, 2015, accessed January 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/forum-romanum-the-roman-forum/.

Imperial fora

by DR. JEFFREY A. BECKER

These awe-inspiring public complexes were built to reinforce the imperial family’s political message.

For centuries, the Roman Forum (Forum Romanum) was the civic, juridical, and social heart of the ancient city of Rome, a place where civic buildings, sacred buildings, and monuments were to be both found and admired. Beginning in the first century B.C.E., a new series of public spaces, also dubbed as fora (fora being the plural form of the Latin noun forum), began to be created. These fora (called Imperial fora since they were built by Roman emperors during the Roman imperial period) would eventually number five in all and were important public spaces that relied upon the visual potential of monumental art and architecture to reinforce ideological messages.

 

Topography and chronology

The Imperial fora are located in an area bounded on the southwest by the Capitoline Hill, on the northeast by the Quirinal Hill, and extending toward the Esquiline Hill to the east. The fora were initially built between c. 54 B.C.E. and 113 C.E., with continuing additions, restorations, and modifications through late antiquity. In the middle ages, the fora were spaces re-used for building materials, housing, industry, and burials. Gradually these spaces faded from view, buried beneath the medieval and modern city of Rome. A massive campaign of excavation in the twentieth century on the orders of the Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini returned large areas of the fora to view. Ongoing archaeological investigation continues to reveal additional elements of the fora and to provide additional data that allow for their contextualization.

Forum of Julius Caesar

 

 

The Forum of Julius Caesar (also known as the Forum Iulium or Forum Caesaris) was the first of the imperial fora complexes to be built. Pompey the Great, a political rival of Caesar, had dedicated a monumental theater and portico complex in the Campus Martius in 55 B.C.E., and this perhaps spurred Caesar’s ambition to construct a new forum complex.
Caesar’s project required the acquisition of land at the flank of the Capitoline Hill, and he was aided in this early on by political allies, including Cicero, with the initial land purchased at a cost of sixty million sesterces (Cic. ad Att. 4.16.9). Additional land acquisition may have ballooned the total cost to one hundred million sesterces (Suetonius Divus Iulius 26; Pliny the Elder Natural History 36.103). The construction of Caesar’s forum resulted in significant reorganization of the northwest corner of the Forum Romanum.

The Forum of Caesar takes the form of a rectangle measuring 160 by 75 m. The centerpiece of the complex was the Temple of Venus Genetrix, dedicated to the goddess that Caesar celebrated as his distant ancestor. The temple was made of solid marble and sat atop a high podium. The long sides of the forum square, flanking the temple, housed two stories of rooms that may have served political and/or mercantile functions. The complex was dedicated during the festivities surrounding Caesar’s triumph in September of 46 B.C.E.

Forum of Augustus

The Forum of Augustus (known as the Forum Augustum or Forum Augusti) followed the Forum of Caesar as the second of the imperial fora. At the Battle of Philippi in 42 B.C.E., Augustus vowed a temple to Mars in exchange for help in avenging the slain Caesar (Suet. Aug. 29.2), but the temple and forum complex would not be dedicated until 2 B.C.E. (Res Gestae 21).  The Forum of Augustus provided additional room for the meeting of law courts and was built on land acquired by Augustus.

The visual program in the Forum of Augustus is complex. The architectural sculpture adorning the Temple of Mars Ultor inserts Augustus into the Julian family (gens Iulia) by portraying Augustus in the context of divinities (Mars, Venus, and Cupid) and the deified mortal—Julius Caesar (divus Iulius). Flanking the temple in the exedrae of the porticoes were sculptural groups depicting both Romulus and Aeneas, thus connecting Augustus to Rome’s two legendary founders (Ovid Fasti 5.549–570).
To complete the narrative cycle, statues of famous Romans of the Republican period adorned the attic of the porticoes. These famous men (summi viri) were portrayed alongside small, inscribed plaques (tituli) bearing their political and military accomplishments. In this way, Augustus portrayed himself as the ideal man to lead the Roman state; he was connected to Rome’s divine origins, and he represented continuity with its republican tradition. This powerful visual narrative represents an important early use of public art to transmit ideological messages in the western world.

Subsequent emperors continued to elaborate upon the Forum of Augustus. The emperor Tiberius added two arches in 19 C.E. meant to honor the German victories of Drusus and Germanicus (Tacitus Annales 2.64; CIL 6.911) and the emperor Hadrian restored the forum complex in the second century. Pliny the Elder deemed the Forum of Augustus one of three most beautiful monuments in the city of Rome (Pliny the Elder Natural History 36.102.5).\

Templum Pacis / Forum of Vespasian

The next imperial forum to be built was commissioned by the emperor Vespasian following the suppression of the Great Jewish Revolt Vespasian came to power following civil chaos in 69 C.E. and, together with his eldest son, Titus, suppressed the revolt and sacked the city of Jerusalem. During the summer of 71 C.E. Vespasian and Titus jointly celebrated a lavish triumph at Rome—an ancient ritual celebrating significant military victories. One of the key tenets of Vespasian’s new administration was the restoration of the city, including the construction of new buildings and monuments. He dedicated a forum complex that housed a temple dedicated to Peace (Pax) in 71 C.E., completing it by 75 C.E. (Flavius Josephus Jewish War 7.5.7).  This innovative complex was deemed one of Rome’s most beautiful monuments by Pliny the Elder and housed not only significant spoils from Jerusalem but also masterworks of Greek art that had previously been hoarded by the emperor Nero.

 

 

The Temple of Peace (Templum Pacis) stands out among the imperial fora for its innovative architectural design. Rather than featuring a central temple seated atop a prominent podium, the Templum Pacis complex consists of a square portico (dimensions 110 x 135 m) with the temple itself set within the eastern side of the portico, flanked by ancillary rooms. This left the square itself open for the installation of decorative water features and plantings, which are seen both archaeologically and on fragments of the Severan marble plan of the city of Rome (forma urbis Romae) that was mounted in the forum complex in the third century C.E. The fragments of the Severan plan provide valuable information about the design of this architectural complex and has led scholars to speculate that the inspiration for its design may have been the great market (macellum magnum) of the city that had likely been destroyed in the Great Fire of Rome in 64 C.E. It is especially significant to note that this is a public space and that Vespasian’s generosity granted the populace of Rome access not only to a beautiful, monumental square, but also to art and the spoils of military victory (including spoils from the Temple in Jerusalem).

 

 

Forum Transitorium

The Forum Transitorium, also referred to as the Forum of Nerva, was begun by Domitian, the younger son of Vespasian. Incomplete at the time of Domitian’s assassination in 96 C.E., the complex was completed by Nerva in 97 C.E. This is a narrow forum complex that abuts both the Forum of Augustus and the Templum Pacis and is constrained by these pre-existing structures (dimensions: 131 x 45 meters); as well as the Argiletum, a street that ran the length of the forum. The Forum Transitorium’s temple was sacred to Minerva, who had been a patron divinity of Domitian, and the architectural sculpture that decorated the porticoes featured imagery connected to Minerva and scenes from the private lives of women.

Forum of Trajan

The Forum of Trajan (Forum Traiani), the final imperial forum, was both the largest and the most lavish. Inaugurated in 112 C.E., the architectural complex relied upon imposing architectural and sculptural features to glorify the accomplishments and principate of the emperor Trajan. The elaborate forum complex has a vast footprint, measuring 200 x 120 meters. The open square of the forum is flanked by porticoes that contain exedrae and point viewer’s attention toward the main structure, the massive Basilica Ulpia. The architect, Apollodorus of Damascus, was responsible for the innovative design. On the western side of the basilica was another courtyard, flanked by two libraries (one Greek and one Latin), that contained a monumental honorific column, known today as the Column of Trajan.

 

 

The Column of Trajan, inaugurated in 113 C.E., is a main feature of the Forum of Trajan and is, in its own right, a masterwork of Roman art. ​The column carries a helical frieze of historical relief that provides a pictorial narrative of the events of Trajan’s wars in Dacia, culminating with the death of the enemy commander, Decebalus. The column stands 38 meters tall and its frieze wraps around the column shaft 23 times, with a total length of roughly 190 meters. Carved in bas relief, the exquisite frieze carefully narrates Trajan’s campaigns and its level of detail is simply astounding.
The column’s frieze may draw inspiration from earlier Roman triumphal art, the tradition of which was inclined to depict scenes from the foreign campaigns and, in so doing, glorify the accomplishments of the commander and his soldiers. Throughout the Forum of Trajan, the theme of military victory, and its celebration, permeate the monumental decorative programs.

When Trajan died in 117 C.E., sources tell us that the Roman Senate allowed a special dispensation whereby Trajan’s cremated remains could be deposited in the base of the column and that a temple to his cult (Templum Divi Traiani et Plotinae) was added to the forum complex between 125 and 138 C.E. (Historia Augusta – Hadrian 19.9).  An ongoing point of scholarly contention is the position and appearance of this plan. Traditional reconstructions favor a free-standing temple at the western end of the forum, while more recent reconstructions instead favor a shrine positioned against the western exedra of the Forum of Augustus. Ongoing archaeological fieldwork may yet shed light on this contentious topographical debate.

Interpretation

The Imperial fora represent important architectural landscapes in the city of Rome. They demonstrate the efficacy of public art and architecture with respect to creating collective identity and communicating clear messages that both disseminate and reinforce ideology. The strength and accomplishments of the Roman state, not to mention its stability, are key themes in any such program of message-making. We should also not underestimate the psychological effect of these grandiose, soaring, bedecked complexes, based around massive open plazas, on the minds and experiences of city dwellers (many of whom lived in crowded squalor). The Imperial fora demonstrate that within the mechanisms of Roman urbanism, civic architecture occupies a crucial role. We are reminded of this efficacy by an ancient example that is perhaps no different from the reaction of a modern visitor to the city of Rome. The emperor Constantius II, visiting Rome in the mid-fourth century C.E., was amazed by the Forum of Trajan, something he considered “a construction unique under the heavens” (Ammianus Marcellinus 16.10.15).
Source: Dr. Jeffrey A. Becker, “Imperial fora,” in Smarthistory, August 8, 2015, accessed January 20, 2025, https://smarthistory.org/imperial-fora/.

Domestic Architecture (domus, villa, insula)

Roman Domestic architecture: the Domus

by Dr. Jeffrey A. Becker

The domus was more than a residence, it was also a statement of social and political power.

Understanding the architecture of the Roman house requires more than simply appreciating the names of the various parts of the structure, as the house itself was an important part of the dynamics of daily life and the socio-economy of the Roman world. The house type referred to as the domus (Latin for “house”) is taken to mean a structure designed for either a nuclear or extended family and located in a city or town. The domus as a general architectural type is long-lived in the Roman world, although some development of the architectural form does occur. While the sites of Pompeii and Herculaneum provide the best surviving evidence for domus architecture, this typology was widespread in the Roman world.

Layout

While there is not a “standard” domus, it is possible to discuss the primary features of a generic example, keeping in mind that variation is present in every manifest example of this type of building. The ancient architectural writer Vitruvius provides a wealth of information on the potential configurations of domus architecture, in particular the main room of the domus that was known as the atrium.

In the classic layout of the Roman domus, the atrium served as the focus of the entire house plan. As the main room in the public part of the house (pars urbana), the atrium was the center of the house’s social and political life. The male head-of-household (paterfamilias) would receive his clients on business days in the atrium, in which case it functioned as a sort of waiting room for business appointments. Those clients would enter the atrium from the fauces, a narrow entry passageway that communicated with the street. That doorway would be watched, in wealthier houses, by a doorman (ianitor). Given that the atrium was a room where invited guests and clients would wait and spend time, it was also the room on which the house owner would lavish attention and funds in order to make sure the room was well appointed with decorations. The corner of the room might sport the household shrine lararium) and the funeral masks of the family’s dead ancestors might be kept in small cabinets in the atrium. Communicating with the atrium might be bed chambers (cubicula)and the office of the paterfamilias, known as the tablinum. The tablinum, often at the rear of the atrium, is usually a square chamber that would have been furnished with the paraphernalia of the paterfamilias and his business interests. This could include a writing table as well as examples of strong boxes as are evident in some contexts in Pompeii.

Types of atria

The arrangement of the atrium could take a number of possible configurations, as detailed by Vitruvius (De architectura 6.3). Among these typologies were the Tuscan atrium (atrium Tuscanicum), the tetrastyle atrium (atrium tetrastylum), and the Corinthian atrium (atrium Corinthium). The Tuscan form had no columns, which required that rafters carry the weight of the ceiling. Both the Tetrastyle and the Corinthian types had columns at the center; Corinthian atria generally had more columns that were also taller.

The arrangement of the atrium could take a number of possible configurations, as detailed by Vitruvius (De architectura 6.3). Among these typologies were the Tuscan atrium (atrium Tuscanicum), the tetrastyle atrium (atrium tetrastylum), and the Corinthian atrium (atrium Corinthium). The Tuscan form had no columns, which required that rafters carry the weight of the ceiling. Both the Tetrastyle and the Corinthian types had columns at the center; Corinthian atria generally had more columns that were also taller.

 

All three of these typologies sported a central aperture in the roof (compluvium) and a corresponding pool (impluvium) set in the floor. The compluvium allowed light, fresh air, and rain to enter the atrium; the impluvium was necessary to capture any rainwater and channel it to an underground cistern. The water could then be used for household purposes.

Beyond the atrium and tablinum lay the more private part (pars rustica) of the house that was often centered around an open-air courtyard known as the peristyle. The pars rustica would generally be off limits to business clients and served as the focus of the family life of the house. The central portion of the peristyle would be open to the sky and could be the site of a decorative garden, fountains, artwork, or a functional kitchen garden (or a combination of these elements). The size and arrangement of the peristyle vary quite a bit depending on the size of the house itself.<

Communicating with the peristyle would be functional rooms like the kitchen (culina), bedrooms (cubicula), slave quarters, latrines, and baths in some cases, and the all important dining room (triclinium). The triclinium would be the room used for elaborate dinner parties to which guests would be invited. The dinner party involved much more than drinking and eating, however, as entertainment, discussion, and philosophical dialogues were frequently on the menu for the evening. Those invited to the dinner party would be the close friends, family, and associates of the paterfamilias. The triclinium would often be elaborately decorated with wall paintings and portable artworks. The guests at the dinner party were arranged according to a specific formula that gave privileged places to those of higher rank.

Chronology and development

No architectural form is ever static, and the domus is no exception to this rule. Architectural forms develop and change over time, adapting and reacting to changing needs, customs, and functions. The chronology of domus architecture is contentious, especially the discussion about the origins and early influences of the form.

 

Many ancient Mediterranean houses show the same propensity as the Roman atrium house—a penchant for a plan that focuses on a central courtyard. The Romans may have drawn architectural inspiration from the Etruscans, as well as from the Greeks. In truth, it is unlikely that there was a single stream of influence, rather, Roman architecture responds to streams of influence that pervade the Mediterranean.

By the second and first centuries B.C.E., the domus had become fairly well established and it is to this period that most of the houses known from Pompeii and Herculaneum date. During the Republic, the social networking system that we refer to as the “patron-client relationship” was not only active, but essential to Roman politics and business. This organizational scheme changed as Rome’s political system developed.
With the advent of imperial rule by the late 1st century B.C.E., the emperor became the universal patron, and clientage of the Republican variety relied less heavily on its old traditions. House plans may have changed in response to these social changes. One clear element is a de-emphasis of the atrium as the key room of the house. Examples such as the multi-phase House of Cupid and Psyche at Ostia (2nd–4th centuries C.E.) demonstrate that the atrium eventually gives way to larger and more prominent dining rooms and to courtyards equipped with elaborate fountains.

See also:
Roman Housing on the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History
Source: Dr. Jeffrey A. Becker, “Roman Domestic architecture: the Domus,” in Smarthistory, November 28, 2015, accessed January 20, 2025, https://smarthistory.org/roman-domestic-architecture-domus/.

Roman domestic architecture: the villa

by Dr. Jeffrey A. Becker
To escape the heat and pressures of the city, the wealthiest Roman families retreated to their country homes.

Familiar but enigmatic

The villa, on its face, seems to be the simplest of Roman domestic buildings to understand—after all, we continue to use the Latin term “villa” to conjure up a luxurious retreat in the country or at the seashore.
We find evidence of the ancient Roman villa in both archaeological remains and in ancient texts. Taken together this would seem to suggest a fairly uniform and monolithic body of architecture, while the reality is, in fact, something quite different. In some ways the Roman villa is a conundrum. This is especially true in the earlier phases of the type’s development, where questions of origins and influence remain hotly debated. As a building type, the villa manages to simultaneously seem instantly understandable and completely enigmatic.

History

The earliest examples of buildings grouped into this category, sometimes referred to by the term villa rustica (country villa), are mostly humble farmhouses in Italy. These rural structures tend to be associated with agriculture or viticulture (grapes) on a small scale. The villa form—and the term itself—then comes to be appropriated and applied to a whole range of structures that persist across both the Republican and Imperial periods, continuing into Late Antiquity. One thing that all villas tend to have in common is their extra-urban setting—the villa is not an urban structure, but rather a rural one. Thus we most often find them in rural, suburban or coastal settings. In ideological terms, the country (rus) provided relief from the hectic pressures of the city (urbs), and thus the villa became associated (and remains associated) with rural getaways.
According to Pliny the Elder, the villa urbana was located within easy distance of the city, while the villa rustica was a permanent country estate staffed with enslaved individuals and a supervisor (vilicus). The villa rustica is connected with agricultural production and the villa complex can contain facilities and equipment for processing agricultural produce, notably processing grapes to make wine and processing olives to produce olive oil. Even opulent villas often had a pars rustica, the working or productive part of the building. Latin authors like Cato the Elder and Varro even made and observed strict recommendations, based in agrarian ideology, as to how these rustic villas should be built, appointed, and managed.

Building typology

It is difficult to identify a single, uniform typology for Roman villas, just as it is difficult to do so for the Roman house (domus). In general terms the ideal villa is internally divided into two zones: the urbane zone for enjoying life (pars urbana) and the productive area (pars rustica). As with domus architecture, villas often focus internally around courtyards and atrium spaces. Elite villas tend to be sprawling affairs, with many rooms for entertainment and dining, in addition to specialized facilities including heated baths (balnea).

Republican villas

Villas built in Italy during the period stretching from the fifth to the second centuries B.C.E. can be divided into several groupings, based on their building typology. One typology with the smallest number of known examples is an opulent villa that draws its influence from the tradition of palatial aristocratic compounds of the Archaic period in central Italy, such as the complex at Poggio Civitate (Murlo) and the “palace” at Acquarossa (near Viterbo). These aristocratic compounds might have inspired Roman Republican aristocrats to build similar aristocratic mansions for their extended families as a demonstration of their social and economic clout. Other Republican-period “villas” tend to be small and connected with agricultural production on a small scale. Traditionally they are associated with an open-air, yet enclosed, courtyard that serves as a focal point.

The mid-first century B.C.E. villa of the Volusii Saturnini at Lucus Feroniae provides a good example of an opulent villa built by Late Republican new money. It also demonstrates the pattern that many elite villas would follow during the Imperial period in becoming ever more opulent. In the plan, we see a large peristyle and smaller atrium and dozens of rooms off each.

Ancient writers the likes of Cato the Elder, Varro, and Columella theorized that villa architecture evolved over time, with the so-called “Columellan” villa being the most elaborate and sophisticated. While scholars do not accept this evolutionary schema any longer, it is interesting that these ancient authors were focused on villas and their culture and that they appreciated change over time. While the archaeological remains do not bear out or prove this theory of architectural development, the awareness of the villa and its role in Roman ideology is an important concept on its own.

Imperial villas

From the Imperial period, we are fortunate to have evidence for a wide range of villa architecture distributed across the Roman empire. In the provinces of the Roman Empire, the adoption of classic villa architecture seems to serve as a mark of adopting a Roman lifestyle—with elites keen to demonstrate their urbanity by living in villas. An example of such an adoption is the so-called Fishbourne Roman palace at Chichester in the south of England which was likely the seat of the Roman client-king Cogidubnus.

A number of villas destroyed by the 79 C.E. eruption of Mount Vesuvius demonstrate key features of the opulent villa. At Boscoreale the Late Republican villa of Publius Fannius Synistor (c. 50–40 B.C.E.) is well known for its elaborate Second Style wall paintings.

Villa Oplontis, first century C.E. with later remodeling (photo: ho visto nina volare, CC BY-SA 2.0)[/caption]

At Oplontis (modern Torre Annunziata, Italy), the so-called Villa A (sometimes referred to as Villa Poppaea) demonstrates the seaside villa (villa maritima). This is a grand pleasure villa, with many well-appointed rooms for leisure and reception.

In the periphery of Rome itself we find a number of villas connected with the Imperial house. These are mostly villas of the villa urbana category—including examples such as the Villa of Livia at Prima Porta that belonged to Livia, the wife of the emperor Augustus. The Prima Porta villa—a private Imperial retreat—is famous for its garden-themed dining room and the portrait statue of Augustus of Prima Porta.

Other emperors would build their own suburban villas as well. Worthy of note in this category is the Villa of Hadrian at Tivoli located to the east of Rome. A series of later elite villas (mostly south of Rome) such as the Villa of Maxentius on the Via Appia and the Villa of the Quintilii, show us that the villa continued to be not only a statement of status into the later Roman period, but also maintained its role as a retreat from the crowded confusion of the city.

Late Roman

In Late Antiquity the Roman villa continued to develop. The so-called Villa Romana del Casale just outside of Piazza Armerina, Sicily, was built in the early fourth century C.E. and boasts one of the most complex programs of Roman mosaics preserved from the ancient world.

The Villa Casale was likely the center of a large agricultural estate (latifundium) and its opulent decorations strongly suggest the elite status of its owners. The villa has three sectors that focus on a central peristyle. It seems that the complex was built as a simultaneous project. Its mosaic decorations are rich and complex, with themes that range from natural and geometric scenes, to genre scenes, to hunting scenes, as well as scenes extracted from Graeco-Roman mythology. Villas like the Villa Casale dominated the rural landscape and its economy, engaging in various productive activities from farming to mining.

Roman rural villas remained prominent features in post-Roman landscapes, in some cases becoming centers of monastic life and in others becoming the centers of emergent villages during the Medieval period.

Additional resources
The Oplontis Project.
Digital Hadrian’s Villa.
UNESCO: Villa Romana del Casale.
The idea and Invention of the Villa on the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History.
Cite this page as: Dr. Jeffrey A. Becker, “Roman domestic architecture: the villa,” in Smarthistory, March 7, 2016, accessed January 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/the-villa/.

 

Roman domestic architecture: the insula

by DR. JEFFREY A. BECKER

The Romans are famous for soaring monuments, but perhaps they should be better known for their high-rise apartments.

In the Latin language, insula (plural insulae) means “island” and the term has been connected to the high-rise apartment dwellings of the Roman world, presumably since they rose like islands from the built landscape of the city. The insulae of ancient Roman cities provided housing for the bulk of the urban populace. The plebs—defined as ordinary people of lower- or middle-class status—tended to inhabit insulae. During the heyday of the mercantile city of Ostia at the mouth of the Tiber river (less than 20 miles from Rome), a building boom produced many such insulae, making Ostia a city of high-rise apartments, a phenomenon of urban building that would not manifest itself again until the Industrial Revolution.

History

In relating the history of the year 191 B.C.E., the historian Livy remarks that two tame oxen had climbed the stairs of a multi-story building, ending up on the tiled roof (Livy 36.37). While this may seem a passing comment, it reminds us that even in the second century B.C.E Rome was a vertical city in the sense that buildings with multiple levels were already being built. Strabo (5.3.7), commenting on Rome in the time of Augustus, mentions the building boom there and the need to regulate construction, including the height of buildings. The architectural writer Vitruvius (De architectura 2.8.17) expresses a fairly optimistic view of the insulae, observing that advances in construction technology that facilitated the construction of these outstanding dwellings. Other ancient authors, including Seneca and Diodorus, were less positive about insulae, seeing them as noisy and squalid.
There is some debate among scholars about how, precisely, we should understand and define the term insula. A fourth century C.E. source, known as the Regionary Catalog, states that in the city of Rome there were 44,850 insulae and 1781 domus in 315 C.E. Glenn Storey observes that if these figures represent individual buildings, fourth century C.E. Rome had over 45,000 independent structures.  Understanding the meaning of the term insula, then, has obvious implications for understanding the population and organization of the ancient city of Rome. Scholars have debated how we should interpret the term. James Packer posits that insula connotes a high-rise building that could occupy an entire block or be a portion of a larger structure.

In this reconstruction, the larger building must have been subdivided into smaller units. These are the medianum and cenaculum, terms for subdivisions of the apartment building. Their specific meaning remains somewhat troublesome, but surviving records do indicate that apartment buildings were subdivided for legal reasons, as well as for assessing rent. James Packer estimates the median area of a Roman apartment at 239 square meters.

Typology

The apartment block differs significantly from the townhouse (domus). The domus is essentially a dwelling for a single, extended family unit, while the apartment block contains multiple units. The top-to-bottom arrangement of the Roman apartment block was the inverse of what is true in the twenty-first century: in the Roman world the best apartments were located at ground level, while the lower quality (and more squalid) units were to be found on the upper floors of the structure. There is a good deal of variation in terms of the organization of the structures themselves. Frequently the entire structure centers on an open courtyard which also serves as a light well for the lower floors. The spaces fronting on the street itself were often used for mercantile functions.

Reconstruction drawing by Italo Gismondi. From left to right: Caseggiato del Serapide (House of Serapides), Terme dei Sette Sapienti (Baths of the Seven Sages), Cas. degli Aurighi (House of the Charioteers)

The port city of Ostia provides the best evidence for the Roman apartment block. Ostia had been founded as a Roman colony during the third century B.C.E. Its location at the mouth of the Tiber river was important for both mercantile and strategic reasons. During the second century C.E. its economy and population was booming, as was the population of the city of Rome. As a result the city witnesses an intense spate of building activity, including the construction of numerous insulae.
The  Caseggiato del Serapide shows an example of a block with shops at the ground level, while staircases lead to apartments on upper floors. The courtyard contained a cult room with a stuccoed relief of the god Serapis.
The so-called Garden Houses (Case a Giardino) provide an example of second and third century C.E. luxury apartments that were later converted to commercial use. This structure originally stood to four floors (height of c. 17.70 metres or 60 Roman feet according to Stevens) and had 16 units on the ground floor. The central architectural feature is the garden courtyard at the center of the structure to which the apartments communicated.

The original walk-ups

The apartment block demonstrates the pragmatism and innovation of Roman architects who capitalized on their technical proficiency with concrete (opus caementicium). Cities like Rome and Ostia are unusual in the ancient world—their large and concentrated populations required solutions like the apartment block. These structures, despite Vitruvian enthusiasm, were not without their dangers and drawbacks. Since fire was a frequent danger in the ancient city, the high-rise apartment was particularly risky—especially for those dwelling on upper floors. The living conditions in some cases may have been less than ideal as well. The insula as an architectural type demonstrates the variety of Roman architecture and provides another set of important data about Roman domestic building

Additional resources:
Ostia: Harbour City of Ancient Rome
Roman Housing on the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History
Cite this page as: Dr. Jeffrey A. Becker, “Roman domestic architecture: the insula,” in Smarthistory, February 27, 2016, accessed January 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/roman-domestic-architecture-insula/.

Roman funeral rituals and social status: The Amiternum tomb and the tomb of the Haterii

by DR. LAUREL TAYLOR

Death, memory, and funerary rituals—monumental tombs lined the streets leading into ancient Roman cities.

To say that the ancient Romans thought a lot about funerary ritual and post-mortem commemoration is an understatement. Abundant textual evidence records complex, performative rituals surrounding death and burial in ancient Rome while significant expenditures on visual commemoration—elaborate tombs, funerary portraits—defined Roman mortuary culture.

Cemeteries and tombs lined extra-urban roads throughout the Roman world so that the mere act of exiting or entering a city brought one into immediate and direct contact with the world of the dead. In fact, Roman funerary art was not marginalized within Roman visual culture but was an integral part of it and constitutes one of the largest surviving bodies of evidence of Roman art.
Many conspicuous funerary monuments remain that commemorate the lives of elite Romans but members of other social strata also made sure to leave a lasting legacy and, indeed, funerary art is the only category of art that documents the lives of those outside of the elite. In ancient Rome, great opportunities for economic mobility existed and when people of the lower classes—former slaves (liberti) or members of a servile family—made money, they often wanted to commemorate their success by commissioning a tomb or grave marker that documented their rise to wealth. Two examples of surviving funerary monuments illustrate some of the these tendencies while providing a window into Roman funerary culture and art associated with freedmen and women, that is, people who were former slaves.

The Amiternum Tomb

The first example is a late first century B.C.E. funerary relief from Amiternum (above), located in what is now the Abruzzo region of Italy. One relief depicts a person of some consequence and shows the only existing scene in Roman art of the pompa or funerary procession that was famously described by the historian Polybius (History 6.53-4). Roman funerals were often elaborate affairs that began in the house and culminated tombside. Upon death, dramatic displays of mourning were performed by household members of the deceased’s family. Such mourning rituals included wailing, chest-beating, and sometimes self-mutilation —pulling of the hair and laceration of the cheeks. The deceased’s corpse was then washed, anointed, and displayed on a funeral bed in the house before ultimately being transported to the tomb or site of cremation on an elaborate bier in a procession known as the pompa.

For elite Romans, the pompa was a dynamic performance defined less by solemnity and more by a multi-dimensional performance designed to reflect and reinforce political and social status. These spectacles featured not only the nuclear and extended biological family but also clients, current slaves, former slaves, hired mourners paid to wail and sing dirges, and musicians playing horns, flutes, and trumpets. For elite Roman men specifically, the procession culminated in the Forum with a public eulogy attended by male family members who would wear the ancestor masks depicting deceased male relatives.

In the relief from Amiternum, the pompa scene shows a male figure, resting on an elaborate funerary couch and transported by eight pallbearers (above). Though dead, the figure appears still very much alive—tilted up on his left side and resting his head on his left hand. On either side of the central scene are all the elements of a funeral cortège. On the right pipe players, with hornblowers and a trumpeter on a floating ground line above.  To the immediate right of the deceased are two women, perhaps hired mourners, one grabbing her hair and the other with her hands upraised. Most likely it is the chief mourners—the widow and children—who follow behind, to the left of the deceased.

A partial inscription found near the relief suggests that the tomb was commissioned by a person whose family was formerly of servile origins. Stylistically, the relief exhibits many of the formal characteristics typical of ‘freedmen’ art, a category of art commissioned by former slaves (or descendants of slaves) and one which largely rejected the Classicizing trappings of elite Roman art. Art commissioned by freedmen and women typically exhibits disproportion, hierarchies of scale, collapsing of space or ambiguous spatial relationships, and a gestural use of line. In subject matter, freedmen art is characterized by an acute focus on self-presentation, specifically expressions of social mobility.

The pompa relief was part of an ensemble of reliefs—of which two remain—most likely inset into the fabric of a larger tomb complex that no longer survives.  The other relief (above) depicts a scene of gladiatorial combat, an image type occasionally found on funerary monuments and usually understood as a reference to the public munificence of the deceased. Providing games or spectacles to the public was expected of magistrates and civil servants and such acts would be worthy of biographical commemoration. Though of servile families, freeborn men could and did rise to such offices. Considered together the two reliefs are mutually informing—displaying on the one hand, a spectacle for the public and, on the other, the spectacle of his death.  As many ancient authors attest, the number of figures in a funeral procession directly correlated with the perceived importance of the deceased. While the patron of the Amiternum monument was not a member of the elite, patrician class, he certainly wanted to convey his importance by selecting two poignant images to document his biographical legacy—in recording public munificence during life and in expressing status in death.

The Tomb of the Haterii

Another tomb featuring a recognizable funerary ritual is that of the Haterii, built around 100 C.E.  Discovered piecemeal in Rome since the late 1800s, the original form and layout of the tomb is unknown but the ambition of its decoration and narrative scope is obvious from the series of reliefs and portrait busts that do remain.

Constructed by a family of builders, the tomb simultaneously documents the death of the family matriarch and celebrates the family’s source of wealth. Though two busts remain of a male and female, it is the woman who appears multiple times in the visual program of the tomb’s reliefs. In the death scene, she appears on a funerary bed in the atrium of the house (above), surrounded by lit torches, a flute player at her feet, and her children beating their chests in mourning. Below the bed are three figures who wear the pileus, a cap of freedom worn by newly liberated slaves. This reference to the matron’s  liberality and humanity is echoed both here with the figure reading her last will and testament beside her, as well as in another inset  in which the deceased is shown making her will.

The viewer sees a conflation of time, viewing the deceased both alive and dead.  In the relief above, she is shown in a retrospective portrait lounging on a couch with her children playing below. Under this vignette (below), is a grandiose temple-tomb with a portrait of deceased in the pediment and portraits of her children along the sides. In front of the tomb is a treadwheel crane which most scholars think is a reference to the family’s construction business.

The Haterii were likely involved in important building projects during the reign of the Flavian emperors  (69-96 C.E.), and another relief from the tomb probably documents some of their major projects in Rome including the Flavian Amphitheater (later known as the Colosseum) and the Arch of Titus.Whether all of the reliefs originally constituted a narrative sequence or not is debatable but what does get communicated is the considerable expenditure on this tomb and the biographical means by which it was created. Though amassing considerable wealth, the Haterii family was, nonetheless, of servile origin.

Interpretation

Both the Amiternum relief and the Haterii tomb were commissioned by patrons outside of Roman elite society, a factor that had a huge impact on the style and narrative content of the monuments. Funerary art commissioned by the Roman elite almost never referenced commerce or sources of wealth though this was a driving goal for funerary art of the freedmen. Similarly, elite monuments do not document death rituals, though elites certainly observed them. The Amiternum relief and the Haterii tomb, however, rely on a narrative interplay between death ritual and biography. For these patrons, as for many freedmen and women, their final resting places provided an ideal opportunity for documenting ritual observance and, more importantly, for documenting their success in life and commerce.

Cite this page as: Dr. Laurel Taylor, “Roman funeral rituals and social status: The Amiternum tomb and the tomb of the Haterii,” in Smarthistory, August 8, 2015, accessed January 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/roman-funeral-rituals-and-social-status-the-amiternum-tomb-and-the-tomb-of-the-haterii/.

Ancient Roman Wall Painting

Roman wall painting styles

by DR. JESSICA LEAY AMBLER

 

Why Pompeii?

Paintings from antiquity rarely survive—paint, after all, is a much less durable medium than stone or bronze sculpture. But it is thanks to the ancient Roman city of Pompeii that we can trace the history of Roman wall painting. The entire city was buried in volcanic ash in 79 C.E. when the volcano at Mount Vesuvius erupted, thus preserving the rich colors in the paintings in the houses and monuments there for thousands of years until their rediscovery. These paintings represent an uninterrupted sequence of two centuries of evidence. And it is thanks to August Mau, a nineteenth-century German scholar, that we have a classification of four styles of Pompeian wall painting.

The four styles that Mau observed in Pompeii were not unique to the city and can be observed elsewhere, like Rome and even in the provinces, but Pompeii and the surrounding cities buried by Vesuvius contain the largest continuous source of evidence for the period. The Roman wall paintings in Pompeii that Mau categorized were true frescoes (or buon fresco), meaning that pigment was applied to wet plaster, fixing the pigment to the wall. Despite this durable technique, painting is still a fragile medium and, once exposed to light and air, can fade significantly, so the paintings discovered in Pompeii were a rare find indeed.

 

In the paintings that survived in Pompeii, Mau saw four distinct styles. The first two were popular in the Republican period (which ended in 27 B.C.E.) and grew out of Greek artistic trends (Rome had recently conquered Greece). The second two styles became fashionable in the Imperial period. His chronological description of stylistic progression has since been challenged by scholars, but they generally confirm the logic of Mau’s approach, with some refinements and theoretical additions. Beyond tracking how the styles evolved out of one another, Mau’s categorizations focused on how the artist divided up the wall and used paint, color, image and form—either to embrace or counteract—the flat surface of the wall.

 

First Pompeian Style

Mau called the First Style the “Incrustation Style” and believed that its origins lay in the Hellenistic period—in the 3rd century B.C.E. in Alexandria. The First Style is characterized by colorful, patchwork walls of brightly painted faux-marble. Each rectangle of painted “marble” was connected by stucco moldings that added a three-dimensional effect.  In temples and other official buildings, the Romans used costly imported marbles in a variety of colors to decorate the walls.

 

 

Ordinary Romans could not afford such expense, so they decorated their homes with painted imitations of the luxurious yellow, purple and pink marbles. Painters became so skilled at imitating certain marbles that the large, rectangular slabs were rendered on the wall marbled and veined, just like real pieces of stone.  Great examples of the First Pompeian Style can be found in the House of the Faun and the House of Sallust, both of which can still be visited in Pompeii.

Second Pompeian style

The Second style, which Mau called the “Architectural Style,” was first seen in Pompeii around 80 B.C.E. (although it developed earlier in Rome) and was in vogue until the end of the first century B.C.E. The Second Pompeian Style developed out of the First Style and incorporated elements of the First, such as faux marble blocks along the base of walls.

While the First Style embraced the flatness of the wall, the Second Style attempted to trick the viewer into believing that they were looking through a window by painting illusionistic images. As Mau’s name for the Second Style implies, architectural elements drive the paintings, creating fantastic images filled with columns, buildings and stoas.

In one of the most famous examples of the Second Style, P. Fannius Synistor’s bedroom (now reconstructed in the Metropolitan Museum of Art), the artist utilizes multiple vanishing points.  This technique shifts the perspective throughout the room, from balconies to fountains and along colonnades into the far distance, but the visitor’s eye moves continuously throughout the room, barely able to register that he or she has remained contained within a small room.

The Dionysian paintings from Pompeii’s Villa of the Mysteries are also included in the Second Style because of their illusionistic aspects. The figures are examples of megalographia, a Greek term referring to life-size paintings. The fact that the figures are the same size as viewers entering the room, as well as the way the painted figures sit in front of the columns dividing the space, are meant to suggest that the action taking place is surrounding the viewer.

Third Pompeian Style

The Third Style, or Mau’s “Ornate Style,” came about in the early 1st century C.E. and was popular until about 50 C.E.  The Third Style embraced the flat surface of the wall through the use of broad, monochromatic planes of color, such as black or dark red, punctuated by minute, intricate details.

 

 

The Third Style was still architectural but rather than implementing plausible architectural elements that viewers would see in their everyday world (and that would function in an engineering sense), the Third Style incorporated fantastic and stylized columns and pediments that could only exist in the imagined space of a painted wall. The Roman architect Vitruvius was certainly not a fan of Third Style painting, and he criticized the paintings for representing monstrosities rather than real things, “for instance, reeds are put in the place of columns, fluted appendages with curly leaves and volutes, instead of pediments, candelabra supporting representations of shrines, and on top of their pediments numerous tender stalks and volutes growing up from the roots and having human figures senselessly seated upon them…” (Vitr.De arch.VII.5.3)  The center of walls often feature very small vignettes, such as sacro-idyllic landscapes, which are bucolic scenes of the countryside featuring livestock, shepherds, temples, shrines and rolling hills.

The Third Style also saw the introduction of Egyptian themes and imagery, including scenes  of the Nile as well as Egyptian deities and motifs.

Fourth Pompeian Style

The Fourth Style, what Mau calls the “Intricate Style,” became popular in the mid-first century C.E. and is seen in Pompeii until the city’s destruction in 79 C.E.  It can be best described as a combination of the three styles that came before. Faux marble blocks along the base of the walls, as in the First Style, frame the naturalistic architectural scenes from the Second Style, which in turn combine with the large flat planes of color and slender architectural details from the Third Style. The Fourth Style also incorporates central panel pictures, although on a much larger scale than in the third style and with a much wider range of themes, incorporating mythological, genre, landscape and still life images.  In describing what we now call the Fourth Style, Pliny the Elder said that it was developed by a rather eccentric, albeit talented, painter named Famulus who decorated Nero’s famous Golden Palace. (Pl.NH XXXV.120)  Some of the best examples of Fourth Style painting come from the House of the Vettii which can also be visited in Pompeii today.

Post-Pompeian painting: What happens next?

August Mau takes us as far as Pompeii and the paintings found there, but what about Roman painting after 79 C.E.? The Romans did continue to paint their homes and monumental architecture, but there isn’t a Fifth or Sixth Style, and later Roman painting has been called a pastiche of what came before, simply combining elements of earlier styles. The Christian catacombs provide an excellent record of painting in Late Antiquity, combining Roman techniques and Christian subject matter in unique ways.
Additional Resources:
Roman Painting on the Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History

Cite this page as: Dr. Jessica Leay Ambler, “Roman wall painting styles,” in Smarthistory, June 8, 2018, accessed January 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/roman-wall-painting-styles/.

Painted Garden, Villa of Livia

by DR. STEVEN ZUCKER and DR. BETH HARRIS

Step into a stunning painted garden that gives insight into the flora and fauna of ancient Rome.

Painted Garden, Villa of Livia, fresco, 30-20 B.C.E. (Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Massimo, Rome)
Video URL: https://youtu.be/PPyqEsyVmIQ

The plant species depicted include: umbrella pine, oak, red fir, quince, pomegranate, myrtle, oleander, date palm, strawberry, laurel, viburnum, holm oak, boxwood, cypress, ivy, acanthus, rose, poppy, chrysanthemum, chamomile, fern, violet, and iris.
Additional resources
Villa of Livia Garden Frescoes by Matthew Brennan on Sketchfab

Roman Painting on the Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History
Cite this page as: Dr. Steven Zucker and Dr. Beth Harris, “Painted Garden, Villa of Livia,” in Smarthistory, December 6, 2015, accessed January 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/painted-garden-villa-of-livia/.

Still Life with Peaches

DR. LEA CLINE
Hospitality was key in ancient Rome, and this wall painting shows the gifts that guests may have received.

Hostess gifts

When I was growing up, my (proper, Southern) mother always insisted that I bring a hostess gift to my friend’s parents when I spent the night at their house. A typical teenager, I thought she was annoyingly old fashioned. This painting, Still Life with Peaches and Water Jar, proves that she was old fashioned…really old fashioned. It turns out that the practice of presenting hostess gifts dates back to the ancient Greeks; in antiquity, though, it was the host—not the guest—who presented the gifts. This small fresco is an example of how the Romans played the hostess game and how this generosity was captured by ancient Roman artists.

House of the Stags, Herculaneum

Archaeologists discovered Still Life with Peaches and Water Jar in the House of the Stags in Herculaneum, once a wealthy, seaside town on the Bay of Naples just a few miles north of Pompeii. Like Pompeii, Herculaneum was destroyed by the eruption of nearby Mt. Vesuvius on August 24, 79 C.E. The House of the Stags, named after two sculptures of stags (or male deer) found in its peristyle garden, was among the fanciest houses in town, oriented to take full advantage of Herculaneum’s panoramic sea view. Archaeologists believe that the house was owned by the wealthy merchant Q. Granius Verus since his stamp was discovered on a loaf of bread, amazingly preserved by the volcanic ash, unearthed in the house. (Stamping bread was a common practice because Roman houses, unlike most modern houses, did not have private ovens. Ovens were dangerous and hot so most Romans took their bread out for baking after preparing the dough at home. You stamped your loaf so it would not get mixed up in the ovens or claimed by someone else.)

We cannot be sure whether the family of the Granii were the original builders of the house (likely during the reign of the emperor Claudius, from 41-54 C.E.) but they seem likely to have undertaken a major renovation not long before Mt. Vesuvius erupted. In the years immediately preceding the destruction of Herculaneum, all 25 rooms in the House of the Stags were repaired and redecorated in the newest style of painting—the Fourth Style; only the old atrium, with its historic frescoes, remained untouched as a sign of the house’s historic importance. So, although the house survives today only as a ruin, when the Granii family woke up on that fateful morning in 79 C.E., they would have experienced a home resplendent with freshly painted walls and colorful mosaic floors, terrace fountains filling the spaces with the sound of trickling water, and gardens filling the house with wafts of sweet fragrance carried in by the sea air. It is too bad the day did not end as nicely.

 

 

Still Life with Peaches and Water Jar was one small part of this house’s decorative scheme, not meant to be seen in isolation. It was part of a series of at least ten roughly-square still-life compositions, painted together in a row, sharing decorative borders. This series of paintings presents a variety of fruits, crustaceans, fish, fowl, meats, vegetables, and drinking vessels set against a neutral brown background, sometimes with a step, shelf or wall niche on which the artist arranged the display.
Still Life with Peaches and Water Jar features five unripe peaches (one only barely formed), their branch cascading off a shelf, and a glass jar of water in the foreground. One of the peaches has been pulled from the branch and bitten open, revealing a reddish pit and white flesh that contrast sharply against its yellow-green skin. The glass jar shows the artist’s ability to register two types of transparency at once: the clear glass vessel and the clear liquid that it contains. While the patron may have wanted the glass, among the most expensive luxuries in Roman Italy, included as a display of their wealth, the artist turned it into an opportunity to demonstrate his skill at depicting these visually complex attributes in perspective.

Xenia (hospitality)

Still Life with Peaches and Water Jar, like the small scenes that accompanied it, belongs to a category of still life paintings known as xenia, drawing on the Greek word for “guest-friendship” or hospitality. Xenia (hospitality) was shown to guests who were far from home by accommodating them and by presenting them with the means to be comfortable (a bed, food, a bath, etc.). This was not just a matter of being polite, but was considered a religious obligation for the Greeks—an idea preserved in both Homeric epic and mythology. The Greeks believed that Zeus Xenios, Zeus’s role as protector of guests, wandered in disguise with travelers, testing the capacity of hosts to be generous and tolerant. Although the devotion with which the Greeks pursued the quality of xenia was not matched by the Romans, the Romans nevertheless took pride in their ability to provide hospitality to guests, especially those whose social favor they wanted to earn (those who were more wealthy and socially important). Xenia, for the Romans, was more about the display of hospitality for appearance’s sake than it was a religious devotion.

 

The small xenia paintings at the House of the Stags are not unusual; many rich houses, especially houses and villas located along the coast where visitors from Rome might want to travel to escape the summer heat (or political turmoil), were outfitted with special guest quarters. Xenia paintings are frequently found in these rooms, announcing to these guests that they would be lavished with the finest foods and service wear while in the house. The ancient Roman architect Vitruvius suggested that the xenia include, in particular, “poultry, eggs, vegetables, and other country produce” as a way to highlight the experience of getting out of the city and into the countryside (de Architectura VI.7.4). The xenia at the House of the Stags, as Vitruvius might have liked, present fruits and fish (known as area specialties) along with the standard fare.

 

Xenia paintings or mosaics also appear in more public areas of houses where clients (people who depend on the homeowner’s business) and less-wealthy visitors might see them. In these cases, the xenia spoke to the wealth of the family, and the level of generosity that they could afford to show to those lucky enough to be invited (even if the viewers did not belong to that chosen group). I suspect that my mother had a different idea when sending me with hostess gifts: more an apology for whatever trouble I might get in than a display of wealth and social importance. Still, her insistence that I present myself with hostess gift in hand demonstrates that showing our best and accommodating guests with grace has never gone out of style.

Additional resources:
Roman Painting on the Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History

Cite this page as: Dr. Lea Cline, “Still Life with Peaches,” in Smarthistory, April 22, 2017, accessed January 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/still-life-with-peaches/.

Pompeii: House of the Vettii

by DR. JEFFREY A. BECKER
Buried by a volcanic eruption two thousand years ago, this Roman house was the epitome of wealth and style.

The ancient city may be quiet now, its life ended by a fantastic cataclysm nearly two thousand years ago, but the remains of houses, decorations, and the objects of daily life whisper to us about the lives of the ancient people who inhabited Pompeii before the eruption of Mount Vesuvius. Domestic spaces, in particular, offer a rich resource for examining ancient lives that, in some cases, ended abruptly. Pompeii was thriving up until the moment of its destruction and in studying its life interrupted, we arrive at important insights about what it was like to live in the Roman Mediterranean.

Overview

The House of the Vettii or Casa dei Vettii (VI xv,1) is a Roman townhouse (domus) located within the ruined ancient city of Pompeii, Italy. A volcanic eruption destroyed Pompeii in the year 79 C.E., thus preserving extraordinary archaeological remains of the Roman town as it was at the time of its cataclysmic destruction. Those remains constitute a nearly unparalleled resource for the study of the Roman world.

Domus architecture

Beginning with the Renaissance interest in all things classical, architectural historians and archaeologists have been debating the form and function of ancient Roman houses for several hundred years. The interest in the domestic architectural form was fueled further by the re-discovery, in the middle of the eighteenth century, of Pompeii, Herculaneum, and other sites destroyed by Vesuvius.

A house is, of course, a dwelling—but it is also a stage on which the rituals of daily life and social hierarchy would be performed. During the time of the Roman republic (fifth through first centuries B.C.E.), ranking aristocratic families (patricians) used domestic display as a way to reinforce social position and as a way to advance their own fortunes, as well as those of their dependents and clients (clientes), within the community. Since Republican society operated on the basis of this patron-client relationship, the domus played a key part in the reinforcement of social hierarchy as the patron (patronus) would receive his clients (clientes) in the atrium of his domus each business day. While visiting with the patron, each client would get an eyeful of the patron’s household wealth, thus applying implicit pressure on the patron to ensure that his house was tasteful and fashionable.

The patron-client system revolved around asymmetrical social relationships whereby lower ranking clients were bound to their patrons by the qualities of trust (fides) and dutifulness (pietas). Governed by ancestral custom (mos maiorum), clients would seek support and favors from the patron; in turn the patron provided protection, support, and benefaction, collectively known as patrocinium. This system had changed somewhat by the time of the brothers Vettii and it is unclear to what extent the patron-client system factored in their lives or in their own domestic sphere.

 

 

In his treatise on Roman architecture, the first century B.C.E. author Vitruvius outlines the key elements, proportions, and aesthetics of the Roman house, creating what has been treated as a canonical recommendation for domestic architecture of the period. The Vitruvian canon (or standard) proposes a range of plans, suggesting strongly that the organization of interior space was important in Roman architectural theory (De Architectura 6.3.3-6). Although the plan of the Roman domus does reflect the canonical aspects described by Vitruvius, we also see enormous variation with modifications and remodeling undertaken over time.
The standard house (domus) plan has several key architectural elements. Generally entered from the street via a narrow doorway (fauces), the large centralized reception hall (atrium) is flanked by wings (alae) and often bounded by bedrooms (cubicula). The office of the head of household (paterfamilias), known as the tablinum, links the public part of the house (pars urbana) to the private part of the house (pars rustica). This latter area often focuses on an open, colonnaded courtyard (peristylium) and serves as the center of family life, with the kitchen (culina), dining room(s) (triclinium or oecus), and often a small garden (hortus). Many houses also had a second level that may have contained additional sleeping spaces and perhaps storage.

Excavation and identification

The House of the Vettii was excavated between late 1894 and early 1896. The artifacts that were recovered allowed for the identification of the house’s putative owners, Aulus Vettius Conviva and his brother, Aulus Vettius Restitutus. Both men have been identified as former slaves or freedmen (liberti). The Vettii had risen to some prominence; Conviva was an augustalis—the top civic office for which a freedman would be eligible. In the construction and decoration of their house the brothers display a mind-set not uncommon among the newly-rich. Two strongboxes (arca—essentially lockable boxes for storing valuables), concrete signs of wealth, were placed prominently in the large atrium so that visitors would be sure to notice them.

The strongboxes, paired with a painting of the god Priapus in the vestibule, serve to underscore the wealth of the brothers Vettii. This painting, which shows Priapus weighing his own phallus against a bag of money, may represent the socio-economic ambitions of the Vettii and perhaps indicates that those ambitions were different from those of high-ranking citizen families. This is interesting when we consider that achieving the status of augustalis likely indicates that Conviva made a large donation to a public works project in Pompeii.

The plan of the house

The House of the Vettii covers an area of approximately 1,100 square meters. The construction of the house and its decorations belong to the final period of Pompeii’s occupation and therefore provides important evidence of the aesthetics of the city on the eve of its destruction.

The house  was built atop the remains of an earlier house that survives, in part, in the form of the wings (alae) and a doorway. The plan of the House of the Vettii has two large central halls (atria) and, significantly, lacks an office space (tablinum). Entry to the house was gained from the east by way of a vestibule that granted admission to the larger atrium. The stone-lined basin for collecting rainwater (impluvium) lies at the center of the atrium. This larger atrium communicates directly with the peristyle (an open courtyard surrounded by fluted Doric columns) by means of a set of folding doors. The smaller atrium was the focus of the service portion of the house, while the peristyle and its well-appointed rooms was meant for entertainment and dining.

 

Wall paintings

The decorative schema of the House of the Vettii provides important evidence for trends in domestic decoration in the final years of Pompeii’s occupation. Since Pompeii suffered a major earthquake in 62 C.E. that caused significant destruction, the chronology of the wall paintings and other decorations in the House of the Vettii has been a topic of debate since the house’s discovery.
Most art historians point to the house’s decorative schema as being representative of a key transitional phase, between the Third and Fourth styles of Pompeian wall painting. Some scholars consider it among the finest examples of the Fourth Style at Pompeii. Paul Zanker sees the Fourth Style wall paintings as being imitations of higher art forms, reckoning that the chosen pictures aim to turn the rooms into picture galleries (pinacothecae).
The atrium is richly decorated, as are the rooms opening onto the peristyle. Two of these were in the course of being painted at the time of destruction, while the other three are richly appointed with Fourth Style wall painting. The largest of these, a dining room, is decorated in panels of red and black with an exceptionally fine motif of erotes or putti (mythological winged gods associated with love) engaged in various occupations (image below). The central panel pictures that were likely set into the walls do not survive. Overall the scheme of wall painting in the house of the Vettii suggests an attempt at forward-looking interior decoration on the part of the owners.

Overall the evidence furnished by the House of the Vettii offers key insights into domestic architecture and interior decoration in the last days of the city of Pompeii. The house itself is architecturally significant not only because of its size but also because of the indications it gives of important changes that were underway in the design of Roman houses during the third quarter of the first century C.E.
Additional resources
MIT resource
Roman Painting on the Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History
Cite this page as: Dr. Jeffrey A. Becker, “Pompeii: House of the Vettii,” in Smarthistory, August 8, 2015, accessed January 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/pompeii-house-of-the-vettii/

Dionysiac frieze, Villa of Mysteries, Pompeii

by DR. BETH HARRIS and DR. STEVEN ZUCKER<

Standing outside of the state religion, mystery cults are an intriguing puzzle. Does art hold the answer?

Dionysian Cult Cycle (?), Villa of Mysteries, before 79 C.E., fresco, Pompeii   

Video URL: https://youtu.be/SEzDiejb1a0
Additional resources:
Roman Painting on the Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History

Cite this page as: Dr. Beth Harris and Dr. Steven Zucker, “Dionysiac frieze, Villa of Mysteries, Pompeii,” in Smarthistory, December 9, 2015, accessed January 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/dionysiac-frieze-villa-of-mysteries-pompeii/.

Room M of the Villa of Publius Fannius Synistor, Boscoreale

by JESSICA MINGOIA

The colors of the walls are nearly as bright today as they were when Mount Vesuvius erupted in 79 C.E., burying the Villa of Publius Fannius Synistor at Boscoreale in Italy. [1] A rustic villa located just below the slopes of the volcano, it features some of the highest quality Roman wall paintings known to date. For nearly 2,000 years, the villa remained hidden under layers of ash and pumice stone until its rediscovery in 1900. The volcanic rich soil of ancient Boscoreale made it a desirable location for villas whose owners were engaged in agricultural activities. Nearly 30 of these villas, all of which were destroyed in the eruption, are known today. [2]

Sleeping in the shadow of a volcano

When the villa was excavated, sixty-eight sections of wall paintings were removed before the remains of the villa were reburied. It was standard practice to reinter archeological sites that were discovered on privately owned land after excavating and removing anything of value. These painted panels were sold to museums around the world, often in pieces, but the wall paintings of Room M were purchased together and later reconstructed at The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York in 1903. They provide the rare opportunity to study the frescoes of a room from this villa in their totality. This particular room is thought to have functioned as a cubiculum (pl. cubicula), a term used in the ancient Roman world to denote the most private rooms of a residence which mostly functioned as bedrooms.
The high-quality paintings in this room were created in the Second Pompeiian Style, which is known for its renderings of architectural features and illusionistic space. This style was especially popular in the mid-first century B.C.E. when this villa was constructed.

The frescoes of Room M

The wall paintings in Room M were created in the true fresco technique where the paint is applied directly to wet plaster allowing the color to penetrate the plaster and become a fixed part of the wall. Though the frescoes were already over a century old when the volcano erupted, this technique allowed them to retain their vibrant colors.
Painted corinthian pilasters (a squared column) support a painted architrave (horizontal beam) in each of the four corners of the room. The bottom of the walls feature painted blocks designed to replicate colored marble. Between these architectural elements are the painted scenes which make this room so notable. These scenes give the impression that the viewer has not walked into an enclosed bedroom, but rather could step outside into wondrous landscapes that are better than reality.

Each of the side walls, which are painted with the same types of views, are subdivided into four different sections, each separated by a (painted) column or pilaster. The painter visually opened the surface of the wall with idealized, colorful vistas. Though there are no windows on the side walls, these paintings illusionistically expand the space of the room and give the impression that fantastic landscapes lie just outside.

A room with a view

Upon entering the room, immediately to the left and right are the first of the architectural vistas: a town or cityscape. In the cityscape, buildings appear at different levels and recede into the background. These frescoes display one of the earliest uses of linear perspective adding to the impression of depth and distance portrayed in the scenes. The linear perspective used in the above panels features receding lines which converge at multiple points along the central vertical axis of the shrine panel. This technique was used by the ancient Roman painters to expand the apparent space of the walls. This differs from the one-point linear perspective developed in the Renaissance in which the lines converge into a single vanishing point.

These cityscapes appear four times throughout the frescoes, twice on each side wall. At the bottom of each cityscape, there is a large ornamental doorway, which invites the viewer into thinking that they could enter the city beyond. Painted friezes with miniature figures are found above the doorway in each of these four scenes. The painter paid great attention to detail when creating the doors, windows, and balconies, such as the small garlands that hang between ox skulls (bucrania) and which are attached to columns on one of the balconies.

From city to shrine

 

 

In between the cityscape panels are scenes of a shrine located within a sacred precinct. This scene is separated from the surrounding cityscapes by red columns encrusted with jewels and gilded plant tendrils and topped with golden Corinthian capitals. They appear to project forward into the space of the room even casting shadows, playing with the viewer’s perception of real versus painted space.
The shrine itself features two Ionic pilasters, recognizable from the volutes, or scrolls, in their capitals, supporting an entablature. On the left wall, a statue holds a torch in each hand, and on the right wall opposite, a statue holds a patera, a shallow bowl used during religious rites.
Cloths of gold (on the left wall) and lavender (on the right) are tied around the pilasters. The shrine is flanked on either side by trees with feathery foliage, heightening the impression of a outdoor shrine.
The shrine and statue are protected behind a red precinct wall, which again displays depth as it is painted as though receding further into space. To either side, in front of the wall, are benches, each with a golden vase atop it. In the center, an altar holds burning coals that emit smoke that rises into the air above. Offerings of fruit are placed in the foreground.

A Temple in a Courtyard

The final scene on each of the side walls is divided from the others by a single Corinthian pilaster with projecting squares, which would have marked the area of the room where the bed was in antiquity.

Here, the viewer is confronted with a grand propylon, or monumental columned entranceway, where golden Ionic columns support a triangular pediment. The pediment is broken in the middle to reveal a monopteral temple with red columns topped with gilded Corinthian capitals. The temple is surrounded by a rectangular portico with Tuscan columns that recedes into space.>

Unlike with the cityscape, there is no doorway to invite the viewer to enter. The spaces between the columns of the propylon are blocked by high red walls to the left and right and a lower gray wall in the center flanked by Ionic pilasters that appear slightly closer to the viewer, and are topped with fruit and offerings. The artist also painted black curtains which are drawn back as if to reveal the temple and its portico to the viewer, inviting a peek inside this sacred space. A garland is draped over top of this curtain, though the garland itself differs on the left and right walls. In the foreground, centered between the propylon columns, is an altar topped with an incense burner.
These scenes, like that of the rustic shrines, are religious in nature, and support the illusion of an idealistic world that extends beyond the surface of the walls.

The wall with the window

The rear wall of the bedroom also features duplicate scenes, though the real window cuts into the painted landscape. In the center of the wall are two more red and gold Corinthian columns.

To the left and right, the wall features rustic scenery. A trellised arbor entwined with grape vines is perched atop a rocky hill. Birds settle on rocks or vines or fly across this idyllic landscape. Below, there is a natural cave opening in front of which is an elegant man-made fountain. This combination of natural cave and water-features refers to a popular form of grotto often found attached to villas.

In the center of the two columns is a yellow panel. The yellow panel is topped with a red architrave on which sits a translucent glass bowl overflowing with three-dimensional looking fruit. This landscape panel is painted monochromatically to suggest that it is an object like a marble relief as opposed to representing a “real” illusionistic space like the other portions of the fresco. Here, the painter used different shades of yellow and hatch marks to create texture, which, when looked at from a distance, allows one’s eye to perceive the subtle details of the scene. Within the painted panel there are figures crossing a bridge over water, fisherman in their boats, and buildings which recede into the background.

The window frame on the back wall was once wooden but is today filled with cement. The iron window grill came from elsewhere in the villa but was installed in the back wall before the fresco was sold. The twisted shape of the bars is a poignant reminder of the destruction caused by the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius.

All the world’s a stage

 

 

It is highly likely that the style of these illusionistic landscapes was based on the style of scenic painting, known as skenographia, used in Hellenistic theatre (as described by Roman architect Vitruvius). Styles and themes from Greek and Hellenistic art and culture often appear in Roman wall paintings, such as the Greek style theatre masks in the shapes of satyrs (the half-goat, half-man followers of the god Dionysus) hung in various places, to the round, bronze shields with their distinctive Macedonian star, the same type used by Alexander the Great, as seen in these frescoes.

Just as an audience could be visually transported to another location when watching a play, so too, could the owner of the villa as he admired the walls of his bedroom. These illusionistic vistas appear to dissolve the surface of the wall, allowing the viewer to marvel at this fanciful world as if through a window onto different scenes. It provided a symbolic escape where one could be visually transported to another location outside of the villa’s walls.

These vibrant frescoes blur the line between urban, rural, and sacred scenes as well as what is real and imaginary. Though today the villa is buried under mounds of dirt, still hidden from the world, the wall paintings of Room M continue to captivate viewers with their fantastical scenes.

Loss and conservation

In parts of the frescos you might notice short vertical brushstrokes that seem out of place with the rest of the painting. For example, this is evident when looking at one of the propylon column capitals on the left wall, part of the temple, and part of the sky. This difference is the result of conservation of this room.
The frescoes were damaged in the pyroclastic flows (waves of hot ash and gas which reached 750°F) and falling pumice stone in the eruption as well as due to its initial removal from the villa in the early 20th century. Some parts had become fragile, so the frescoes were cleaned and conserved by the museum between 2002 and 2007. Any sections that were missing paint were filled in the tratteggio manner, where the paint colors are similarly matched to the originals but are added in short vertical brushstrokes that can be distinguished from the original work upon closer examination.  We are fortunate to still have this room despite the eruption and the room’s removal and transference across the globe.
Notes:
[1] The ownership of the villa is contested. Though Publius Fannius Synistor is still most commonly referred to as the villa’s owner ever since his name was found inscribed in a bronze jug in the agricultural sector of the villa, it is not clear if he ever actually owned the structure or just worked in it. The owner at the time of the villa’s construction and the creation of the wall paintings in the mid-first century B.C.E. is often attributed to Lucius Herennius Florus, whose name was found stamped in the villa’s baths.
[2] Only the Villa Regina of the Boscoreale villas is visible above ground today.

Additional resources
See these paintings on The Metropolitan Museum of Art website
The Villa of P. Fannius Synistor at Boscoreale: A Virtual Tour at the The Metropolitan Museum of Art
Roman Painting on the Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History
Anderson, Maxwell L. “Pompeian Frescoes in The Metropolitan Museum of Art.” The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, Met Publications, 45, no. 3 (Winter – 1987–1988)
Bergmann, Bettina. Roman Frescoes from Boscoreale: The Villa of Publius Fannius Synistor in Reality and Virtual Reality. New York, NY: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2010
Pompeii In Pictures
>Cite this page as: Jessica Mingoia, “Room M of the Villa of Publius Fannius Synistor, Boscoreale,” in Smarthistory, March 18, 2021, accessed January 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/room-m-villa-publius-fannius-synistor-boscoreale/.

ROMAN REPUBLIC c. 509-27 B.C.E.

Portraiture

• Veristic Male Portraiture
• Head of a Roman Patrician

Sculpture (Freestanding and Reliefs)

• Capitoline She-Wolf
• Capitoline Brutus

Architecture

• Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, Rome
• Temple of Portunus, Rome
• Maison Carree, Nimes
• Tomb of the Scipios and the sarcophagus of Scipio Barbatus

 

Portraiture

Veristic Male Portraiture

by DR. BETH HARRIS and DR. STEVEN ZUCKER

With age comes experience, and sculptors in the Roman Republic highlighted seniority—warts and all.

Veristic male portrait (similar to Head of a Roman Patrician), early 1st Century B.C.E., marble, life size (Vatican Museums, Rome)   
Video URL: https://youtu.be/T0fq3XFfxrY

Additional resources:
Roman Portrait Sculpture: The Stylistic Cycle on the Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History
Marble bust of a man at The Metropolitan Museum of Art
Source: Dr. Beth Harris and Dr. Steven Zucker, “Veristic male portrait,” in Smarthistory, December 9, 2015, accessed October 1, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/veristic-male-portrait/.

Head of a Roman Patrician

by DR. JEFFREY A. BECKER

Seemingly wrinkled and toothless, with sagging jowls, the face of a Roman aristocrat stares at us across the ages. In the aesthetic parlance of the Late Roman Republic, the physical traits of this portrait image are meant to convey seriousness of mind (gravitas) and the virtue (virtus) of a public career by demonstrating the way in which the subject literally wears the marks of his endeavors. While this representational strategy might seem unusual in the post-modern world, in the waning days of the Roman Republic it was an effective means of competing in an ever more complex socio-political arena.

 

The portrait

 

This portrait head, now housed in the Palazzo Torlonia in Rome, Italy, comes from Otricoli (ancient Ocriculum) and dates to the middle of the first century B.C.E. The name of the individual depicted is now unknown, but the portrait is a powerful representation of a male aristocrat with a hooked nose and strong cheekbones. The figure is frontal without any hint of dynamism or emotion—this sets the portrait apart from some of its near contemporaries. The portrait head is characterized by deep wrinkles, a furrowed brow, and generally an appearance of sagging, sunken skin—all indicative of the veristic style of Roman portraiture.

 

Verism

 

Verism can be defined as a sort of hyperrealism in sculpture where the naturally occurring features of the subject are exaggerated, often to the point of absurdity. In the case of Roman Republican portraiture, middle age males adopt veristic tendencies in their portraiture to such an extent that they appear to be extremely aged and care worn. This stylistic tendency is influenced both by the tradition of ancestral imagines as well as a deep-seated respect for family, tradition, and ancestry. The imagines were essentially death masks of notable ancestors that were kept and displayed by the family. In the case of aristocratic families these wax masks were used at subsequent funerals so that an actor might portray the deceased ancestors in a sort of familial parade (Polybius History 6.53.54). The ancestor cult, in turn, influenced a deep connection to family. For Late Republican politicians without any famous ancestors (a group famously known as ‘new men’ or ‘homines novi’) the need was even more acute—and verism rode to the rescue. The adoption of such an austere and wizened visage was a tactic to lend familial gravitas to families who had none—and thus (hopefully) increase the chances of the aristocrat’s success in both politics and business. This jockeying for position very much characterized the scene at Rome in the waning days of the Roman Republic and the Otricoli head is a reminder that one’s public image played a major role in what was a turbulent time in Roman history.

Additional resources

Roman Portrait Sculpture: The Stylistic Cycle on the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History
Portrait bust of a man [Roman] on the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History

 

Cite this page as: Dr. Jeffrey A. Becker, “Head of a Roman Patrician,” in Smarthistory, August 8, 2015, accessed January 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/head-of-a-roman-patrician/.

Sculpture – Freestanding and Reliefs

 

Capitoline She-wolf

by DR. JACLYN NEEL

 

 

 

Rome’s eternal symbol?

>If one could choose any animal to become one’s mother, how many people would choose a wolf? Wolves are not known to be the gentlest of animals, and in the ancient world, when many people made their living as shepherds, wolves could pose a significant threat. But for reasons we do not understand, the Romans chose a wolf as their symbol. According to Roman mythology, the city’s twin founders Romulus and Remus were abandoned on the banks of the Tiber River when they were infants. A she-wolf saved their lives by letting them suckle. The image of this miracle quickly became a symbol of the city of Rome, appearing on coinage in the third century B.C.E. and continuing to appear on public monuments from trash-cans to lampposts in the city even to this day. But the most famous image of the she-wolf and twins may not be ancient at all—at least not entirely.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Description

 

The Capitoline She-wolf (Italian: Lupa capitolina) takes its name from its location—the statue is housed in the Capitoline Museums in Rome. The She-wolf statue is a fully worked bronze composition that is intended for 360 degree viewing. In other words the viewer can get an equally good view from all directions: there is no “correct” point of view. The She-wolf is depicted standing in a stationary pose. The body is out of proportion, because its neck is much too long for its face and flanks. The incised details of the neck show thick, s-curled fur which ends with unnatural beads around the face and behind the forelegs. The wolf’s body is leaner in front than in the rear: its ribs are visible, as are the muscles of its forelegs, while in the back the musculature is less detailed, suggesting less tone. Its head curves in towards its tail; the ears curve back. The children themselves have a more dynamic posture: one sits with his feet splaying to either side, while the other kneels beside him. Both face upwards. They, too, are lean, with no trace of baby fat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hollow-cast bronze: How was it made?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The She-wolf is a hollow-cast bronze statue that is just under life-sized. Hollow casting is one of the many ways that metal sculptures were made in the ancient world. It was the typical method for large-scale bronze statues.

 

 

In antiquity, hollow casting (also known as “lost-wax casting”) could be a lengthy procedure. A large sculpture was made in many smaller pieces, and these were joined as the last step of the process. A sculptor first made a model of the statue in a less-valuable medium, such as clay. He then coated the model with a second model, which was made in multiple pieces so it could be removed. Once removed, the second model was coated in wax and another layer of clay. The second and third models were then attached to each other and fired, leaving a hollow space as the wax melted. Molten metal was poured in to replace the wax, and the molds were (at last) removed only when the metal had cooled and set. In the case of large statues, the pieces were soldered together and polished as a final step.

But although the She-wolf is hollow-cast, it is not made of multiple pieces. This has raised significant questions about whether the wolf is ancient at all.

 

 

Questions of chronology

 

 

While it was known for some time that the twins are Renaissance additions to the sculpture, it was not until 2006 that the chronology of the She-wolf itself was challenged. Long believed to date to fifth century B.C.E. Etruria (Etruscan culture), the She-wolf’s date is now debated. If ancient, the original sculpture probably would not have depicted Rome’s she-wolf. We do know that Romans engaged in regional trade that led them to acquire art objects from surrounding areas, including Etruria (Pliny the Elder, Natural History 35.45). <

But in the fifth century B.C.E., Rome was still a fairly small city, and possibly had not yet begun using the she-wolf and twins as its symbol. Other Etruscan artifacts (like the

Lupa of Fiesole below) have a lone wolf as part of a hunt or ritual, and it is more likely that a fifth century B.C.E. Etruscan object would relate to Etruscan culture, rather than Roman culture.

 

 

 

But new laboratory analysis suggests that the She-wolf is not ancient and was made in the Middle Ages, specifically the twelfth century C.E. Questions about the authenticity of the She-wolf were first raised when the statue was restored in the late 1990s. At that time, conservators realized that the casting technique used to make it is not the same as the hollow casting technique used on other large-scale bronze sculptures. Instead of using multiple molds, as described above, the She-wolf is made as a single piece. Proponents of this view argue that the wolf is more similar stylistically to medieval bronzes. Proponents of the Etruscan date claim that the few surviving Etruscan large-scale bronze statues are stylistically similar to the She-wolf.

 

 

 

The claim that the She-wolf is medieval has generated a lot of controversy in Italy and among scholars of ancient Rome. Several respected researchers have publicly disputed the new findings and maintain the She-wolf’s Etruscan provenance. Physical and chemical testing on the bronze has been inconclusive about the date. The Capitoline Museums admit both possibilities in the object’s description.

Conclusion

Although the debate continues with regard to the date of the

Capitoline She-wolf, either interpretation offers interesting points for analysis. The only definitive testimony suggests that materials used in casting the wolf came from both Sardinia and Rome. If the work is from the fifth century B.C.E., we can use that evidence to analyze trade patterns in Italy. Remembering that the wolf was originally cast without the twins—no matter what date we assign to the wolf sculpture—we can try to imagine the original significance of the statue.

On the other hand, if the wolf is medieval, what was its original function? We should not think that a medieval wolf is any less valuable just because it is more recent in its date of manufacture. In fact, a pastiche Capitoline She-wolf might be an even better symbol of Rome: a Renaissance addition to a medieval statue that recreates the ancient symbol of the eternal city.

Additional resources:

This work at the Capitoline Museums
View this work in the Capitoline Museum gallery
Etruscan bronzes on the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History
Greek and Roman bronze-casting technique on the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History
Medieval casting technique, including a video, from the Victoria and Albert Museum

Source: Dr. Jaclyn Neel, “Capitoline She-wolf,” in Smarthistory, January 22, 2016, accessed October 1, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/capitoline-she-wolf/.

Capitoline Brutus

by DR. STEVEN ZUCKER and DR. BETH HARRIS
Once identified as the founder of the Roman Republic, debate over this figure’s true identity rages on.

Capitoline Brutus, 4th-3rd century B.C.E. bronze, 69 cm (Capitoline Museums, Rome)
Video URL: https://youtu.be/h-qUlzA70nY

Backstory

We know that the Capitoline Brutus was found somewhere in Rome during the sixteenth century, but there is no recorded findspot for this sculpture. In 1564 it was officially bequeathed to the city of Rome by Cardinal Rodolfo Pio da Carpi, an Italian scholar and collector who owned a large trove of ancient artifacts, but there is no known evidence of its original provenance.
In the sixteenth century, at the time of Pio da Carpi’s bequest, this sculpture was already known among antiquarians as Lucius Junius Brutus (who founded the Roman Republic in the 6th century B.C.E.), and this belief continued through the centuries. The bust eventually became a touchstone of revolutionary sentiment: after Napoleon’s invasion of northern Italy in the late 1790s, he staged a triumphal procession across Paris that conspicuously displayed his “art loot” from the campaign. “Rome is no more in Rome. It is now in Paris,” was the chorus of a song that accompanied the march. For Napoleon, the cultural and political meanings associated with ancient Roman art—and particularly the Capitoline Brutus—were key to shoring up his image as the leader of the new capital of Europe. According to art historian Patricia Mainardi, the Brutus was “carried at the end of the march and ceremonially placed on a pedestal before the Altar of the Fatherland,” with a plaque stating “Rome was first governed by kings: / Junius Brutus gave it liberty and the Republic.”
The sculpture was returned to Rome in 1814-15, after Napoleon’s defeat, but its interpretation as the portrait of Brutus lived on. As they did with the Portrait Bust of a Flavian Woman, art historians throughout the nineteenth century debated the identity of the sitter based on its resemblance to other portraits, such as those found on coins. (These objects selected for comparison are called “comparanda.”) However, without a sure archeological findspot, we have no way of knowing who this sculpture actually represents. The mystery of the Capitoline Brutus demonstrates how myths about particular objects can grow into stories that become larger than the objects themselves—but these stories are not necessarily grounded in archeological facts.
There is still a need not only for proper archeological excavation and documentation of ancient objects, but also for properly-documented objects to be prioritized within the canon of the history of visual culture. Though the Capitoline Brutus is aesthetically pleasing and in good condition, the most we can do is guess about its original history. Other objects—those with recorded findspots—can help us learn much more about the cultures and artists that produced them, even if they may be less overtly enticing to the eyes.
Backstory by Dr. Naraelle Hohensee
Additional resources:
This work at the Capitoline Museums
Cite this page as: Dr. Steven Zucker and Dr. Beth Harris, “Capitoline Brutus,” in Smarthistory, December 15, 2015, accessed January 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/capitoline-brutus/.

ARCHITECTURE

Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, Rome

by DR. ANDREW FINDLEY

This three-in-one temple to “Jupiter Best and Greatest,” Juno, and Minerva was central in ancient Roman religion.

 

 

 

A temple on a hill

Like the Etruscans and Greeks before them, the Romans are known for having constructed monumental temples in highly visible locations. Situated atop the Capitoline Hill in the heart of the ancient city of Rome, the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus represented this tradition well (today the site is occupied by a piazza designed by the Renaissance artist Michelangelo, see photo below). Unfortunately, neglect, spoliation, and eventual site adaptation means that very little of the Temple of Jupiter remains for us to study. Despite its absence, however, the lasting impact of the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus can be observed in the many Roman temples that emulated it, making it perhaps the most important of all Roman temples in terms of its cultural influence and design. (Watch this video to see where the Temple stood in the ancient city.)

Current State and Original Appearance(s)

Remains of the temple include portions of the tuff foundation and podium (see photo below), as well as some marble and terracotta architectural elements. Most of the structural remains can be viewed in situ (in their original setting) on the grounds of the Palazzo Caffarelli (today part of the Capitoline Museums), andsurvivingfragments are located within the Capitoline Museums.

Based on the surviving portions of the archaic foundation, the podium for the temple likely measured approximately 50m x 60m. Those dimensions are somewhat speculative, however, as there is no scholarly consensus on the precise measurements. The current best guess is that the temple was quite similar in plan to that of late-archaic Etruscan temples like the Temple of Minerva at Veii (also called the Portonaccio temple)—a high podium (platform) with a single frontal staircase leading to a three-column deep pronaos (porch) fronted by a hexastyle (six columns across) arrangement of columns. One of the defining features of the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus was its three-part (tripartite) interior with three adjacent cellae (rooms) for the three major deities honored within (Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva).

 

 

 

The earliest phase of the temple featured terracotta elements, including acroteria (sculptures on the roofline) and a large terracotta statue of Jupiter driving a quadriga (four-horse chariot). Inside the temple was another image of Jupiter—the cult statue reportedly sculpted by the famed archaic sculptor Vulca of Veii. This statue was painted red and served as the basis for the tradition of painting the faces of Roman generals during officially sanctioned triumphs.
In contrast with the modest terracotta (baked clay) that was used to adorn the earliest versions of the temple, several Roman sources note that the later reconstructions made during the period of the Roman empire featured much more extravagant materials. Ancient authors, including Plutarch, Cassius Dio, Suetonius, and Ammianus described the temple as outstanding in its quality and appearance, with a superstructure of Pentelic marble, gilded roof tiles, gold-plated doors, and elaborate pedimental relief sculpture.

History and Dedication

Although primarily dedicated to Jupiter Optimus Maximus, the temple also included spaces for the worship of Juno and Minerva. Together, the three deities comprised what is known as the Capitoline Triad—a divine group significant to the Roman state religion. Jupiter, the Roman equivalent of Zeus, was the most significant of these deities. This is supported by the specific aspect of his worship noted in the full title of the cult—Iuppiter Optimus Maximus, Latin for “Jupiter, Best and Greatest.”

An important date for Rome

The temple was reportedly completed around 509 B.C.E.—the date itself is significant as it marks the purported year during which the Romans overthrew the monarchy (which was Etruscan, not Roman) and established a republican system of government. Thus, not only was the temple located in a prominent geographical location, it was also a lasting reminder of the moment when the Romans asserted their independence. This historical proximity of the founding of the Republic with the construction of the Temple of Jupiter may have also helped to lend support to its central role in Roman religion and to architectural design practice.

Destroyed and rebuilt

The building itself was destroyed and rebuilt several times in the Republican and Imperial periods, and benefitted from several restorations along the way. First destroyed in 83 B.C.E. during the civil wars of Sulla, the temple was rededicated and rebuilt during the 60s B.C.E. Augustus claimed to have restored the temple, most likely as part of his enormous building program that began during his rise to power in the first century B.C.E. The temple was again destroyed in 69 C.E., during the tumultuous “year of the four emperors.” Although rebuilt by the emperor Vespasian in the 70s C.E., the temple once more burned during a fire in 80 C.E. The emperor Domitian enacted the final major reconstruction of the temple during his reign, between 81 and 96 C.E.. The fact the temple was never neglected for very long is a testament to its perceived importance.
After the first century C.E., the temple seems to have retained its structural integrity until the emperor Theodosius eliminated public funds for the upkeep of pagan temples in 392 C.E. (Christianity had become the official state religion of the Roman Empire). Following this, the temple was spoliated several times in the Late Antique and Medieval eras. Eventually a grand residence, the Palazzo Caffarelli, was built on the site in the sixteenth century C.E.

Public Function

The Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus was more than simply a standard religious building. From its earliest phases, the temple also seems to have been a repository for objects of ritual, cultural, and political significance. For example, the Sibylline Oracles (books containing the prophecy of the Sibyls) were kept at the site, as were some spoils of war, like the Carthaginian general Hasdrubal’s shield. In addition, the temple served as the end point for triumphs, a meeting place for the senate, a location for combined religious and political pageantry, an archive for public records, and a physical symbol of Rome’s supremacy and divine agency.

Sacrifice Panel of the Lost Arch of Marcus Aurelius

 

 

 

Perhaps the best depiction of the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus can be seen on the Sacrifice Panel from a now lost arch of the emperor Marcus Aurelius (above and detail, left). In this relief, Marcus Aurelius is shown in his role as Pontifex Maximus (chief priest) offering a sacrifice to Jupiter amidst a crowd of attendants. A temple with three doors, presumably the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, is portrayed in the background.
In this rendering, the temple is tetrastyle (four columns across the front—likely a truncated artistic representation due to the size of the panel) and of the Corinthian order.  The pediment features Jupiter enthroned in the center while flanked by other deities; an intricately sculpted raking (sloping) cornice, surmounted at the apex by a quadriga (four-horse chariot), frames the scene.

Lasting Influence

Although the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus was built in an Etruscan style and involved Etruscan craftsmen, it nevertheless serves as the origin point for the development of Roman temple-building tradition, which often incorporated local elements into a more broadly Roman template.

In terms of architectural history, the lasting significance of the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus can be best recognized by its influence on Roman temple building from the last two centuries B.C.E up until the third century C.E. Imperial temples across the empire—including the Temple of Portunus at Rome (see photo above)—the Maison Carrée in France, and the many Capitolia (Temples dedicated to Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva) of Roman colonies established in north Africa demonstrate an obvious visual connection to the Capitoline temple with a shared frontality, deep front porch, and rich sculptural adornment (some characteristics of which are shared by the Temple of Baalshamin at Palmyra). Yet, the influence of the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus can also be seen in the overall Roman approach to designing architecture—monumental scale, urban setting, lavish decoration, and imposing elevation. Together, these elements are hallmarks of Roman temples and suggest that the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus was an origin point for what would become a commonly understood architectural mark of Roman sovereignty over the Mediterranean world.

Additional resources:
The Temple of Capitoline Jupiter (Capitoline Museums)
Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus (The Institute for Advanced Technology in the Humanities/Rome Reborn)
Cite this page as: Dr. Andrew Findley, “Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, Rome,” in Smarthistory, August 13, 2016, accessed January 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/jupiter-optimus/.

Temple of Portunus, Rome

by DR. JEFFREY A. BECKER

This small temple is a rare surviving example from the Roman Republic. It is both innovative and traditional.

Temple of Portunus (or Fortuna Virilis), c. 75 B.C.E. (Roman Republic), tufa, travertine, concrete (Forum Boarium, Rome)   
Video URL: https://youtu.be/jUJ8MPNmlj4
The Temple of Portunus is a well preserved late second or early first century B.C.E. rectangular temple in Rome, Italy. Its dedication to the God Portunus—a divinity associated with livestock, keys, and harbors—is fitting given the building’s topographical position near the ancient river harbor of the city of Rome.

Temple of Portunus (formerly known as Fortuna Virilis), travertine, tufa, and stucco, c. 120-80 B.C.E., Rome

The city of Rome during its Republican phase was characterized, in part, by monumental architectural dedications made by leading, elite citizens, often in connection with key political or military accomplishments. Temples were a particularly popular choice in this category given their visibility and their utility for public events both sacred and secular.

The Temple of Portunus is located adjacent to a circular temple of the Corinthian order, now attributed to Herakles Victor. The assignation of the Temple of Portunus has been debated by scholars, with some referring to the temple as belonging to Fortuna Virilis (an aspect of the God Fortuna). This is now a minority view. The festival in honor of Portunus (the Portunalia) was celebrated on 17 August.

The Temple’s plan and construction

The temple has a rectangular footprint, measuring roughly 10.5 x 19 meters (36 x 62 Roman feet). Its plan may be referred to as pseudoperipteral, instead of a having a free-standing colonnade, or row of columns, on all four sides, the temple instead only has free-standing columns on its facade with engaged columns on its flanks and rear.

The pronoas  (porch) of the temple supports an Ionic colonnade measuring four columns across by two columns deep, with the columns carved from travertine. The Ionic order can be most easily seen in the scroll-shaped capitals.There are five engaged columns on each side, and four across the back.

Overall the building has a composite structure, with both travertine and tufa being used for the superstructure (tufa is a type of stone consisting of consolidated volcanic ash, and travertine is a form of limestone). A stucco coating would have been applied to the tufa, giving it an appearance closer to that of the travertine.

The temple’s design incorporates elements from several architectural traditions. From the Italic tradition it takes its high podium (one ascends stairs to enter the pronaos), and strong frontality. From Hellenistic architecture comes the Ionic order columns, the engaged pilasters and columns. The use of permanent building materials, stone (as opposed to the Italic custom of superstructures in wood, terracotta, and mudbrick), also reflects changing practices. The temple itself represents the changing realities and shifting cultural landscape of the Mediterranean world at the close of the first millennium B.C.E.

The temple of Portunus resides on the Forum Boarium, a public space that was the site of the primary harbor of Rome. While the temple of Portunus is a bit smaller than other temples in the Forum Boarium and the adjacent Forum Holitorium, it fits into a general typology of Late Republican temple building.

The temple of Portunus finds perhaps its closest contemporary parallel in the Temple of the Sibyl at Tibur (modern Tivoli) which dates c. 150-125 B.C.E. The temple type embodied by the Temple of Portunus may also be found in Iulio-Claudian temple buildings such as the Maison Carrée at Nîmes in southern France.

Preservation and current state

The Temple of Portunus is obviously in an excellent state of preservation. In 872 C.E. the ancient temple was re-dedicated as a Christian shrine sacred to Santa Maria Egyziaca (Saint Mary of Egypt), leading to the preservation of the structure. The architecture has inspired many artists and architects over the centuries, including Andrea Palladio who studied the structure in the sixteenth century.

Neo-Classical architects were inspired by the form of the Temple of Portunus and it led to the construction of the Temple of Harmony, a folly in Somerset, England, dating to 1767 (below).

The Temple of Portunus is important not only for its well preserved architecture and the inspiration that architecture has fostered, but also as a reminder of what the built landscape of Rome was once like – dotted with temples large and small that became foci of a great deal of activity in the life of the city. Those temples that survive are reminders of that vibrancy as well as of the architectural traditions of the Romans themselves.

Backstory

The Temple of Portunus was put on the World Monuments Watch list in 2006. Overseen by the World Monuments Fund, this list highlights “cultural heritage sites around the world that are at risk from the forces of nature or the impact of social, political, and economic change,” providing them with “an opportunity to attract visibility, raise public awareness, foster local engagement in their protection, leverage new resources for conservation, advance innovation, and demonstrate effective solutions.”

Together with the Soprintendenza Archeologica di Roma and grants from private funders, the World Monuments Fund sponsored a restoration of the Temple of Portunus beginning in 2000. The temple had been partially restored and conservation measures put in place in the 1920s, but the activities undertaken in the last two decades utilized the latest technologies to complete a full restoration of the interior and exterior of the building. This included the cleaning and conservation of the frescoes, replacement of the roof (incorporating ancient roof tiles), anti-seismic measures, and the cleaning and restoration of the pediment, columns, and exterior walls. The newly-restored temple opened to the public in 2014.

The Temple of Portunus is one of the best-preserved examples of Roman Republican architecture, and efforts like those of the World Monuments Fund are ensuring that it continues to survive intact.

Backstory by Dr. Naraelle Hohensee
Additional resources:
World Monuments Fund: Temple of Portunus

Temple of Portunus, Soprintendenza Speciale per il Colosseo, il Museo Nazionale Romano e l’Area Archeologica di Roma

Video with photos of the restoration from the World Monuments Fund
Cite this page as: Dr. Jeffrey A. Becker, “Temple of Portunus, Rome,” in Smarthistory, January 21, 2021, accessed January 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/temple-of-portunus/.

Maison Carrée

by DR. JEFFREY A. BECKER
This well-preserved building in modern-day France is a textbook example of a Vitruvian temple.

The so-called Maison Carrée or “square house” is an ancient Roman temple located in Nîmes in southern France. Nîmes was founded as a Roman colony (Colonia Nemausus) during the first century B.C.E. The Maison Carrée is an extremely well preserved ancient Roman building and represents a nearly textbook example of a Roman temple as described by the architectural writer Vitruvius.

Design and Plan

The frontal temple is a classic example of the Tuscan style temple as described by Vitruvius (who wrote On Architecture in the first century B.C.E.). This means that the building has a single cella (cult room), a deep porch, a frontal, axial orientation, and sits atop a high podium. The podium of the Maison Carrée rises to a height of 2.85 meters; the footprint of the temple measures 26.42 by 13.54 meters at the base.

The building is executed in the Corinthian order (easily identified by the acanthus leaf motifs on the capital) and is hexastyle in its plan (meaning it has six columns across the façade); twenty engaged columns line the flanks, yielding a pseudoperipteral arrangement (the front columns are free-standing but the columns on the sides and back are engaged, that is, attached to the wall).

The temple has a very deep pronaos (porch). The superstructure is decorated with egg-and-dart motifs, with the architrave divided into three zones. The deep porch which puts an emphasis on the temple front and the pseudoperipteral arrangement clearly differentiate this from an ancient Greek temple.

The temple once carried a dedicatory inscription that was removed in the Middle Ages. Following the reconstruction of the inscription in 1758, scholars believe that the dedication of the building honored Augustus’ grandsons and intended heirs, Caius and Lucius Caesar. The dedicatory inscription read, in translation, “To Gaius Caesar, son of Augustus, Consul; to Lucius Caesar, son of Augustus, Consul designate; to the princes of youth” (CIL XII, 3156). While not especially common within Italy during the time of the Iulio-Claudians, the worship of the emperor and the imperial family was more commonplace in the provinces of the Roman empire.

The late first century B.C.E. Temple of Augustus and Livia in located in Vienne, France (an ancient settlement of the Allobroges that received a Roman colony) is very similar in plan to the Maison Carrée. This temple was originally dedicated to Augustus alone, but in 41 C.E. the emperor Claudius re-dedicated the building to include Livia, his grandmother (and the wife of Augustus). Taken together these temples show us not only well preserved examples of early Imperial architecture but they also show the degree to which local elites would invest in monumental construction in order to celebrate the emperor and his family members. Just as honorific temples at Rome were sponsored by elites, construction in the provinces also often relied on elite members of the community to fill the role of artistic patron.

Google Maps – click here

Additional resources:

La Maison Carrée
Source: Dr. Jeffrey A. Becker, “Maison Carrée,” in Smarthistory, March 8, 2016, accessed January 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/maison-carree/

Tomb of the Scipios and the sarcophagus of Scipio Barbatus

by DR. JEFFREY A. BECKER
Even in death, great Roman families were concerned with reinforcing and projecting their status.

Image and status

The latter days of the Roman Republican period witnessed socio-economic upheaval, and a long-established social order found itself threatened by newcomers who were wealthy but lacking in illustrious social pedigrees. Roman aristocrats in the patrician class (those threatened by this socio-economic upheaval) linked their ancestors to the founders of the Roman state, and projected an image of themselves as aged and wise as a measure of their experience and acumen.

Since image and status are frequently linked, these aristocrats had long relied on display as part of cultivating their status. Whether this was the display of the images of illustrious family members in the atrium of their houses (so-called imagines), or the constructions of tombs or other patronage projects, material culture mattered in maintaining status. The Late Republican period (the late 2nd and 1st centuries B.C.E.) witnessed several significant examples of this attempt to maintain status in a changing world.

The family of the Cornelii Scipiones

The Cornelii Scipiones were among the most famous Romans of all. Their ancestors had won many victories—including those of Lucius Cornelius Scipio Barbatus (who died c. 280 B.C.E.) and Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus (who died c. 183 B.C.E.), the victor in the Second Punic War. The family tomb of the Cornelii Scipiones, located along the Via Appia leading south from the city of Rome, was first rediscovered in 1614. Its remains constitute one of the most important examples of Late Republican funerary culture at Rome and demonstrate how an illustrious family worked to maintain its image in a changing world.

The Tomb

The Tomb of the Scipios is a subterranean, rock-cut tomb (hypogeum) composed of irregular chambers and connecting corridors that provide niches for burials (see plan and interior view below).

The tomb was begun in the early years of the third century B.C.E. and continued in use until the first century C.E. The family’s patriarch, Lucius Cornelius Scipio Barbatus, who served as consul in 298 B.C.E. is the most prominent occupant of the tomb. Barbatus was buried in a monumental stone sarcophagus with a Latin inscription (see below). Other family members occupy other parts of the tomb, in many cases with inscriptions identifying the individuals and charting their public careers.

As the tomb faced an important roadway, it came to have an elaborate façade in its later phases. This façade likely dates to c. 150 B.C.E. or later when the family renovated and expanded the tomb. In addition to the architectural elements of the façade, a fresco depicting a processional scene—perhaps of famous members of the Cornelii Scipiones—adorned the tomb.

The Sarcophagus of Barbatus

Scipio Barbatus was deposited in an elaborately carved sarcophagus (today the original is in the Vatican Museums—image below, and a plaster cast is in situ—image here). The façade of the sarcophagus is decorated with a Doric frieze and volute scrolls adorn the lid. It included an elaborate Latin epitaph that was modified in antiquity, with some earlier text being erased. The Scipios were always keen to maintain family ties and support their ancestry at any cost. The extant text of the Barbatus epitaph records civic career achievements (Barbatus served as consul, censor, and aedile) and military achievements. In the latter category Barbatus was famous in Rome’s third century B.C.E. wars with the Samnites; the epitaph tells the reader that he captured Taurasia and Cisauna in Samnium, in addition to subduing the region of Lucania (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum VI, 1285).

 

Conclusion

The Tomb of the Scipios is an important monument that demonstrates Roman methods of using images to reinforce and project status. The competition to maintain social rank and position was fierce, and latter day members of the Cornelian family (gens Cornelia) were indeed trading on the names and reputations of their more famous ancestors as they themselves struggled for traction in the tumultuous period at the end of the Roman Republic.

Below is a Google photosphere, showing a Late Republican columbarium (for storage of funerary urns), adjacent to the Tomb of the Scipios that was used for cremation burials and, together with the elite Tomb of the Scipios, was located within a large necropolis located along the Via Appia exiting the city of Rome from the south:

View on Google Maps

Additional resources:

Roman Funerary Rituals (Smarthistory essay)

Platner and Ashby (1929) SEP. SCIPIONUM

Sepolcro degli Scipioni (Italian)

Source: Dr. Jeffrey A. Becker, “Tomb of the Scipios and the sarcophagus of Scipio Barbatus,” in Smarthistory, August 15, 2016, accessed January 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/tomb-of-the-scipios-and-the-sarcophagus-of-scipio-barbatus

 

EARLY EMPIRE 27 BCE – 117 CE

Portraiture

• Augustus of Primaporta
• Augustus as Pontifex Maximus
• Gemma Augustea
• Portrait of Vespasian
• Portrait Bust of a Flavian Woman

Sculpture

• Spoils of Jerusalem, Arch of Titus

Architecture

• Pont du Gard
• Ara Pacis
• Mausoleum of Augustus
• Obelisks and Ancient Rome
• Domus Aurea
• The Colosseum (Flavian Amphitheater)

Portraiture

Augustus of Primaporta

Dr. Julia Fischer

Nothing was more important to a Roman emperor than his image.

Augustus of Primaporta, 1st century C.E. (Vatican Museums)

Video URL: https://youtu.be/0HhWj97jKSQ

Augustus and the power of images

Today, politicians think very carefully about how they will be photographed. Think about all the campaign commercials and print ads we are bombarded with every election season. These images tell us a lot about the candidate, including what they stand for and what agendas they are promoting. Similarly, Roman art was closely intertwined with politics and propaganda. This is especially true with portraits of Augustus, the first emperor of the Roman Empire; Augustus invoked the power of imagery to communicate his ideology.

Augustus of Primaporta

One of Augustus’ most famous portraits is the so-called Augustus of Primaporta of 20 B.C.E. (the sculpture gets its name from the town in Italy where it was found in 1863). At first glance this statue might appear to simply resemble a portrait of Augustus as an orator and general, but this sculpture also communicates a good deal about the emperor’s power and ideology. In fact, in this portrait Augustus shows himself as a great military victor and a staunch supporter of Roman religion. The statue also foretells the 200 year period of peace that Augustus initiated, called the Pax Romana.

Recalling the Golden Age of ancient Greece

In this marble freestanding sculpture, Augustus stands in a contrapposto pose (a relaxed pose where one leg bears weight). The emperor wears military regalia and his right arm is outstretched, demonstrating that the emperor is addressing his troops. We immediately sense the emperor’s power as the leader of the army and a military conqueror.

Delving further into the composition of the Primaporta statue, a distinct resemblance to Polykleitos’ Doryphoros, a Classical Greek sculpture of the fifth century B.C.E., is apparent. Both have a similar contrapposto stance and both are idealized. That is to say that both Augustus and the Spear-Bearer are portrayed as youthful and flawless individuals: they are perfect. The Romans often modeled their art on Greek predecessors. This is significant because Augustus is essentially depicting himself with the perfect body of a Greek athlete: he is youthful and virile, despite the fact that he was middle-aged at the time of the sculpture’s commissioning. Furthermore, by modeling the Primaporta statue on such an iconic Greek sculpture created during the height of Athens’ influence and power, Augustus connects himself to the Golden Age of that previous civilization.

 

The cupid and dolphin

So far the message of the Augustus of Primaporta is clear: he is an excellent orator and military victor with the youthful and perfect body of a Greek athlete. Is that all there is to this sculpture? Definitely not! The sculpture contains even more symbolism. First, at Augustus’ right leg is cupid figure riding a dolphin.

The dolphin became a symbol of Augustus’ great naval victory over Mark Antony and Cleopatra at the Battle of Actium in 31 BCE, a conquest that made Augustus the sole ruler of the Empire.  The cupid astride the dolphin sends another message too: that Augustus is descended from the gods.  Cupid is the son of Venus, the Roman goddess of love. Julius Caesar, the adoptive father of Augustus, claimed to be descended from Venus and therefore Augustus also shared this connection to the gods.

The breastplate

Finally, Augustus is wearing a cuirass, or breastplate, that is covered with figures that communicate additional propagandistic messages.  Scholars debate over the identification over each of these figures, but the basic meaning is clear: Augustus has the gods on his side, he is an international military victor, and he is the bringer of the Pax Romana, a peace that encompasses all the lands of the Roman Empire.

In the central zone of the cuirass are two figures, a Roman and a Parthian. On the right, the enemy Parthian returns military standards. This is a direct reference to an international diplomatic victory of Augustus in 20 B.C.E., when these standards were finally returned to Rome after a previous battle.

Surrounding this central zone are gods and personifications. At the top are Sol and Caelus, the sun and sky gods respectively.  On the sides of the breastplate are female personifications of countries conquered by Augustus. These gods and personifications refer to the Pax Romana.  The message is that the sun is going to shine on all regions of the Roman Empire, bringing peace and prosperity to all citizens. And of course, Augustus is the one who is responsible for this abundance throughout the Empire.

Beneath the female personifications are Apollo and Diana, two major deities in the Roman pantheon; clearly Augustus is favored by these important deities and their appearance here demonstrates that the emperor supports traditional Roman religion.  At the very bottom of the cuirass is Tellus, the earth goddess, who cradles two babies and holds a cornucopia. Tellus is an additional allusion to the Pax Romana as she is a symbol of fertility with her healthy babies and overflowing horn of plenty.

Not simply a portrait

The Augustus of Primaporta is one of the ways that the ancients used art for propagandistic purposes. Overall, this statue is not simply a portrait of the emperor, it expresses Augustus’ connection to the past, his role as a military victor, his connection to the gods, and his role as the bringer of the Roman Peace.

Additional resources:

View this work at the Vatican Museums

Paolo Liverani, The Augustus of Prima Porta: Report on the Polychromy (2011) on The Digital Sculpture Project

Suetonius, The Lives of the Twelve Caesars on Perseus Digital Library

Source: Julia Fischer, “Augustus of Primaporta,” in Smarthistory, November 6, 2020, accessed October 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/augustus-of-primaporta/.

Augustus as Pontifex Maximus

by Jessica Mingoia

This heroically scaled marble statue of Augustus was discovered in Rome in the early 20th century. It depicts the emperor as a togatus (a Roman citizen wearing a toga). The voluminous drapery appears to wrap around his body numerous times, including over his head, which helps denote him as a priest. This is known as capite velato, or veiled head. Priests pulled their togas over their heads as a symbol of piety and deference when performing rituals, especially sacrifices to the gods.

The head of Roman religion

The Pontifex Maximus (chief high priest) served as the head of the ancient Roman state religion. Starting as early as the Roman regal period, when Rome was ruled by kings (753–509 B.C.E.), the Pontifex Maximus ruled the Collegium Pontificum (College of Pontiffs), the most important priests of the Roman state religion and often high-ranking Roman politicians. After the end of the Roman regal period and throughout the Roman Republic (509–27 B.C.E), the members of the Collegium and the Pontifex Maximus himself took over some of the religious responsibilities previously held by the king.

In 27 B.C.E., Gaius Octavius, the great-nephew of Julius Caesar, was granted the title of Augustus (the greatest or most venerable) and primus inter pares (the first among equals) by the Roman Senate, effectively ending the Roman Republic and ushering in the start of the Roman Empire. Slowly, he and his most loyal friends and supporters acquired additional titles until all positions of power fell to Augustus or those who worked with him. When the last remaining Republican-era Pontifex Maximus (Marcus Aemilius Lepidus), died in 12 B.C.E., Augustus was granted the title, one of the last puzzle pieces to the completion of his imperial power. Not only was he the commander of the Roman armies and the political ruler of Rome, he now held leadership over the Roman religion as well.

Augustus as Pontifex Maximus

In the sculpture, Augustus’ body is mostly concealed beneath the diagonal folds of drapery except for his right leg below his knee, the shape of which is visible through the taut drapery. From underneath his drapery, his shoes, known as calcei patricii or Patrician shoes as they were worn by the Roman elites, are visible. It is likely, based on the position of his right arm, that he once held a patera, a shallow bowl used for offering libations to the gods.

This sculpture displays Augustus’ piety, known in ancient Rome as pietas. Pietas describes the profound respect and dutifulness required to be given both to the gods and to kin, which also informed Roman morals, virtues, and ethics, and required devotion to the Roman state religion. Augustus believed strongly in these traditional Roman values and was often represented in art as participating in religious rituals. Another example of this is the ritual procession on the Ara Pacis Augustae, dedicated in 9 B.C.E., which was erected by the Senate in honor of Augustus.

A new golden age

Just as in the portrait of Augustus as Imperator, Augustus as Pontifex Maximus is depicted as a youthful and idealized figure with a short-cropped hairstyle and flawless skin. Despite being at least 50 years old when this portrait was created, images of Augustus always depicted him with a sense of youthful agelessness. This was deliberate visual propaganda created to portray him in the guise of an idealized, classical Greek sculpture. In this way, Augustus connects his rule and the grandeur of the fledgling Roman empire with the golden age of its classical predecessor, Greece.

 

His face, which is turned towards his right, betrays no hint of his personality. As is typical of Augustan portraiture, he is neutral and expressionless. Though he was now the most powerful man in Rome, he was always portrayed subtly to help ensure the stability of the empire and support of the Senate. The empire was new and not entirely legal, so the choice to portray himself as humble, moral, and devout was deliberate.

It is no surprise, of course, that the sculpture also stands in contrapposto, a naturalistic pose where weight is shifted onto one leg, in this case the left. This, too, derives from the sculptural styles of classical Greece and is found in some of the most famous works of that time, such as the Doryphoros.

A sculpture in two parts

The sculpture was created in two different pieces; in fact, two different marbles! The body of the sculpture was created in Luna marble (known today as Carrara) likely by a Roman artist as it came from a quarry in northern Italy newly opened by Augustus. It was common in ancient Rome to purchase a “stock” or standard sculptured body and add a portrait head later which could be personalized and inserted into the sculpture. That is the case with this work. The portrait head was created using Greek Pentelic marble, which suggests the portrait head was created by a Greek artist (who the Romans considered to be the finest sculptors).

Today, when looking closely at the sculpture, it is easy to see the line across the hood of the toga which divides the portrait head from the body as well as see where the neck has been inserted into the lower portion of the sculpture. This may have been less noticeable in antiquity, particularly since this sculpture would once have been painted with polychrome pigments, which once concealed the differences between the Luna and Pentelic marbles. Where today we see cold marble, the Romans would have seen a realistic, though highly idealized, life-like portrait.

A testament to Augustan propaganda, the sculpture of Augustus as Pontifex Maximus shows a dutiful man ushering in a new golden age for Rome. He remained Pontifex Maximus until his death after which time the succeeding emperors continued to hold the position until well into the 4th century C.E.

Further Reading:
The Julio-Claudian Dynasty on The Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Timeline of Art History
Source: Jessica Mingoia, “Augustus as Pontifex Maximus,” in Smarthistory, May 16, 2023, accessed October 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/augustus-pontifex-maximus/.

Gemma Augustea

by Julia Fischer

When you think of Roman art, the Colosseum and the ruins of the Roman Forum immediately spring to mind. You may also think of all the public sculpture that decorated ancient Rome, such as the portrait of Augustus from Primaporta (left) or the Ara Pacis Augustae. These public works of art functioned as political propaganda and advertised to all Romans the accomplishments of the emperor. In public art Augustus wanted to promote that he was a military victor, that he brought peace to the Roman Empire, and that he was connected to the gods.

Head (detail), Augustus of Primaporta, 1st century C.E. (Vatican Museums) (photo: Steven Zucker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

Private art

But the emperor also commissioned small private works of art such as gems, and cameos. Unlike art in the public sphere, private art would not have been seen by a large audience. Instead, only a select few would have been granted access. If you were lucky enough to be invited to a dinner party at the emperor’s palace, he might display his gem collection or show off his large imperial cameos. However, despite the fact that private art would not have been seen by the majority of Roman citizens, the messages contained within these works would have functioned in much the same way as their public counterparts. So if you were at that dinner party with Augustus and he showed you a large cameo, that cameo would have advertised the emperor’s military victories, his role as the bringer of peace, and his connection to the gods.

 

Cameos were a popular medium in the private art of the Roman Empire. While cameos first appeared in the Hellenistic period, they became most fashionable under the Romans. Typically cameos were made of a brown stone that had bands or layers of white throughout, such as sardonyx. This layered stone was then carved in such a way that the figures stood out in white relief while the background remained the dark part of the stone. Most cameos were small and functioned as pendants or rings. But there are a few examples of much larger cameos that were specifically commissioned by the emperor and members of his imperial circle, the most famous example is the Gemma Augustea.

Gemma Augustea

The Gemma Augustea is divided into two registers that are crammed with figures and iconography. The upper register contains three historical figures and a host of deities and personifications. Our eyes immediately gravitate towards the center of the upper register and the two large enthroned figures, Roma (the personification of the city of Rome) and the emperor Augustus.

Roma is surrounded by military paraphernalia while Augustus holds a scepter, a symbol of his right to rule and his role as the leader of the Roman Empire. At his feet is an eagle, a symbol of the god Jupiter and so we quickly realize that Augustus has close ties to the gods. Augustus is depicted as a heroic semi-nude, a convention usually reserved for deities. Augustus is not only stating that he has connections to gods, he is stating that he is also god-like.

Two other historical figures accompany Augustus in the upper register. At the far left is Tiberius, who will eventually succeed Augustus on the throne. To the right of Tiberius, standing in front of a chariot, is the young Germanicus, another member of Augustus’ family and a potential heir to the throne. Clearly the Gemma Augustea is making Augustus’ dynastic message clear: he hopes that Tiberius or Germanicus will succeed him after he dies.

 

Interspersed amongst the three historical figures of the upper register are deities and personifications. Directly behind Tiberius is winged Victory. Behind Augustus is Oikoumene, the personification of the civilized world, who places a corona civica (civic crown) on the emperor’s head. In the Roman Empire, it was a great honor to be awarded the civic crown as it was only given to someone who had saved Roman citizens from an enemy (and Augustus had certainly done just that by rescuing Romans from civil war). Oceanus, the personification of the oceans, sits on the far right. Finally, Tellus Italiae, the mother earth goddess and personification of Italy, sits with her two chubby children and holds a cornucopia.

Pax Romana

What does the top register mean, with its grouping of mortals, deities, and personifications? In short, everything praises Augustus. The emperor expresses his domination throughout the Roman Empire and his greatest accomplishment, the pacification of the Roman world, which resulted in fertility and prosperity. Augustus’ peace and dominion will spread not only throughout the city of Rome (represented by the goddess Roma), but also to all of Italy (represented by Tellus Italiae) and throughout the entire civilized world (symbolized by Oikoumene). And as to Tiberius and Germanicus, Augustus’ potential heirs, either will continue the peace and prosperity established by Augustus.

 

The lower register is significantly smaller than the upper, but it nevertheless has plenty of figures in its two scenes, both of which show captive barbarians and victorious Romans. At the left, Roman soldiers raise a trophy while degraded and humiliated barbarians sit at their feet. At the right is a similar scene, with barbarians being brought into submission by Roman soldiers. While the upper register focuses on peace, the lower register represents the wars that established and maintained peace throughout the Roman Empire.

So even though the Gemma Augustea is a work of private art, the cameo nevertheless offers a political message and thus serves a purpose similar to public art. The Gemma proclaimed Augustus’s greatest accomplishment, the Pax Romana, his military victories, his connections to the gods and his god-like status, and his hopes for dynastic succession.

Additional resources:

Gemma Augustea in the Google Cultural Institute

Source: Julia Fischer, “Gemma Augustea,” in Smarthistory, August 8, 2015, accessed October 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/gemma-augustea/.

Portrait of Vespasian

by The British Museum

In ancient Rome, official portraits were an extremely important way for emperors to reach out to their subjects, and their public image was defined by them. As hundreds of surviving imperial statues show, there were only three ways in which the emperor could officially be represented: in the battle dress of a general; in a toga, the Roman state civilian costume; or nude, likened to a god. These styles powerfully and effectively evoked the emperor’s role as commander-in-chief, magistrate or priest, and finally as the ultimate embodiment of divine providence.

Portrait of the emperor: A soldier and a wit

This naturalistic portrait of the emperor Vespasian (reigned 69-79 C.E.) clearly shows the lined complexion of this battle-hardened emperor, and also the curious ‘strained expression’ which the Roman writer Suetonius said he had at all times. The loss of the nose is characteristic of the damage often suffered by ancient statues, either through deliberate mutilation or through falling or being toppled from their base.

Vespasian was born in the Roman town of Reate (Rieti), about forty miles (sixty-five kilometers) north-west of Rome in the Sabine Hills. Vespasian distinguished himself in military campaigns in Britain and later became a trusted aide of the emperor Nero. Together with one of his sons, Titus, Vespasian conquered Judaea in 75 C.E. and celebrated with a magnificent triumphal procession through Rome. Part of the event, in particular the displaying of the seven-branched candlestick or “Menorah” from the Temple at Jerusalem, is shown on the Arch of Titus, in Rome (above). The proceeds from the conquest of Judaea provided funds for the building of the Colosseum and other famous buildings in Rome.

Vespasian was known for his wit as well as his military skills. When, during one of his attempts to boost the treasury, Vespasian raised a tax on public urinals. Titus complained that this was below imperial dignity. Vespasian is said to have held out a handful of coins from the new tax and said “Now, do these smell any different?” Even on his death bed Vespasian’s wit did not desert him. He was perhaps parodying the idea of the deification of emperors, when he said “Oh dear, I think I’m becoming a god.”

Roman portrait sculptures

Portrait sculptures are one of the great legacies of Roman art. Busts and statues portraying men, women and children from most ranks of society were set up in houses, tombs and public buildings throughout the Roman Empire. Sculptures of emperors and magistrates were often thought to embody personal authority, whereas many of the portraits representing private citizens were intended as memorials to the dead.
© Trustees of the British Museum
This work at The British Museum
Source: The British Museum, “Portrait of Vespasian,” in Smarthistory, March 2, 2017, accessed October 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/portrait-of-vespasian/.

Portrait Bust of a Flavian Woman (Fonseca Bust)

by Dr. Elizabeth Marlowe, Dr. Steven Zucker and Dr. Beth Harris

Is this delicate female portrait what we think? Take part in a discussion of a masterpiece we know little about.

Part 1:

Portrait Bust of a Flavian Woman (Fonseca Bust), from Rome, early 2nd century C.E., marble, 63 cm (Capitoline Museums), Part 1 of 2.Speakers: Dr. Steven Zucker and Dr. Beth Harris. 
URL: https://youtu.be/mZNePcNPEBk

Part 2:

Portrait Bust of a Flavian Woman (Fonseca bust), early 2nd century C.E., marble, 63 inches high (Capitoline Museum, Rome), part 2 of 2. Speakers: Dr. Elizabeth Marlowe and Dr. Beth Harris   

 

Video URL: https://youtu.be/kyQQcDBJvHc
Source: Dr. Elizabeth Marlowe, Dr. Steven Zucker and Dr. Beth Harris, “Portrait Bust of a Flavian Woman (Fonseca Bust),” in Smarthistory, April 3, 2016, accessed October 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/portrait-bust-of-a-flavian-woman-fonseca-bust/.

Sculpture

The Spoils of Jerusalem, Arch of Titus

by Dr. Steven Fine and Dr. Beth Harris

The emperor Titus sacked the temple in Jerusalem and looted its most holy treasures.

Relief panel with The Spoils of Jerusalem Being Brought into Rome, Arch of Titus, Rome, after 81 C.E., marble, 7’10” high   
Video URL: https://youtu.be/2Pz_p8Tf24g

Roman Forum on Google Maps

Source: Dr. Steven Fine and Dr. Beth Harris, “Relief from the Arch of Titus, showing The Spoils of Jerusalem Being Brought into Rome,” in Smarthistory, December 16, 2015, accessed October 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/the-arch-of-titus-2/.

Architecture

Pont du Gard

by Jessica Mingoia

A triple tier of arches rises 160 feet above the rushing river. Once, the top level of the structure carried its own flow of water, but now, the water channel remains dry. Today, the bridge transports only tourists and hikers from one side of the Gard River to the other as heavy arches soar high above their heads.

The Pont du Gard is one of the greatest public works projects spearheaded in the Augustan age. The French toponym Pont du Gard means “bridge of Gard” because it spans the Gard River near Nîmes, France.

 

History

Since the 4th century B.C.E, the ancient Romans constructed aqueducts, like the Pont du Gard, to carry water from further away sources, like mountains and springs, to provide sufficient clean water to urban populations. This first began in the city of Rome, but as Roman hegemony expanded, so, too, did the use of aqueducts in other cities and territories across the Mediterranean.

 

Gallia or Gaul (modern-day France) was conquered by Augustus’ adopted father Julius Caesar during the Roman-Gallic Wars of 58–50 B.C.E. After that time, many Roman military veterans began to settle in colonial cities like ancient Nemausus (modern day Nîmes), because they were given plots of land as thanks for their participation in the war. Within a few decades, the population of Nimes had boomed to around 30,000 people. Much of this population boom can also be credited to Augustus, who undertook a number of construction projects in the city. A large population requires a large amount of potable (drinkable) water, necessitating the construction of an aqueduct.

However, the aqueduct served a greater purpose than as just a water conduit; it was also a testament to the power and prosperity of the Augustan Age. Through structures like this, Augustus could emphasize the extent of his reach in all areas of the empire, united under his sole control, and garner widespread public favor. The Pax Augusta, or Peace of Augustus, was considered a golden age of Rome, one which brought peace to the empire after the turbulent end of the Roman Republic and which ushered in a new period of wealth, abundance, and civic pride. The Pont du Gard was one of many projects designed to enhance the lives of people throughout the empire, from aqueducts to a new public forum in the heart of Rome. Other buildings constructed in Nemausus during the Augustan age include a city wall with gates and bastions, the temple known today as the Maison Carrée, and a nymphaeum (grotto or shrine) erroneously labeled the Temple of Diana.

A Roman feat of engineering

Construction began in 20 B.C.E. under the guidance of Marcus Agrippa, a close ally and soon-to-be son-in-law of the emperor Augustus, who was also responsible for the construction of the Maison Carrée. Today, the Pont du Gard is only a portion of what was once a 31-mile long (50 km) aqueduct that carried fresh water from distant springs to the city of Nemausus (modern day Nîmes).

A true testament to the ingenuity and skill of Roman engineering, the water was predominantly carried that long distance by gravity. This meant that the architects and engineers needed to calculate how to very gradually lower the slope within the aqueduct water channel. In addition, they also needed to bridge areas where the terrain changed, like the river, and still keep the water channel at the appropriate height.

The limestone used at the Pont du Gard was extracted from a nearby quarry. In total, 50,400 tons of rock, individually numbered, were transported by boat down the river to the construction site to create the span. [1] Once complete, the aqueduct supplied enough water to provide all 30,000 residents of Nemausus with 100 gallons of water each per day and kept all bath complexes, fountains, and other structures throughout the city well supplied.

 

The Pont du Gard is constructed with three tiers of arches placed atop one another. The largest of the arches has a length of 82 feet. This particular arch bridges the river itself as none of the piers, or large supports, actually stand in the water. The bottom and middle tiers feature arches of equal widths, but the third tier, which holds the actual water channel, features a series of smaller arches that are each 15 feet wide. Together, the tiers are approximately 160 feet tall.

Constructing an arch

Although arch construction first developed in the 2nd millennium B.C.E. in Mesopotamia, it was the ancient Romans who refined and popularized it as a construction technique after they realized the true potential of arch construction—such as allowing for taller structures and wider spans.

To build a stone arch, first the Romans needed to construct a frame built out of wood in the shape of an arch connecting two piers. Then, wedge-shaped stones known as voussoirs would be placed over the frame. Due to the immense weight of these stones, the Romans used wooden cranes to lift them and set them into place.

The very last stone to be placed was the one in the center known as the keystone, which was quite literally the key to holding the arch together. Without the keystone, once the wooden frame was removed, the arch would fall apart. The keystone is essential to arch construction because the thrust of the weight of the stone construction moves from the keystone in the center outwards to the rest of the arch. This is what keeps the stones in place. In fact, this is such an effective construction method that no mortar was required between the stones. The weight of the stones would then be distributed downward into the piers on either side of the arch.

Maintaining the aqueduct

Roman aqueducts did require periodic maintenance. For this reason, water channels were usually around a height of 6 feet to allow someone to enter the channel and repair them. At the Pont du Gard, part of that maintenance included scraping away calcium carbonate deposits that would appear on the stone walls within the channel (the limestone used for the aqueduct had a large calcium carbonate concentration). Someone would also need to enter the channel if there were blockages or if vegetation started growing between the gaps in the stone. Stone blocks projecting from the otherwise flat surface of the aqueduct, which were used to support the wooden frames and scaffolding used during construction, were left in place to support scaffolding for future structural maintenance.

By the 4th century C.E., the power of the Roman empire declined, particularly in western Europe, and eventually, the aqueduct was no longer maintained and cleaned. Parts of it fell completely into disuse. Luckily, the Pont du Gard survived due to its dual purpose of also acting as a bridge across the river, even as other nearby ancient structures were quarried for their stone.

Today, the Pont du Gard is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, open for visitors to explore. Unfortunately, according to UNESCO, the Pont du Gard is tilting a few millimeters each year and may eventually collapse. [2]

[1] “An Ancient Work of Art”, Site du Pont du Gard
[2] UNESCO. Pont Du Gard (Roman Aqueduct) (UNESCO/NHK), 2010

Additional Resources
Pont du Gard, ancient work of art
Pont du Gard at UNESCO
UNESCO video
Source: Jessica Mingoia, “Pont du Gard,” in Smarthistory, February 18, 2022, accessed October 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/pont-du-gard/.

Ara Pacis Augustae

by Dr. Jeffrey A. Becker

Ara Pacis Augustae (Altar of Augustan Peace), 9 B.C.E. (Ara Pacis Museum, Rome, Italy)   
Video URL: https://youtu.be/KIwK5XclvsA

The Roman state religion in microcosm

The festivities of the Roman state religion were steeped in tradition and ritual symbolism. Sacred offerings to the gods, consultations with priests and diviners, ritual formulae, communal feasting—were all practices aimed at fostering and maintaining social cohesion and communicating authority. It could perhaps be argued that the Ara Pacis Augustae—the Altar of Augustan Peace—represents in luxurious, stately microcosm the practices of the Roman state religion in a way that is simultaneously elegant and pragmatic.
Vowed on July 4, 13 B.C.E., and dedicated on January 30, 9 B.C.E., the monument stood proudly in the Campus Martius in Rome (a level area between several of Rome’s hills and the Tiber River). It was adjacent to architectural complexes that cultivated and proudly displayed messages about the power, legitimacy, and suitability of their patron—the emperor Augustus. Now excavated, restored, and reassembled in a sleek modern pavilion designed by architect Richard Meier (2006), the Ara Pacis continues to inspire and challenge us as we think about ancient Rome.

Portrait of Augustus as Pontifex Maximus from the Via Labicana, after 12 B.C.E. (Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, Rome)

 

Augustus himself discusses the Ara Pacis in his epigraphical memoir, Res Gestae Divi Augusti (“Deeds of the Divine Augustus”) that was promulgated upon his death in 14 C.E. Augustus states “When I returned to Rome from Spain and Gaul, having successfully accomplished deeds in those provinces … the senate voted to consecrate the altar of August Peace in the Campus Martius … on which it ordered the magistrates and priests and Vestal virgins to offer annual sacrifices” (Aug. RG 12).

An open-air altar for sacrifice

The Ara Pacis is, at its simplest, an open-air altar for blood sacrifice associated with the Roman state religion. The ritual slaughtering and offering of animals in Roman religion was routine, and such rites usually took place outdoors. The placement of the Ara Pacis in the Campus Martius (Field of Mars) along the Via Lata (now the Via del Corso) situated it close to other key Augustan monuments, notably the Horologium Augusti (a giant sundial) and the Mausoleum of Augustus.

Illustration showing the likely original placement of the Ara Pacis Augustae (far right) in proximity to the Horologium Augusti (sundial) and the Mausoleum of Augustus in the background. (source)

The significance of the topographical placement would have been quite evident to ancient Romans. This complex of Augustan monuments made a clear statement about Augustus’ physical transformation of Rome’s urban landscape. The dedication to a rather abstract notion of peace (pax) is significant in that Augustus advertises the fact that he has restored peace to the Roman state after a long period of internal and external turmoil.

The altar (ara) itself sits within a monumental stone screen that has been elaborated with bas relief (low relief) sculpture, with the panels combining to form a programmatic mytho-historical narrative about Augustus and his administration, as well as about Rome’s deep roots. The altar enclosure is roughly square while the altar itself sits atop a raised podium that is accessible via a narrow stairway.

The Outer screen—processional scenes

Processional scenes occupy the north and south flanks of the altar screen. The solemn figures, all properly clad for a rite of the state religion, proceed in the direction of the altar itself, ready to participate in the ritual. The figures all advance toward the west. The occasion depicted would seem to be a celebration of the peace (Pax) that Augustus had restored to the Roman empire. In addition four main groups of people are evident in the processions: (1) the lictors (the official bodyguards of magistrates), (2) priests from the major collegia of Rome, (3) members of the Imperial household, including women and children, and (4) attendants. There has been a good deal of scholarly discussion focused on two of three non-Roman children who are depicted.

The north processional frieze, made up of priests and members of the Imperial household, is comprised of 46 figures. The priestly colleges (religious associations) represented include the Septemviri epulones (“seven men for sacrificial banquets”—they arranged public feasts connected to sacred holidays), whose members here carry an incense box (image above), and the quindecimviri sacris faciundis (“fifteen men to perform sacred actions”— their main duty was to guard and consult the Sibylline books (oracular texts) at the request of the Senate). Members of the imperial family, including Octavia Minor, follow behind.

A good deal of modern restoration has been undertaken on the north wall, with many heads heavily restored or replaced. The south wall of the exterior screen depicts Augustus and his immediate family. The identification of the individual figures has been the source of a great deal of scholarly debate. Depicted here are Augustus (damaged, he appears at the far left in the image above) and Marcus Agrippa (friend, son-in-law, and lieutenant to Augustus, he appears, hooded, image below), along with other members of the imperial house. All of those present are dressed in ceremonial garb appropriate for the state sacrifice. The presence of state priests known as flamens (flamines) further indicate the solemnity of the occasion.

A running, vegetal frieze runs parallel to the processional friezes on the lower register. This vegetal frieze emphasizes the fertility and abundance of the lands, a clear benefit of living in a time of peace.

Mythological panels

Accompanying the processional friezes are four mythological panels that adorn the altar screen on its shorter sides. Each of these panels depicts a distinct scene:

• a scene of a bearded male making sacrifice (below)
• a scene of seated female goddess amid the fertility of Italy (also below)
• a fragmentary scene with Romulus and Remus in the Lupercal grotto (where these two mythic founders of Rome were suckled by a she-wolf)
• and a fragmentary panel showing Roma< (the personification of Rome) as a seated goddess.

Since the early twentieth century, the mainstream interpretation of the sacrifice panel (above) has been that the scene depicts the Trojan hero Aeneas arriving in Italy and making a sacrifice to Juno. A recent re-interpretation offered by Paul Rehak argues instead that the bearded man is not Aeneas, but Numa Pompilius, Rome’s second king. In Rehak’s theory, Numa, renowned as a peaceful ruler and the founder of Roman religion, provides a counterbalance to the warlike Romulus on the opposite panel.

The better preserved panel of the east wall depicts a seated female figure (above) who has been variously interpreted as Tellus (the Earth), Italia (Italy), Pax (Peace), as well as Venus. The panel depicts a scene of human fertility and natural abundance. Two babies sit on the lap of the seated female, tugging at her drapery. Surrounding the central female is the natural abundance of the lands and flanking her are the personifications of the land and sea breezes. In all, whether the goddess is taken as Tellus or Pax, the theme stressed is the harmony and abundance of Italy, a theme central to Augustus’ message of a restored peaceful state for the Roman people—the Pax Romana.

The Altar

The altar itself (below) sits within the sculpted precinct wall. It is framed by sculpted architectural mouldings with crouching gryphons surmounted by volutes flanking the altar. The altar was the functional portion of the monument, the place where blood sacrifice and/or burnt offerings would be presented to the gods.

Implications and interpretation

The implications of the Ara Pacis are far reaching. Originally located along the Via Lata (now Rome’s Via del Corso), the altar is part of a monumental architectural makeover of Rome’s Campus Martius carried out by Augustus and his family. Initially the makeover had a dynastic tone, with the Mausoleum of Augustus near the river. The dedication of the Horologium (sundial) of Augustus and the Ara Pacis, the Augustan makeover served as a potent, visual reminder of Augustus’ success to the people of Rome. The choice to celebrate peace and the attendant prosperity in some ways breaks with the tradition of explicitly triumphal monuments that advertise success in war and victories won on the battlefield. By championing peace—at least in the guise of public monuments—Augustus promoted a powerful and effective campaign of political message making.

Rediscovery

The first fragments of the Ara Pacis emerged in 1568 beneath Rome’s Palazzo Chigi near the basilica of San Lorenzo in Lucina. These initial fragments came to be dispersed among various museums, including the Villa Medici, the Vatican Museums, the Louvre, and the Uffizi. It was not until 1859 that further fragments of the Ara Pacis emerged. The German art historian Friedrich von Duhn of the University of Heidelberg is credited with the discovery that the fragments corresponded to the altar mentioned in Augustus’ Res Gestae. Although von Duhn reached this conclusion by 1881, excavations were not resumed until 1903, at which time the total number of recovered fragments reached 53, after which the excavation was again halted due to difficult conditions. Work at the site began again in February 1937 when advanced technology was used to freeze approximately 70 cubic meters of soil to allow for the extraction of the remaining fragments. This excavation was mandated by the order of the Italian government of Benito Mussolini and his planned jubilee in 1938 that was designed to commemorate the 2,000th anniversary of Augustus’ birth.

Mussolini and Augustus

The revival of the glory of ancient Rome was central to the propaganda of the Fascist regime in Italy during the 1930s. Benito Mussolini himself cultivated a connection with the personage of Augustus and claimed his actions were aimed at furthering the continuity of the Roman Empire. Art, architecture, and iconography played a key role in this propagandistic “revival”. Following the 1937 retrieval of additional fragments of the altar, Mussolini directed architect Vittorio Ballio Morpurgo to construct an enclosure for the restored altar adjacent to the ruins of the Mausoleum of Augustus near the Tiber river, creating a key complex for Fascist propaganda. Newly built Fascist palaces, bearing Fascist propaganda, flank the space dubbed “Piazza Augusto Imperatore” (“Plaza of the emperor Augustus”). The famous Res Gestae Divi Augusti (“Deeds of the Divine Augustus”) was re-created on the wall of the altar’s pavilion. The concomitant effect was meant to lead the viewer to associate Mussolini’s accomplishments with those of Augustus himself.

The Ara Pacis and Richard Meier

The firm of architect Richard Meier was engaged to design and execute a new and improved pavilion to house the Ara Pacis and to integrate the altar with a planned pedestrian area surrounding the adjacent Mausoleum of Augustus.

Between 1995 and the dedication of the new pavilion in 2006 Meier crafted the modernist pavilion that capitalizes on glass curtain walls granting visitors views of the Tiber river and the mausoleum while they perambulate in the museum space focused on the altar itself. The Meier pavilion has not been well-received, with some critics immediately panning it and some Italian politicians declaring that it should be dismantled. The museum has also been the victim of targeted vandalism.

Enduring monumentality

The Ara Pacis Augustae continues both to engage us and to incite controversy. As a monument that is the product of a carefully constructed ideological program, it is highly charged with socio-cultural energy that speaks to us about the ordering of the Roman world and its society—the very Roman universe.Augustus had a strong interest in reshaping the Roman world (with him as its sole leader) but he had to be cautious about how radical those changes seemed to the Roman populace. While he defeated enemies, both foreign and domestic, he was concerned about being perceived as too authoritarian–he did not wish to be labeled as a king (rex) for fear that this would be too much for the Roman people to accept. So, the Augustan scheme involved a declaration that Rome’s republican government had been “restored” by Augustus and he styled himself as the leading citizen of the republic (princeps). These political and ideological motives then influence and guide the creation of his program of monumental art and architecture. These monumental forms, of which the Ara Pacis is a prime example, served to both create and reinforce these Augustan messages.The story of the Ara Pacis becomes even more complicated since it is an artifact that then was placed in the service of ideas in the modern age. This results in its identity becoming a hybridized mixture of Classicism, Fascism, and modernism—all difficult to interpret in a postmodern reality. It is important to remember that the sculptural reliefs were created in the first place to be easily legible so that the viewer could understand the messages of Augustus and his circle without the need to read elaborate texts. Augustus pioneered the use of such ideological messages that relied on clear iconography to get their message across. A great deal was at stake for Augustus and it seems, by virtue of history, that the political choices he made proved prudent. The messages of the Pax Romana, of a restored state, and of Augustus as a leading republican citizen, are all part of an effective and carefully constructed veneer.

The Ara Pacis on Google Maps

Additional resources:Ara Pacis MuseumAra Pacis Augustae (Reed College)Roma Sparita Photo Archive (Italian)

Ara Pacis Museum / Richard Meier & Partners Architects

Source: Dr. Jeffrey A. Becker, “Ara Pacis Augustae,” in Smarthistory, October 4, 2020, accessed October 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/ara-pacis/

The Mausoleum of Augustus and the Piazza Augusto Imperatore in Rome

by Dr. Laurie Kalb Cosmo

The Mausoleum of Augustus in Rome, a large circular tomb is a key monument for exploring the reuse, reinterpretation, and rediscovery of antiquities over time, and it has a long, complex history that continues to resonate today.

The tomb was constructed in 28 B.C.E. on the ancient military training grounds known as the Campus Martius (Field of Mars). It was commissioned by Gaius Octavius, the thirty-year old adopted heir to Julius Caesar who would become Emperor Augustus the following year. Enormous and elaborate, the Mausoleum represented the political ambitions of Augustus and his family, and made a public statement about his aspirations for permanent rule. The tomb’s burial chamber eventually held the ashes of Augustus, his family, and succeeding emperors of the patrician (noble) Julio-Claudian family. The maintenance of his legacy was so important to him that Augustus denied burial in the tomb to family members he considered disloyal to him—even his beloved and only natural-born child Julia.

Once likely clad in travertine (a light-colored limestone), Augustus’ mausoleum consisted of five concentric walls, with rooms in the outer two corridors supporting the building’s weight, and, following earlier Hellenistic tombs such as the monumental Mausoleum at Halicarnassus (c. 350 B.C.E.), a funerary room in the center contained family urns. Augustus’ urn was probably located in the middle of this room, directly below what is thought to have been a bronze statue of him in heroic pose atop the mausoleum.

Archaeologists believe the mausoleum’s entry arch was approximately fifteen feet high and flanked by two bronze plaques engraved with Augustus’ Res Gestae Divi Augusti( Deeds of the Divine Augustus)—Augustus’ first-person account of his life and accomplishments. The entryway also displayed two pink granite obelisks that Augustus brought to Rome after his victory against Roman general Marcus Antonius (better known as Mark Antony) and his lover, Egyptian queen Cleopatra VII, at the naval battle of Actium (31 B.C.E.).

The Mausoleum through the ages

After being used as a tomb for more than a century, the mausoleum was abandoned. In the twelfth century, the noble Colonna family occupied the mausoleum and transformed it into a defensive castle. (Emperor Hadrian’s mausoleum across the Tiber River would undergo a similar transformation two centuries later, becoming the Castel Sant’Angelo). In the sixteenth century, the Florentine Soderini family purchased the mausoleum, and constructed a fashionable outdoor museum at the top with a hanging garden adorned with ancient statues.

By the eighteenth century, the Portuguese Marquis Benedetto Correa de Sylva transformed the mausoleum’s roof into an arena for the “Game of the Buffalo” (“Giostra della Bufala”—a spectacle resembling Spanish bullfights), and other tournaments and firework displays. Though the amphitheater subsequently changed owners, it continued as a venue for entertainment, even after passing into the hands of the Papal State (1802), the Kingdom of Italy (1873), and finally the Rome Municipality.In 1908, restored and with a new stage on its ancient cylindrical base, the mausoleum was renamed the Auditorium Augusteo, and became one of the most renowned concert halls in Europe.

The Mausoleum in the early 20th century: fascism and a new piazza (Piazza Augusto Imperatore)

On October 22, 1934, during the height of the authoritarian Italian fascist regime (1922–45), the Mausoleum underwent a new, long-lasting refashioning. Dictator Benito Mussolini wielded a pickaxe for the cameras while he launched the massive demolition of more than 100 late-Renaissance buildings and other structures that had accumulated around Augustus’ Mausoleum over the centuries, and cleared nearly 100,000 square feet of land. Inspired by Romanita’, a cultish approach to Roman classical tradition, Mussolini wanted to “liberate” the ancient tomb of Augustus from later architecture and celebrate its imperial origins. Declaring (incorrectly) that countless archaeological treasures still existed inside the mausoleum, Mussolini toppled the famous Auditorium Augusteo and surrounded the mausoleum with roads and buildings, creating what is today the Piazza of Emperor Augustus (Piazza Augusto Imperatore) by 1937.Mussolini initiates demolition to isolate the Mausoleum of Augustus, Newsreel, 1937 (Istituto Luce Cinecittà)Video URL: https://youtu.be/lJ6_PkTpi0U   Video is in Italian  – focus on the images.Mussolini’s unearthing of the Mausoleum was part of a larger government program called the Bimillenario that took place in 1938 to honor Emperor Augustus’ 2000th birthday. The fascist government considered the Emperor Augustus a “rare genius” who embodied the ideal imperial culture of ancient Rome. By associating Mussolini with Augustus, the administration felt they could further their propagandist goal of influencing their audiences and spreading their political message of the “genius of the dictator” (genio del duce).

A dictator’s reinterpretation of antiquity

During the construction of the Piazza of Emperor Augustus, fragments of the Augustan Altar of Peace (Ara Pacis) were unearthed from another part of the ancient Field of Mars, from beneath Palazzo Chigi (the official residence of the Italian prime minister). The Altar of Peace is an elaborate sacrificial altar built by Roman senators in 9 B.C.E. to honor Emperor Augustus’ military victories in Spain and Gaul. The altar’s decorative relief carvings included mythical founders of Rome and members of the Iulio-Claudian family. Such decoration appealed to the Fascist government as they sought to visually align their politics with a mythic, sacred past. Famous among antiquarians, pieces of the Ara Pacis had already been extracted in the 16th century and scattered all over the world, from the Uffizi in Florence to the Louvre in Paris.As part of the Augustan celebrations, Mussolini ordered the repatriation, or return, of the missing pieces of the Ara Pacis, its full restoration, and a new highly visible location for it adjacent to the Mausoleum of Augustus (which was not its original site). Although it proved impossible to acquire all the missing pieces, the altar was reconstructed within a concrete-and-glass enclosure designed by architect Vittorio Ballio Morpurgo and a bronze copy of the Res Gestae was installed on its eastern side. On September 23, 1938, the 2000th birthday of Augustus, the Piazza of Emperor Augustus was inaugurated.

Palace B (Palazzo Nord) and buildings framing the piazza

To further define the Piazza of Emperor Augustus, Morpurgo designed three monumental buildings, fusing modern and classical styles and incorporating ancient Roman types of ornamentation, such as mosaics, relief carvings, and Latin inscriptions.

A striking mosaic designed by Ferruccio Ferrazzi depicting “The Myth of Rome” appears on the façade of Morpurgo’s Palace B or Palazzo Nord, located along the north side of the mausoleum. Made with glazed ceramic tesserae (tiles) and divided into three sections, the standing youth in the center represents Rome’s Tiber River holding a boat containing Romulus and Remus, twin brothers of semi-divine parentage discovered on the river and believed to have founded Rome. A she-wolf, who nursed the twins, looks up from below. Above, Neptune, god of the sea, leads his horses. On either side, six divinities represent work and prosperity, themes important to the Fascist party.

A Neo-Latin inscription below Ferrazzi’s mosaic, installed against rusticated  stones and between two winged victories holding fasces (bundles of rods with axes symbolizing power in ancient Rome and reappropriated as a Fascist party symbol), honors and links Augustus and Mussolini.

>Mussolini kept three Renaissance and Baroque churches intact in the Piazza of Emperor Augustus. Politics likely motivated his preservation of these ecclesiastical buildings, given a treaty he signed with the Vatican in 1929 that protected the Church financially and established Catholicism as the state religion. Morpurgo designed a brick overpass connecting two of the churches on the piazza’s west side (see photo above). Additionally, the imposing Baroque apse of Basilica of SS. Ambrose and San Carlo al Corso juts into the piazza’s east side. In this way, Mussolini literally framed the ancient Mausoleum of Augustus and unified Augustan, Christian, and Fascist Rome.

In the same year that Mussolini celebrated the Bimillenario of Augustus, he also established the Italian Racial Laws (Leggi Razziali), directed mainly against Jews and immigrants from Italy’s colonies in North and East Africa. Vittorio Morpurgo, the architect of Piazza Augusto Imperatore, was Jewish on his father’s side. In order to shield himself (the laws excluded Jews from holding public office, working in higher education, or for the fascist government), he declared himself non-religious and added his Catholic mother’s surname Ballio to Morpurgo.

Antiquity revealed in the 20th and 21st centuries

While Italy’s Fascist government was defeated at the end of World War II, the Piazza of Emperor Augustus and the ruins that Mussolini excavated remain, as do the Fascist-era buildings that frame them. Outlasting a fallen dictator, these important antiquities and surrounding modern buildings continue to be put to new uses and to offer new discoveries.Over time, popular responses to the piazza and its ruins have changed. After World War II, the Piazza of Emperor Augustus became controversial, criticized as “blatantly Fascist.” By the early twenty-first century, the antiquities revealed by Mussolini, separate from their Fascist associations, became celebrated as exquisite objects of national, archaeological, and cultural significance. Today, while the Fascist-era decorations and architecture remain protected by a government zoning plan, the archaeological monuments such as the Ara Pacis Augustae are emphasized.

In 2006, American architect Richard Meier designed a new enclosure for the Ara Pacis that replaced the protective shell created by Vittorio Ballio Morpurgo. With a fountain in front of the entrance, the new building is oriented on a north-south axis and has less of an association with the adjacent piazza. The museum display, supplemented with portraits of the Julio-Claudian family and a scale model of the Ara Pacis in its ancient setting, focuses more on Augustus than Mussolini.

Although long designated as a heritage site, Augustus’ Mausoleum itself is also undergoing a re-discovery. Archaeologists, architects, and curators are working with Rome’s Superintendency of Archaeology to complete archaeological fieldwork and prepare the site for visitor access. Although a difference in height exists between the original level of the mausoleum and the surrounding area, lead architect Francesco Cellini has designed a new entrance that meets the mausoleum’s original grade level and reveals more ancient travertine pavements, including the remains of a possible paved processional route that linked the tomb with the Pantheon in the Campus Martius. In this way, he and his team hope to “reinsert the monument into a network of urban relations.”Reuse of Vittorio Morpurgo’s Palace B is also planned. The Italian luxury brand Bulgari, known for its glamorous jewelry, will install a high-end hotel inside. Palace B’s original ornamental features will reportedly be retained. But as with the new Ara Pacis Museum, the Bulgari Hotel emphasizes the ancient Imperial rather than the fascist past, quoting in their publicity only a portion of the façade’s Latin inscription devoted to Augustus: “This is the place where the Emperor Augustus’ soul flies through the air.” Mussolini, originally included in the inscription, is not mentioned, reminiscent of the ancient practice of damnatio memoriae, a Latin phrase meaning “condemnation of memory,” when a person is excluded from official historical accounts.Source: Dr. Laurie Kalb Cosmo, “The Mausoleum of Augustus and the Piazza Augusto Imperatore in Rome,” in Smarthistory, April 3, 2022, accessed October 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/mausoleum-augustus/.

Obelisks and ancient Rome

by Dr. Kimberly Cassibry

Lateran Obelisk, c. 1400 B.C.E., originally erected at the temple of Amun, Karnak by Thutmose III and Thutmose IV at a height of 32 meters; now roughly 4 meters shorter), monolith of red granite, 28 meters high (moved to Alexandria by Constantine, and later erected in the spina of the Circus Maximus in Rome by Constantius II in 357 C.E., re-erected at the Lateran in 1587 by Domenico Fontana for Pope Sixtus V). A conversation with Dr. Beth Harris and Dr. Steven Zucker.   

See an annotated version with the location of the obelisks in the paintingHow do you represent one of the world’s most famous cities? Giovanni Panini’s solution was to create a painting full of paintings. His Modern Rome presents views of this Italian city as it appeared in the 1750s, yet not all of the monuments that he depicts were originally made in Europe.

If you look closely, you will find that six of the views feature tall, pointed pillars in the middle of Rome’s public squares. These monuments are ancient Egyptian obelisks, each made of a solid granite stone narrowing to a pyramidal tip.In one of his views, an obelisk casts a long shadow across the Piazza del Popolo. Panini emphasizes the pillar’s height as it soars above pedestrians and domed churches. He also captures the contrast between the square’s white buildings and the obelisk’s distinctive reddish stone. In other framed views, similar ancient obelisks appear in the Piazza di San Giovanni in Laterano, Piazza San Pietro, Piazza della Minerva, and Piazza Navona (shown twice).How did all of these monuments from Egypt end up in Rome? When were they transported and why? Answering these questions takes us into the realm of ancient Mediterranean empires and highlights the long history of looted antiquities and rededicated monuments. We should also ask how often these monuments have been moved around the city of Rome. Their current locations would baffle not only Egypt’s kings, but also Rome’s emperors.

Obelisks dedicated in Egypt

By the time Rome annexed Egypt in 30 B.C.E., obelisks had been standing at temples along the Nile River for thousands of years. Egyptians had invented obelisks during the Old Kingdom period <(c. 2649–2150 B.C.E.). Rulers typically dedicated these prestigious pillars to sun gods. The monuments’ pyramidal tips, usually encased in reflective metal, referred to the first mound of earth touched by the sun’s rays at the beginning of creation.

What sets obelisks apart from other plundered treasures is their immense height and weight: the solid stones could soar several storeys tall and weigh several hundred tons. Transporting them required special boats, and hoisting them upright required extraordinary technical skills. Scholars still debate how ancient engineers accomplished these feats.

An obelisk rededicated in Rome

Augustus is the emperor who seized the obelisk that Panini would later paint in the Piazza del Popolo. Rising 67 feet tall and weighing over 200 tons, the solid pillar initially stood at the temple of Ra-Atum at Heliopolis (near modern Cairo). The pillar’s inscribed hieroglyphs record that the Egyptian king Seti I and his successor Ramses II dedicated the offering. This is one of many obelisks dedicated during the New Kingdom period, when Egypt was at the height of its power and possessed an empire stretching from Libya to Syria.

Over 1,300 years later, Augustus had the obelisk of Seti I and Ramses II shipped across the Mediterranean Sea and up the Tiber River to Rome. There, he had the monolith set back up, but with a new base made of Egyptian stone. Red granite, quarried at Aswan in southern Egypt, had long been popular for the obelisks dedicated by Egypt’s kings. Augustus’s new base matched the stone of the plundered pillar.
Augustus had a Latin dedication carved onto this new pedestal. The inscription recorded that Egypt had been brought under the dominion of the Roman people and that Augustus had rededicated this obelisk to Sol, the Roman sun god. The Latin on the base and the Egyptian on the pillar combined to create a bilingual monument, even if not all viewers were literate and few could read Egyptian.

The emperor installed this monument in the Circus Maximus, ancient Rome’s premier venue for chariot races. The racetrack stood in the city center, about two miles south of the Piazza del Popolo. At the track, the obelisk joined political and religious monuments from different eras to form a central axis, and spectators became used to seeing chariots race around them. [1]

view an annotated version

Views of the obelisk that Augustus rededicated here survive in ancient Roman art. On one terracotta oil lamp, we see a contestant driving a four-horse chariot around the Circus Maximus. The monuments on the track’s central axis are behind him: a column monument with a statue on top, the obelisk with hieroglyphs, a lap counter with seven dolphins, another column monument with a statue, an observation platform for judges, and three posts marking the turning point for the next lap. Such images reveal how an obelisk from Egypt became a familiar part of Rome’s cityscape.

New Roman settings

By 400 C.E., emperors had set up over a dozen major obelisks in Rome. A few stood in circuses, others were installed at temples and tombs, and one formed part of a solar calendar that you could walk through. [2] Most of these obelisks were transported from Egypt, but some were newly created in the same style. [3]As Rome suffered natural disasters and invasions in subsequent centuries, obelisks fell, broke into pieces, and became covered by debris. A millennium later, they were rediscovered, repaired, and moved to new public squares being developed by Rome’s Catholic popes, who were eager to showcase the engineering expertise of their own eras. [4] Many ancient obelisks can still be seen in these piazzas, where they are not only far from Egypt, but also removed from the places where Roman emperors had set them up.

The obelisk that Augustus had rededicated in the Circus Maximus was rediscovered in the 1580s. Pope Sixtus V had it transported two miles north to the Piazza del Popolo, where it was installed near a small fountain. He added yet another base to the obelisk, this one made of white stone taken from an ancient Roman monument (the Septizodium). He also placed a Christian cross at the top, to update the monument’s religious affiliation. The Flemish engraver Nicolaus van Aelst was quick to record this new installation, and the obelisk still appeared this way when Panini painted Modern Rome in the 1750s. By the early 1800s, the Italian architect Giuseppe Valadier had added an elaborate fountain with four lions on stepped pyramids (the Fontana dei Leoni), which can still be seen today. The other obelisks in Panini’s Modern Rome have similar stories of relocation and refashioned bases, some of which were quite extravagant. [5]

Obelisks as global monuments

Rome’s emperors, beginning with Augustus, established a precedent for including obelisks in the planning and design of cities outside of Egypt. [6] Rome’s popes built on this precedent by moving the same obelisks to newly defined public squares during the Renaissance and Baroque eras. As a result, residents and tourists became used to seeing obelisks in Rome again. When later artists such as Nicolaus van Aelst, Giovanni Panini, and Giovanni Battista Piranesi recorded these new settings in works that circulated far and wide, viewers abroad became accustomed to seeing obelisks in Rome, too.

Rome is not the only foreign city to possess these ancient skyscrapers. In the 19th century, as Egyptians contended with the British, French, and Ottoman empires, obelisks were once again transported from their homeland and can now be seen in London, Paris, and New York. Architects have also constructed new versions all over the world. The colossal obelisk known as the Washington Monument is so tall that it has an elevator inside and is so prominent that it serves as a symbol of the capital city of the United States.

Ancient obelisks still remain in temple complexes along the Nile River, and the Egyptians of ancient Africa deserve credit for inventing a monument that now adorns so many of the world’s cities. Egypt’s pyramids may be more famous, but obelisks have been just as influential on the history of art and architecture.

Notes:[1] Following this monument’s installation here, it became common to put obelisks in Roman circuses.[2] The obelisk now in St. Peter’s Square once stood in the Circus Vaticanus. The obelisk now in the Piazza Navona once stood at the circus of the Villa of Maxentius. The obelisk now in front of the Lateran Palace once stood in the Circus Maximus, as did the obelisk brought by Augustus and now in the Piazza del Popolo. The obelisk now in the Piazza Minerva is thought to have been installed at a temple (perhaps for Isis). The obelisk now installed behind Santa Maria Maggiore and the one now installed on the Quirinal Hill once stood at Augustus’ mausoleum. The obelisk now on the Pincian hill has hieroglyphs naming Antinous and is thought to have been set up at his memorial complex at Hadrian’s Villa in Tivoli. The obelisk now in front of the Montecitorio Palace once stood within a solar calendar set up by Augustus. These last four obelisks are not shown in Panini’s Modern Rome, which also omits other obelisks in the city.[3] The obelisk now in the Piazza Navona, for instance, has hieroglyphic inscriptions naming the Roman emperor Domitian and may date to his reign.[4] The architect Domenico Fontana (1543–1607) wrote a book about successfully moving the obelisk from the Circus Vaticanus to St. Peter’s Square.[5] The Baroque sculptor Gian Lorenzo Bernini added an extraordinary fountain beneath the obelisk in the Piazza Navona and sculpted an elephant base for the obelisk in the Piazza Minerva, both visible in Panini’s Modern Rome.[6] The Byzantine emperor Theodosius built on this precedent by setting up an Egyptian obelisk in the racetrack at Constantinople (Istanbul) around 390 C.E.Additional resources:Obelisks on the move, from the Getty Iris blogSource: Dr. Kimberly Cassibry, “Obelisks and ancient Rome,” in Smarthistory, April 12, 2022, accessed October 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/obelisks-and-ancient-rome/.

The Domus Aurea, Nero’s Golden Palace

by Jessica Mingoia

Hidden below the modern ground level of Rome lies the palace of the Emperor Nero (known as the Domus Aurea, the Golden House), one of the largest and most complicated Roman imperial complexes ever constructed. Roman emperors traversed its labyrinthine rooms and passageways, and centuries later the ruins were explored by renaissance artists. Today, excavations continue, and tourists can visit.Nero (Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus), became the fifth Roman emperor in 54 C.E. at the age of sixteen. Following the model of emperors who reigned before him, Nero quickly engaged in building projects. This included public works projects, like his bath complex (the Thermae Neronis) in Rome, as well as the construction of numerous personal villas and palaces across Italy.

The Domus Transitoria

Prior to this time, the imperial residences within the city of Rome were located only on the Palatine Hill in the heart of the city overlooking the Roman Forum, the key political, ritual, and civic center of the Empire. In fact, the modern term “palace” derives from the Latin name for the hill (collis palatium). Augustus, the first emperor of Rome, and his wife Livia both had houses on the Palatine. The second emperor, Tiberius, is said to have created a new residence, the so-called Domus Tiberiana, which was also used by the third and fourth emperors, Caligula and Claudius. These palaces were not originally connected to one another.Around 60 C.E., Nero began to construct the Domus Transitoria, which means “house of transition,” a project which would connect all of the existing imperial buildings into one large, continuous structure. The goal of this project was also to extend the boundaries of the palace down into the valley just east of the Roman Forum (in Latin, the Forum Romanum) and across to the Esquiline Hill (see map below), where there were expansive and opulent imperial gardens (horti).

The great fire

Construction was well underway when, on the night of July 18th 64 C.E., a massive fire broke out in the valley of the Circus Maximus in Rome. The fire raged for approximately 10 days, destroying many areas of the city. The worst damage occurred in the center of the city where everything from homes to temples were destroyed. Most of Nero’s Domus Transitoria was lost in the blaze.Nero helped to organize numerous relief efforts, such as providing funds for the removal of destroyed structures, coordinating food and temporary lodgings for those who were displaced, and enacting safety reforms and new fireproofing laws to attempt to prevent or limit further tragedies. Though he was staying at a seaside villa at the time of the fire (and not playing the fiddle in Rome as has often been incorrectly stated), he did capitalize on the fire and used it as an opportunity to purchase large quantities of public land in the city center.

Nero’s Golden Palace

With this new land under his control, Nero began construction of his golden palace, the Domus Aurea. As Nero had always hoped, the palace and its associated gardens stretched from the Palatine Hill, across the valley, and up onto the Esquiline Hill, spanning at least 50 hectares in the city center. The result was the most opulent imperial palace constructed at the time, with approximately 300 rooms, manicured gardens, a private bath complex, and even an artificial lake. In addition, there was a 120-foot colossus of the emperor in sparkling, gilded bronze in an entrance vestibule to the complex. The complex also included expansive parklands which were open to the public. This sprawling compound profoundly altered the landscape of the city center.

The most substantial archaeological evidence of the Domus Aurea today is found on the Esquiline Hill. This portion of the complex contains over one hundred rooms including a grotto, multiple dining rooms, a long cryptoporticus (covered corridor), and two large courtyards, one of which was pentagonal. The surviving remains of the Esquiline wing only provide hints of the original grandeur of the complex. The upper levels of this wing were intentionally leveled after Nero’s death, so the rooms that remain include only the lower floors and service levels. However, even these areas express the lavish design of the project and the attention to detail which was paid to all areas of the complex.

The painter Famulus and his team of assistants painted much of the vast complex in what we now call the Fourth style of Roman wall painting. Pliny the Elder wrote that the project was so consuming that Famulus was not able to work elsewhere. The majority of these frescoes had white backgrounds, though the background color used seems to have depended in part on the importance of the room. The painted compositions were often divided into different panels, sometimes enclosed by delicate floral frames, other times with thicker architectural features containing figures or smaller illusionistic panels free-floating in the central space. Some of the most opulently decorated rooms had walls clad in marble instead of fresco. Most of the ceilings were finished in stucco that was then painted or gilded.The architects for the palace were Severus and Celer. With so much land to work with and Nero’s seemingly endless funds, they had the ability to be inventive and created a grand complex worthy of an emperor.

The Octagonal Room

One of Severus and Celer’s greatest architectural achievements and likely the most recognizable room in the Domus Aurea today is the Octagonal Room. As its modern name suggests, the room starts as an octagon at the bottom of the walls before transitioning into a hemispherical dome above. Three sides of the octagon face the exterior of the structure, overlooking the gardens in the valley below the hill, while five rooms radiate off of the other sides of the octagon.

Light entered the space through an oculus (an opening) in the center of the dome. The architects also created gaps on the side of the hemispherical dome which were open to the sky and allowed light to stream into the neighboring rooms. Incredibly, the weight of the dome above is supported only by piers between each of the doorways. This room is a prime example of innovative Roman architecture. The use of concrete instead of stone allowed for the construction of the broad open spaces of the Octagonal Room. This structural concrete was hidden behind decorative marble or it was painted.

What remains today is only a shell of the former room. In antiquity, the walls and floor were clad in marble, and the dome plastered with stucco decorations and painted. The architectural ingenuity that made the vast open space of the Octagonal Room possible was hidden from view, so that guests were left only with the impression of a grand dining room seemingly unencumbered by columns or other supports.

The Nymphaeum

Often called the Nymphaeum of Polyphemus, the Domus Aurea also contained an intimate barrel-vaulted grotto (cave-like) space, which offered a more intimate dining alternative to the Octagonal Room. The concrete walls and floor were clad in marble and the corners of the side walls and lunette (the semi-circular space at the end of the vault) were lined with seashells. Water sparkled as it fell over a staircase on the back wall and fed into a small horseshoe shaped water-basin in the center of the room. The walls contained niches for statuary.

The barrel-vaulted ceiling was covered in reddish-brown pieces of pumice, designed to look like small stalactites, inserted into stucco. This is interrupted only by five mosaic medallions, the center of which featured a scene from The Odyssey of Homer, depicting the Greek hero Odysseus serving wine to Polyphemus (the cyclops son of Poseidon in Greek mythology who lived in a cave), a theme often found in dining grottos and nymphaea. The room was quite dark, with the only light source coming from a hallway open to the sky just outside the room. The overall effect was that of a seaside cave with a waterfall and pool, providing a cool, dark retreat from the heat of the Roman summer.

Rotating dining room

The most infamous room within the Domus Aurea is Nero’s rotating dining room, which was described by Suetonius, a Roman historian and biographer:

There were dining-rooms with fretted ceilings of ivory, whose panels could turn and shower down flowers and were fitted with pipes for sprinkling the guests with perfumes. The main banquet hall was circular and constantly revolved day and night, like the heavens.Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars, Nero, 31

In 2014, the location of this famed room was found on the Palatine Hill, hidden inside a platform constructed by Nero’s successors. Though the dining room itself no longer exists, the 12-meter high tower structure made up of pillars and arches that once supported the room does. Excavations also show that the tower was powered by water-driven mechanisms and gears which allowed the room to gently rotate while diners were treated to a panoramic view of Rome. It, too, spoke to the advanced architectural and engineering skills of Severus and Celer and to Nero’s desire to create the grandest palace Rome had ever seen.Suetonius claimed that Nero stated he at last felt like he could live like a human being in this palace.Faces of Ancient Europe: Wonders of the Domus Aurea (Paintings from the Nero’s Golden House) URL:https://youtu.be/S-_jrZDRvJg  Images with musical accompaniment.

The palace destroyed

Work on the Domus Aurea was never completed. In 68 C.E., Nero elected to commit suicide rather than be condemned to death by the Roman Senate, bringing the Julio-Claudian dynasty to an end. What followed was the so-called “year of the four emperors,” some of whom lived in the Domus Aurea. However, once the dust settled and the Flavian dynasty was established, they immediately sought to distance themselves from Nero, whose megalomania had grown prior to his death.This political strategy included destroying the Domus Aurea. Although the Palatine Hill remained the preferred site for imperial palaces, the land in the valley reverted to the public. The Flavians filled in Nero’s artificial lake and constructed the Colosseum (known at the time as the Flavian amphitheater) on top of it. The rotating dining room was razed and a retaining wall was built to enclose the remaining portions of the structure.

The remains of the palace on the Esquiline Hill were also abandoned. The upper portion of the structure was destroyed and the lower level rooms were filled in with soil. These later formed the foundation of the Emperor Trajan’s bath complex built in the early 2nd century C.E. This portion of the Domus Aurea remains the best preserved thanks to the baths above, containing a porticoed garden and more than 100 rooms, including the Nymphaeum of Polyphemus and the Octagonal Room.

URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TRjiQEO4fY   Three-D reconstruction of the Domus Aurea.  There is no text. From Altair4 Multimedia Archaeo3D Production.

Rediscovery and today

Much of the memory of the Domus Aurea faded over time. In fact, its rediscovery was completely accidental. Around 1480, a young boy fell through a hole on the Esquiline Hill into the structure and saw what he described as painted caves. Though no one yet knew that this was the Domus Aurea, it quickly garnered attention and led to many exploring the labyrinthine structure, including the artist Raphael, who is often credited with correctly identifying the structure as the remains of Nero’s golden house. Because the frescoes and stuccoed ceilings had been underground and cut off from air for so long, they were remarkably well-preserved.Today, due to the intense humidity underground in the structure, many of the frescoes have since faded. Scientific archeological excavations did not begin in earnest until the late 20th century and the Esquiline site officially opened to visitors in 1999. Many more rooms have since been uncovered, with the latest discoveries occurring in 2019. Most of the current work on the site is focused on conservation of the archaeological remains.The structure is under immense strain from the weight of the earth, trees, gardens, and other structures atop it. Some of the roots of the trees above have weakened the structural integrity of many of the ceilings, making it impossible to remove them without damage. One of the goals of the “Colosseum Archaeological Park,” the cultural heritage agency which now manages the structure, includes working to lessen the weight of the park above to limit the chance of collapse of the structure below.

Source:  Jessica Mingoia, “The Domus Aurea, Nero’s Golden Palace,” in Smarthistory, January 19, 2023, accessed October 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/domus-aurea-golden-palace/.

The Colosseum

by Dr. Bernard Frischer and Dr. Steven ZuckerColosseum (Flavian Amphitheater, or Amphitheatrum Flavium), c. 70-80 C.E., Rome, an ARCHES video Video URL: https://youtu.be/7FpQ1CmcPYQFurther reading:Rome Reborn Colosseum video promoImages, Streetview, and 360 photos of the Colosseum on Google MapsSource: Dr. Bernard Frischer and Dr. Steven Zucker, “The Colosseum,” in Smarthistory, July 19, 2020, accessed October 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/the-colosseum-rome/.

MIDDLE EMPIRE 117-235 C.E.

Portraiture

• Equestrian Statue of Marcus Aurelius
• Emperor Hadrian – bronze head
• Julia Domna’s Portraits
• Severan Tondo

Sculpture

• Medea Sarcophagus
• Ludovisi Battle Sarcophagus

Architecture

• Column of Trajan
• Forum of Trajan
• Pantheon, Rome
• Hadrian’s Palace at Tivoli
• Hadrian’s Wall
• Triumphal Arch of Septimius Severus
• Baths of Caracalla
• Leptis Magna

Portraiture

Equestrian Statue of Marcus Aurelius

by DR. JEFFREY A. BECKEREquestrian Sculpture of Marcus Aurelius, gilded bronze, c. 173–76 C.E., 424 cm height (Capitoline Museums, Rome) Speakers: Dr. Steven Zucker and Dr. Beth Harris.Video URL: https://youtu.be/D4nK5uXuPXM?si=CU3pd-YieEsmckIgIn ancient Rome, equestrian statues of emperors would not have been uncommon sights in the city—late antique sources suggest that at least 22 of these “great horses” (equi magni) were to be seen—as they were official devices for honoring the emperor for singular military and civic achievements. The statues themselves were, in turn, copied in other media, including coins, for even wider distribution.

Few examples of these equestrian statues survive from antiquity, however, making the Equestrian Statue of Marcus Aurelius a singular artifact of Roman antiquity, one that has borne quiet witness to the ebb and flow of the city of Rome for nearly 1,900 years. A gilded bronze monument of the 170s C.E. that was originally dedicated to the emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus, referred to commonly as Marcus Aurelius, the statue is an important object not only for the study of official Roman portraiture, but also for the consideration of monumental dedications. Further, the use of the statue in the Medieval, Renaissance, modern, and post-modern cities of Rome has important implications for the connectivity that exists between the past and the present.

Description

The statue is an over-life-size depiction of the emperor elegantly mounted atop his horse while participating in a public ritual or ceremony; the statue stands approximately 4.24 meters tall. A gilded bronze statue, the piece was originally cast using the lost-wax technique, with horse and rider cast in multiple pieces and then soldered together after casting.

The horse

The emperor’s horse is a magnificent example of dynamism captured in the sculptural medium. The horse, caught in motion, raises its right foreleg at the knee while planting its left foreleg on the ground, its motion checked by the application of reins, which the emperor originally held in his left hand. The horse’s body—in particular its musculature—has been modeled very carefully by the artist, resulting in a powerful rendering. In keeping with the motion of the horse’s body, its head turns to its right, with its mouth opened slightly. The horse wears a harness, some elements of which have not survived. The horse is saddled with a Persian-style saddlecloth of several layers, as opposed to a rigid saddle. It should be noted that the horse is an important and expressive element of the overall composition.

The horseman

The horseman sits astride the steed, with his left hand guiding the reins and his right arm raised to shoulder level, the hand outstretched.There are approximately 110 known portraits of Marcus Aurelius and these have been grouped into four typological groupings. The first two types belong to the emperor’s youth, before he assumed the duties of the principate.In the Roman world, it was standard practice to create official portrait types of high-ranking officials, such as emperors, that would then circulate in various media, notably sculpture in the round and coin portraits. These portrait types are vital in several respects, especially for determining the chronology of monuments and coins, since the portrait types can usually be placed in a fairly accurate and legible chronological order.

The interpretation of these portraits relies on various key elements, especially the reading of hairstyle and the examination of facial physiognomy. In the case of the equestrian statue, the portrait typology offers the best means of assigning an approximate date to the object since it does not otherwise offer another means of dating. The earliest portrait of Marcus Aurelius dates to c. 140 C.E. and is best represented by the Capitoline Galleria 28 type (type I portrait), where the youth wears a cloak fastened at the shoulder (paludamentum); this portrait was widely circulated, with approximately 25 known copies.

The second portrait type was made when Marcus was in his late 20s, c. 147 C.E., and shows a still youthful type, although Marcus now has light facial hair (type II portrait).Marcus Aurelius became emperor in 161 C.E. when he was forty years of age; this was the occasion for the creation of his third and most important portrait type. This mature type shows the emperor fully bearded with a full head of tightly curled, voluminous hair; he retains the characteristic oval-shaped face and heavy eyelids from his earlier portraits. His coiffure forms a distinctive arc over his forehead. This third type is known from approximately 50 copies.The emperor’s fourth portrait type, created between 170 and 180 C.E., retains most of the features of the third type but shows the emperor slightly more advanced in age with a very full beard that is divided in the center at the chin, showing parallel locks of hair.

The statue of the horseman is carefully composed by the artist and depicts a figure that is simultaneously dynamic and a bit passive and removed, by virtue of his facial expression. The locks of hair are curly and compact and distributed evenly; the beard is also curly, covering the cheeks and upper lip, and is worn longer at the chin. The pose of the body shows the rider’s head turned slightly to his right, in the direction of his outstretched right arm. The left hand originally held the reins (no longer preserved) between the index and middle fingers, with the palm facing upwards. Scholars continue to debate whether he originally held some attached figure or object in the palm of the left hand; possible suggestions have included a scepter, a globe, a statue of victory—but there is no clear indication of any attachment point for such an object. On the left hand, the rider does wear the senatorial ring.

The rider is clad in civic garb, including a short-sleeved tunic that is gathered at the waist by a knotted belt (cingulum). Over the tunic, the rider wears a cloak (paludamentum) that is clasped at the right shoulder. On his feet, Marcus Aurelius wears the senatorial boots of the patrician class, known as calcei patricii.

View this sculpture on Google Maps

Interpretation and chronology

The interpretation and chronology of the equestrian statue must rely on the statue itself, as no ancient literary testimony or other evidence survives to aid in the interpretation. It is obvious that the statue is part of an elaborate public monument, no doubt commissioned to mark an important occasion in the emperor’s reign. With that said, however, it must also be noted that scholars continue to debate its precise dating, the occasion for its creation, and its likely original location in the city of Rome.Starting with the portrait typology, it is possible to determine a range of likely dates for the statue’s creation. The portrait is clearly an adult type of the emperor, meaning the statue must have been created after 161 C.E., the year of Marcus Aurelius’ accession and the creation of his third portrait type. This provides a terminus post quem (the limit after which) for the equestrian statue. Art historians have debated whether the portrait head most resembles the Type III or the Type IV portrait. Recent scholarly thinking, based on the work of Klaus Fittschen, holds that the equestrian portrait represents a unique variant of the standard Type III portrait, created as an improvisation by the artist who was commissioned to create the equestrian statue. In the end, the precise chronology of the portrait head—and indeed the typology—remains a matter of scholarly debate.

 The pose of the horseman is also helpful. The emperor stretches his right hand outward, the palm facing toward the ground; a pose that could be interpreted as the posture of adlocutio, indicating that the emperor is about to speak. However, more likely, in this case, we may read it as the gesture of clemency (clementia), offered to a vanquished enemy, or of restitutio pacis, the “restoration of peace.” Richard Brilliant has noted that since the emperor appears in civic garb as opposed to the general’s armor, the overall impression of the statue is one of peace rather than of the immediate post-war celebration of military victory. Some art historians reconstruct a now-missing barbarian on the right side of the horse, as seen in a surviving panel relief sculpture that originally belonged to a now-lost triumphal arch dedicated to Marcus Aurelius. We know that Marcus Aurelius celebrated a triumph in 176 C.E. for his victories over German and Sarmatian tribes, leading some to suggest that year as the occasion for the creation of the equestrian monument.

History

The original location of the equestrian monument also remains debated, with some supporting a location on the Caelian Hill near the barracks of the imperial cavalry (equites singulares), while others favor the Campus Martius  (a low-lying alluvial plain of the Tiber River)  as a possible location. A text known as the Liber Pontificalis that dates to the middle of the tenth century C.E. mentions the equestrian monument, referring to it as “caballus Constantini” or the “horse of Constantine.” According to the text, the urban prefect of Rome was condemned following an uprising against Pope John XII and, as punishment, was hung by the hair from the equestrian monument. At this time, the equestrian statue was located in the Lateran quarter of the city of Rome near the Lateran Palace, where it may have been since at least the eighth century C.E. Popular theories at the time held that the bearded emperor was, in fact, Constantine I, thus sparing the statue from being melted down.

In 1538 the statue was relocated from the Lateran quarter to the Capitoline Hill to become the centerpiece for Michelangelo’s new design for the Campidoglio (a piazza, or public square, at the top of the Capitoline hill). The statue was set atop a pedestal at the center of an intricately designed piazza flanked by three palazzi. It became the centerpiece of the main piazza of secular Rome and, as such, an icon of the city, a role that it still retains. The equestrian statue still plays a role as an official symbol of the city of Rome, even being incorporated into the reverse image of the Italian version of the € 0.50 coin. The statue itself remained where Michelangelo positioned it until it was moved indoors in 1981 for conservation reasons; a high-tech copy of the original was placed on the pedestal. The ancient statue is now housed within the Musei Capitolini where it can be visited and viewed today.The equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius is an enduring monument, one that links the city’s many phases, ancient and modern. It has borne witness to the city’s imperial glory, post-imperial decline, its Renaissance resurgence, and even its quotidian experience in the twenty-first century. In so doing, it reminds us about the role of public art in creating and reinforcing cultural identity as it relates to specific events and locations. In the ancient world, the equestrian statue would have evoked powerful memories from the viewer, not only reinforcing the identity and appearance of the emperor but also calling to mind the key events, achievements, and celebrations of his administration. The statue is, like the city, eternal, as reflected by the Romanesco poet Giuseppe Belli who reflects in his sonnet Campidojjo (1830) that the gilded statue is directly linked to the long sweep of Rome’s history.

Additional resourcesCapitoline Museums—Marcus Aurelius Exedra.Source: Dr. Jeffrey A. Becker, “Equestrian Statue of Marcus Aurelius,” in Smarthistory, August 8, 2015, accessed October 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/equestrian-sculpture-of-marcus-aurelius/.

Bronze head from a statue of the Emperor Hadrian

by The British Museum

Hadrian (reigned 117–138 C.E.), once a tribune (staff officer) in three different legions of the Roman army and commander of a legion in one of Trajan’s wars, was often shown in military uniform. He was clearly keen to project the image of an ever-ready soldier, but other conclusions have been drawn from his surviving statues.

Fixing the Empire’s borders

When Hadrian inherited the Roman Empire, his predecessor, Trajan’s military campaigns had over-stretched it. Rebellions against Roman rule raged in several provinces and the empire was in serious danger. He ruthlessly put down rebellions and strengthened his borders. He built defensive barriers in Germany and Northern Africa.Rome’s first emperor, Augustus (reigned 27 B.C.E.–14 C.E.), had also suffered severe military setbacks, and took the decision to stop expanding the empire. In Hadrian’s early reign Augustus was an important role model. He had a portrait of him on his signet ring and kept a small bronze bust of him among the images of the household gods in his bedroom.Like Augustus before him, Hadrian began to fix the limits of the territory that Rome could control. He withdrew his army from Mesopotamia, modern-day Iraq, where a serious insurgency had broken out, and abandoned the newly conquered provinces of Armenia and Assyria, as well as other parts of the empire.

Hadrian’s travels

Hadrian  is also famous as the emperor who built the eighty-mile-long wall across Britain, from the Solway Firth to the River Tyne at Wallsend: “to separate the barbarians from the Romans” in the words of his biographer. This head comes from a statue of Hadrian that probably stood in Roman London in a public space such as a forum. It would have been one and a quarter times life-size.This statue may have been put up to commemorate Hadrian’s visit to Britain in 122 C.E.; Hadrian travelled very extensively throughout the Empire, and imperial visits generally gave rise to program of rebuilding and beautification of cities. There are many known marble statues of him, but this example made in bronze is a rare survival.Born in Rome but of Spanish descent, Hadrian was adopted by the emperor Trajan as his successor. Having served with distinction on the Danube and as governor of Syria, Hadrian never lost his fascination with the empire and its frontiers.At Tivoli, to the east of Rome, he built an enormous palace, a microcosm of all the different places he had visited. He was an enthusiastic public builder, and perhaps his most celebrated building is the Pantheon, the best preserved Roman building in the world. Hadrian’s Wall is a good example of his devotion to Rome’s frontiers and the boundaries he established were retained for nearly three hundred years.

A lover of culture

Hadrian was the first Roman emperor to wear a full beard. This has usually been seen as a mark of his devotion to Greece and Greek culture.Hadrian openly displayed his love of Greek culture. Some of the senate scornfully referred to him as Graeculus (“the Greekling”). Beards had been a marker of Greek identity since classical times, whereas a clean-shaven look was considered more Roman. However, in the decades before Hadrian became emperor, beards had come to be worn by wealthy young Romans and seem to have been particularly prevalent in the military. Furthermore, one literary source, the Historia Augusta, claims that Hadrian wore a beard to hide blemishes on his face.Hadrian fell seriously ill, perhaps with a form of dropsy (swelling caused by excess fluid), and retired to the seaside resort of Baiae on the bay of Naples, where he died in 138 C.E.

The image of the Roman Emperor

The cult of the Emperor combined religious and political elements and was a vital factor in Roman military and civil administration. Deceased rulers were often deified, and though the living Emperor, who was the state’s chief priest, was not himself worshipped as a god, his “numen,” the spirit of his power and authority, was.The image of the ruler and information about his achievements was spread primarily through coinage. In addition, statues and busts, in stone and bronze and occasionally even precious metal, were placed in a variety of official and public settings. They varied in size: colossal, life-size and smaller. Such images symbolized the power of the state and the essential unity of the Empire.As well as the political importance of representations of the Emperor, his physical appearance and that of his consort and family were familiar to people throughout the Empire. This influenced fashion and such representations can assist the modern archaeologist and art-historian. For example, beards became fashionable after the accession of Hadrian, and the hairstyles of Empresses and other Imperial women may be seen in private portraiture and decorative art, even in remote provinces such as Britain.© Trustees of the British MuseumSource: The British Museum, “Bronze head from a statue of the Emperor Hadrian,” in Smarthistory, February 28, 2017, accessed October 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/bronze-head-from-a-statue-of-the-emperor-hadrian/.

Julia Domna’s Portraits

by Dr. Kimberly Cassibry<

A traveling empress

On a journey to Britain, Julia Domna supposedly spoke to a Celtic queen about a scandalous topic: the love lives of Roman and Caledonian (Scottish) women. Ancient authors likely invented this conversation to make a point about women’s morality, but Julia Domna certainly visited Britain on one of the many trips she took across the Roman empire.

Portraits help us imagine what the residents of Britain and other regions saw: a woman with a dramatic profile and an extremely elaborate hairstyle. Historical sources describe her intellectual and cultural leadership, but Julia Domna’s own perspective is lost. We only know what others thought of her.

In Britannia (the Latin name for the Roman province of Britain), Julia Domna and her husband the Roman Emperor Septimius Severus were a long way from home. She had been born in Emesa (modern Homs, Syria) and he had been born in Lepcis Magna (modern Khoms, Libya). They married in 187 C.E., when he was a Roman general moving around the empire to govern different territories. After he was acclaimed emperor in 193 C.E., he became Rome’s first ruler from Africa (193–211 C.E.), and she became Rome’s first empress from Asia (193–217 C.E.). More than any prior imperial couple, they traveled together as Severus continued to make ceremonial visits and lead military campaigns.Like many empresses, Julia Domna was honored with statues commissioned by local communities and on coins issued by the Roman Empire’s mints. As a result, her portraits have been found throughout the Roman empire and even beyond its borders.

A portrait statue from Ostia, Italy

One of her best portraits comes from Ostia Antica, Rome’s port city on Italy’s western coast.The empress stands in a balanced pose called contrapposto. If you look closely at her elegant clothing, you will see that a tunic gathers beneath her neck and pools around her sandalled feet, and a mantle wraps around her head and body. The folds of the fabric cast shadows up, down, and around the statue, and the drapery only reveals some parts of the body’s shape, such as the bent knee. The fabric was strategically sculpted to protect the limbs from breaking off by connecting the arms to the torso and the legs to the base.Her face combines both real and ideal features. In the wrinkles running from the nostrils to the corners of the lips, there is a hint of age. Yet the broad forehead, smooth skin, and slight smile conform to general ideals of beauty, as do the enlarged eyes. Incised irises and pupils focus the empress’ gaze and give her a sense of presence.

Her hair falls in separate crimped and braided sections, which are gathered in a bun (chignon) behind her head. She favored this style in the later years of her reign. A more fragmentary portrait from Ostia shows her earlier hairstyle, without the layered braids. Both hairstyles are thought to combine ornate wigs (the crimped and braided sections) and living hair (the small curls on the cheeks).The full-length statue includes important symbols. A slightly damaged diadem is visible at the top of the head. The well-preserved hand holds wheat stems and poppies associated with Ceres, goddess of agriculture.Romans covered their heads as a sign of piety during religious ceremonies, so here we see an empress honoring a goddess essential for Roman prosperity while also promoting the feminine virtue of fertility.

The statue may seem unique, but the body could belong to any elite Roman woman. Another statue from Ostia depicts the empress Sabina (117–137 C.E.) with an almost identical body, but a different face and hairstyle. Such repetition was common: Roman portrait statues reveal a small range of ideal body types, with identities expressed in faces and dedicatory inscriptions.A key part of Julia Domna’s statue monument is missing. The small circular base was intended to fit into a taller pedestal with a dedicatory inscription. Pedestals for Julia Domna survive at Ostia, and they would have elevated the statue far above the heads of viewers. The pedestals were not found with the portraits, however, so it is hard to know which ones belong together. Statues and pedestals often become separated when sites experience catastrophes and later urban development, as Ostia did.

The empress on coins

Portraits and names survive together on coins, which can help us identify who is represented in statues that have lost their dedicatory inscriptions. Scholars use coins as a kind of identification card for emperors and empresses, even though appearances varied across media and changed over time.

Coins were the most widespread medium for transmitting imperial portraiture, and Julia Domna appeared on tens of thousands of them. One found near Eburacum (York, England), is labeled with the name Iulia (spelled with an I in Latin) and the title Augusta (used by Rome’s empresses).

The portrait captures Julia Domna’s distinct profile and elaborate hairstyling, with a chignon, ridged waves, and even the small curl on the cheek. Another coin excavated at Nineveh (Mosul, Iraq), shows the empress with the same appearance and title. Whereas Mosul was on a frontier contested by Iran’s Parthian Empire, York was where the Severans lived during their lengthy stay in Roman Britain (208–211 C.E.). These two locations, separated by 3,200 miles (5,150 km), show how far images of the empress could circulate.Julia Domna’s facial features and intricate hairstyle can also be recognized on dolls, public monuments, and family portraits. These formats reveal how her image was used in Roman society, and we sometimes know by whom.

An empress doll

Dozens of dolls survive from the Roman empire, and a few resemble empresses. The one most like Julia Domna was found in a tomb at Tibur (Tivoli, near Rome).

The small figure was created with expensive materials: it was carved from ivory and wears a chain necklace, bracelets, and anklets crafted in gold. [1] The elongated body reveals the curved contours of the navel, stomach, and breasts. On the head, incised lines define the strands of hair as well as the irises and pupils of the eyes. The doll’s joints enabled dynamic movement, so that the miniature empress could be dressed and put in motion. Clothes would have been stored in the tiny amber box found in the same coffin.

The doll and the box may have belonged to a powerful priestess: near the coffin was a monument for Cossinia, who had been a Vestal Virgin in Rome.

The empress on monuments

Julia Domna also appeared on several arch monuments, which was unusual for an empress. [2] A tetrapylon at Lepcis Magna depicts her repeatedly with her husband and their two sons (Caracalla and Geta). Her presence visibly ensures the family harmony necessary for a smooth transfer of power. In one fragmentary relief sculpture, she stands with her younger son Geta. Like the statue from Ostia, the relief sculpture depicts Julia Domna’s drapery and segmented hairstyle with different surface textures. The folds of her tunic and mantle, however, are deeper and more numerous here as they wrap around her turning body. This deep carving was an aesthetic preference and also made the figures more visible: this relief comes from the uppermost part of the monument.

The empress in color

A rare painting shows us Julia Domna, Septimius Severus, and their son Caracalla in full color. The painting’s original purpose is unknown, but it may have been used in a household shrine honoring the imperial family.

The artist followed the  of depicting women and children with slightly lighter skin tones than adult men, but the image clearly captures Julia Domna’s dark eyes and hair. The painter used three shades of brown to represent the shape, texture, and volume of the hairstyle. Light and dark bands radiate away from her face, while visible brushstrokes in a middle shade are layered on top of them. These bands of unblended color capture a dynamic play of light and shadow that make the hair seem to shine and shimmer from a distance.

The painter also depicted elaborate jewelry for the empress: precious gems enrich the golden diadem, while pearls adorn the ears and neck. Aside from the ivory doll, which wears actual golden jewelry, such adornment rarely appears in sculpted portraits of empresses. Display contexts and social concerns about luxury may explain these differences.The painting is important because it helps us imagine the coloring of Julia Domna’s stone portraits—tinting sculpture was common in the Mediterranean world. The painting also documents the family’s tragic reality.When Septimius Severus died of ill health in 211 C.E (while the family was still in Britain), the two sons inherited power together. Arguments led Caracalla to execute Geta (allegedly in front of Julia Domna) and then to condemn remembrance of his brother (damnatio memoriae). This is the cause of Geta’s erasure from the painting. Coins depicting Geta nonetheless continued to circulate, and some sculpted portraits (such as those on the tetrapylon at Lepcis Magna) also escaped destruction.

The widowed empress and her death

Julia Domna’s prominence continued during Caracalla’s short reign (211–217 C.E.), and he even took the unprecedented step of leaving the seals of state in her hands when he traveled. This tangible power may explain why the widowed empress had the highly unusual honor of being named on several public monuments dedicated to her reigning son. The triumphal arch at Djémila (Cuicul), Algeria, is a good example.

This political arrangement did not last long. Caracalla was murdered in 217 C.E., and Julia Domna died soon afterward, either from cancer or suicide. Her great-nephew Elagabalus, also of Syrian descent, eventually overcame usurpers to become emperor.

Mapping Julia Domna

By the end of her life, Julia Domna had lived in Syria, France, Italy, and Britain, and had traveled in eastern Europe, western Asia, and northern Africa. Even in places she had not visited, her image was present. Her portraits can now be found in museums around the world, but many come from the art market, and we do not always know where they were found.The portraits from Ostia are especially valuable because they come from documented excavations, as do the coins from Rennes, York, and Mosul; the doll from Tivoli; and the relief sculpture from Lepcis Magna. [3]  Portraits with known findspots are ideal for understanding how the empire’s residents used these representations, and they are essential for seeing how far dynastic images spread across the Roman realm.Source: Dr. Kimberly Cassibry, “Julia Domna’s Portraits,” in Smarthistory, July 4, 2023, accessed October 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/julia-domnas-portraits/.

The Severan Tondo: damnatio memoriae in ancient Rome

by Dr. Steven Zucker and Dr. Beth Harris

A conversation with Dr. Steven Zucker and Dr. Beth Harris in front of The Severan Tondo, c. 200 C.E., 30.5 cm, tempera on wood (Altes Museum, Staatliche Museen, Berlin)

Video URL: https://youtu.be/TTKQhPPm5UMAdditional resources:More on Damnatio Memoriae Source: Dr. Steven Zucker and Dr. Beth Harris, “The Severan Tondo: damnatio memoriae in ancient Rome,” in Smarthistory, July 11, 2020, accessed October 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/damnatio-memoriae-in-ancient-rome/.

Sculpture

Medea Sarcophagus

by Dr. Steven Zucker and Dr. Beth Harris
One of the great myths of jealousy and revenge is carved into this sarcophagus. But why put this story on a coffin?

Medea Sarcophagus, 140 – 150 C.E., marble, 65 x 227 cm (Altes Museum, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin)   URL: https://youtu.be/wE7_9Xce6LM

Source: Dr. Steven Zucker and Dr. Beth Harris, “Medea Sarcophagus,” in Smarthistory, December 4, 2015, accessed January 21, 2025, https://smarthistory.org/medea-sarcophagus/.

Battle of the Romans and Barbarians (Ludovisi Battle Sarcophagus)

by Dr. Steven Zucker and Dr. Beth Harris

Romans fight barbarians on this chaotic coffin, which shows signs of a turn in artistic trends.

Battle of the Romans and Barbarians (Ludovisi Battle Sarcophagus), c. 250-260 C.E. (Museo Nazionale Romano-Palazzo Altemps, Rome)   URL:  https://youtu.be/m4raOIxsbaU

Additional resources
This sarcophagus at the Palazzo AltempsSource: Dr. Steven Zucker and Dr. Beth Harris, “Battle of the Romans and Barbarians (Ludovisi Battle Sarcophagus),” in Smarthistory, December 9, 2015, accessed October 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/battle-of-the-romans-and-barbarians-ludovisi-battle-sarcophagus/.

Architecture

Column of Trajan

by Dr. Jeffrey A. Becker
Trajan expanded the Roman Empire to its greatest extent, celebrating his victories with this monumental column.

Column of Trajan, Rome, completed 113 C.E., Luna marble, dedicated to Emperor Trajan (Marcus Ulpius Nerva Traianus b. 53 , d. 117 C.E.) in honor of his victory over Dacia (now Romania) 101–102 and 105–06 C.E. Speakers: Dr. Beth Harris and Dr. Steven Zucker
URL: https://youtu.be/to3kP7U3PoM

---

 

The Triumph

 

The Triumph was a riotous military ritual celebrated by the Romans over the course of centuries—whenever their commander had won a spectacular victory. On the appointed day (or days) the city would be overflowing with crowds, pageantry, spoils, prisoners, depictions and souvenirs of foreign lands—but then, just as quickly as it began, the glorious tumult was over. The spectacles and the echoes of glory entrusted to the memory of those who had witnessed the event. Was the parade and its giant city-wide party enough to commemorate the glorious deeds of Rome’s armies? Or should a more permanent form of commemoration be adopted? Being pragmatists, the Romans enlisted both means of commemoration—the ephemeral and the permanent. The Column of Trajan (dedicated in May of 113 C.E.) might be the crowning example of the inborn need to commemorate—in more permanent form—historical deeds that dominates the psyche of Roman art and artists.

 

 

 

 

Returning from Dacia triumphant—100 days of celebrations

 

The emperor Trajan, who reigned from 98–117 C.E., fought a series of campaigns known as the Dacian Wars. Dacia (modern Romania), was seen as a troublesome neighbor by the Romans and the Dacians were seen to pose a threat to the province of Moesia, along the Danube frontier. In addition Dacia was rich in natural resources (including gold), that were attractive to the Romans. The first campaign saw Trajan defeat the Dacian leader Decebalus in 101 C.E., after which the Dacians sought terms from the Romans. Renewed Dacian hostilities brought about the second Dacian War that concluded in 106 C.E. Trajan’s victory was a substantial one—he declared over 100 days of official celebrations and the Romans exploited Dacia’s natural wealth, while incorporating Dacia as an imperial province.

Denarius (Roman coin), obverse: Trajan in profile; reverse: Dacian seated right on pile of arms, his hands bound behind him, silver, c. 103–11 (Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, CM.BU.240-R)

After the first Dacian war Trajan earned the honorary epithet “Dacicus Maximus” (greatest Dacian) and a victory monument known as the Tropaeum Traiani (Trophy of Trajan) was built at Civitas Tropaensium (modern Adamclisi, Romania). Coins issued during Trajan’s reign (as in the image above) depicted the defeated Dacia.

Iconography and themes

The iconographic scheme of the column illustrates Trajan’s wars in Dacia. The lower half of the column corresponds to the first Dacian War (c. 101–102 C.E.), while the top half depicts the second Dacian War (c. 105–106 C.E.). The first narrative event shows Roman soldiers marching off to Dacia, while the final sequence of events portrays the suicide of the enemy leader, Decebalus, and the mopping up of Dacian prisoners by the Romans.

The execution of the frieze is meticulous and the level of detail achieved is astonishing. While the column does not carry applied paint now, many scholars believe the frieze was initially painted. The sculptors took great care to provide settings for the scenes, including natural backgrounds, and mixed perspectival views to offer the maximum level of detail. Sometimes multiple perspectives are evident within a single scene. The overall, unifying theme is that of the Roman military campaigns in Dacia, but the details reveal additional, more subtle narrative threads.One of the clear themes is the triumph of civilization (represented by the Romans) over its antithesis, the barbarian state (represented here by the Dacians). The Romans are orderly and uniform, the Dacians less so. The Romans are clean shaven, the Dacians are shaggy. The Romans avoid leggings, the Dacians wear leggings (like all good barbarians did—at least those depicted by the Romans).

Combat scenes are frequent in the frieze. The detailed rendering provides a nearly unparalleled visual resource for studying the iconography of the Roman military, as well as for studying the actual equipment, weapons, and tactics. There is clear ethnic typing as well, as the Roman soldiers cannot be confused for Dacian soldiers, and vice versa.<

The viewer also sees the Roman army doing other chores while not fighting. One notable activity is building. In numerous scenes the soldiers may be seen building and fortifying camps. All of the Roman edifices depicted are solid, regular, and well designed—in stark contrast to the humble buildings of the Dacian world. Roman propaganda at work.<

The emperor Trajan figures prominently in the frieze. Each time he appears, his position is commanding and the iconographic focus on his person is made clear. We see Trajan in various scenarios, including addressing his troops (ad locutio) and performing sacrifices. The fact that the figures in the scenes are focused on the figure of the emperor helps to draw the viewer’s attention to him.

The base of the column eventually served as a tomb for Trajan’s ashes. He died while returning from foreign campaigns in 117 C.E. and was granted this unusual honor, in keeping with the estimation of the Roman people who deemed him optimus princeps or “the best first citizen”.

Specifications of the column and construction

The column itself is made from fine-grained Luna marble and stands to a height of 38.4 meters (c. 98 feet) atop a tall pedestal. The shaft of the column is composed of 19 drums of marble measuring c. 3.7 meters (11 feet) in diameter, weighing a total of c. 1,110 tons. The topmost drum weighs some 53 tons. A spiral staircase of 185 steps leads to the viewing platform atop the column. The helical sculptural frieze measures 190 meters in length (c. 625 feet) and wraps around the column 23 times. A total of 2,662 figures appear in the 155 scenes of the frieze, with Trajan himself featured in 58 scenes.

The construction of the Column of Trajan was a complex exercise of architectural design and engineering. As reconstructed by Lynne Lancaster, the execution of the column itself was an immense engineering challenge that required complex lifting devices and, no doubt, careful planning to execute successfully. Materials had to be acquired and transported to Rome, some across long distances. With the appropriate technology in place, the adept Roman architects could carry out the project. The successful completion of the column demonstrates the complex tasks that Roman architects could successfully complete.

The Column of Trajan may be contextualized in a long line of Roman victory monuments, some of which honored specific military victories and thus may be termed “triumphal monuments” and others that generally honor a public career and are thus “honorific monuments”. Among the earliest examples of such permanent monuments at Rome is the rostrate column (column rostrata) that was erected in honor of a naval victory celebrated by Caius Duilius after the battle of Mylae in 260 B.C.E. (this column does not survive). During the Republican period, a rich tradition of celebratory monuments developed, best known through the fornices (honorific arches) and triumphal arches. This tradition was continued in the imperial period, with both triumphal and honorific arches being erected at Rome and in the the provinces.

>The idea of the honorific column was carried forward by other victorious leaders—both in the ancient and modern eras. In the Roman world immediate, derivative monuments that draw inspiration from the Column of Trajan include the Column of Marcus Aurelius (c. 193 C.E.) in Rome’s Piazza Colonna, as well as monuments like the now-lost Column of Arcadius (c. 401 C.E.) and the Column of Justinian at Constantinople (c. 543 C.E.). The idea of the narrative frieze applied to the Column of Trajan proved influential in these other instances.

Honorific or triumphal columns inspired by that of Trajan were also created in honor of more recent victories. The column honoring Admiral Horatio Nelson in London’s Trafalgar Square (c. 1843) draws on the Roman tradition that included the Column of Trajan along with earlier, Republican monuments like the columna rostrata of Caius Duilius. The column dedicated to Napoleon I erected in the Place Vendôme in Paris (c. 1810) and the Washington Monument of Baltimore, Maryland (1829) both were directly inspired by the Column of Trajan.

Additional resources\
Video URL: https://youtu.be/MFUgaPlhDdM

Trajan’s Column in Rome, from Prof. R. Ulrich, Dartmouth CollegeStoa.org—Column of TrajanNational Geographic Society—Column of TrajanWikimedia Commons—Cichorius Plates
Source: Dr. Jeffrey A. Becker, “Column of Trajan,” in Smarthistory, November 7, 2020, accessed October 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/column-of-trajan/.

The Forum and Markets of Trajan

by Dr. Jeffrey A. Becker

Trajan tasked his architect with moving an entire hill to make room for this extravagant public space.

Apollodorus of Damascus, The Markets of Trajan, 112 C.E., Rome   URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqiRkyqxi5k&t=1shttps://youtu.be/z83guai4S68

An emperor worth celebrating

Marcus Ulpius Traianus, now commonly referred to as Trajan, reigned as Rome’s emperor from 98 until 117 C.E. A military man, Trajan was born of mixed stock—part Italic, part Hispanic—into the gens Ulpia (the Ulpian family) in the Roman province of Hispania Baetica (modern Spain) and enjoyed a career that catapulted him to the heights of popularity, earning him an enduring reputation as a “good emperor.”

Trajan was the first in a line of adoptive emperors that concluded with Marcus Aurelius. These emperors were chosen for the “job” based not on bloodlines, but on their suitability for rule; most of them were raised with this role in mind from their youth. This period is often regarded as the height of the Roman empire’s prosperity and stability. The ancient Romans were so fond of Trajan that they officially bestowed upon him the epithetical title optimus princeps or “the best first-citizen.” It is safe to say that the Romans felt Trajan was well worth celebrating—and celebrate him they did. A massive architectural complex—referred to as the Forum of Trajan (Latin: Forum Traiani or, less commonly, Forum Ulpium) was devoted to Trajan’s career and, in particular, his great military successes in his wars against Dacia (now Romania).

Unique under the heavens

The Forum of Trajan was the final, and largest, of Rome’s complex of so-called “Imperial fora”—dubbed by at least one ancient writer as “a construction unique under the heavens” (Amm. Marc. 16.10.15).  Fora is the Latin plural of forum—meaning a public, urban square for civic and ritual business. A series of Imperial fora, beginning with Iulius Caesar, had been built adjacent to the earlier Roman Forum by a series of emperors. The Forum of Trajan was inaugurated in 112 C.E., although construction may not have been complete, and was designed by the famed architect Apollodorus of Damascus.

The Forum of Trajan is elegant—it is rife with signs of top-level architecture and decoration. All of the structures, save the two libraries (which were built of brick), were built of stone. There is a great deal of exotic, imported marble and many statues, including gilded examples. The forum was composed of a main square (measuring c. 200 x 120 meters) that was flanked by porticoes (an extended, roofed colonnade), as well as by exedrae (semicircular, recessed spaces) on the eastern (above) and western sides.

A contested element of the reconstruction of the forum complex is a temple dedicated to the deified Trajan (the deceased emperor had been declared a god). Traditional reconstructions place this temple behind the column, although a recent reconstruction favored by Dr. Roberto Meneghini does not agree with this conjecture, instead preferring to place a shrine to the deified Trajan at the southern end of the forum abutting the retaining wall of the neighboring Forum of Augustus. Scholars continue to debate the nature and position of this temple.

The main structure at the center of the forum complex is the massive Basilica Ulpia, and beside that stood two libraries that flanked the Column of Trajan, an honorific monument bearing an elaborate program of sculpted relief.

Paved in white marble: The forum square (Area Fori)

The main square of the forum was once a vast space, screened by architecture on all sides and paved in white marble. Several rows of trees, and perhaps rows of statues, ran parallel to the porticoes. Entry to the forum square was from the south, by way of a triumphal arch surmounted by a statue of Trajan riding in a triumphal chariot. Although the arch itself is no longer extant, it is depicted on a coin issued c. 112–115 C.E. (below).

The forum square (116 x 95 meters) has an overriding martial theme, reminding viewers and visitors that the forum was constructed from the proceeds (manubiae) of Trajan’s successful military campaigns against the Dacians (101–102, 105–106 C.E.). The porticoes were decorated with statuary and military standards (official emblems of the legions), as described by the ancient author Aulus Gellius: “All along the roof of the colonnades of the forum of Trajan gilded statues of horses and representations of military standards are placed, and underneath is written Ex manubiis [from the spoils of war] …” (Attic Nights 13.25.1).

The decorative program also included statues of captured Dacian prisoners and, it seems, statues of notable Roman statesmen and generals that were set in the intercolumnar spaces of the porticoes.

At the center of the Forum square stood a bronze equestrian statue of Trajan, the Equus Traiani. While the statue itself does not survive, the occasion of a visit to Rome by Constantius II (in 357 C.E.) preserves a mention of the famous equestrian: “So he [Constantius II] abandoned all hope of attempting anything like it, and declared that he would and could imitate simply Trajan’s horse, which stands in the middle of the court with the emperor on its back.” (Ammianus Marcellinus 16.10.15) We also see the equestrian statue depicted on a silver denarius struck at Rome c. 112–114/5 C.E. (below).

The massive Basilica Ulpia

As an architectural type, the basilica is uniquely Roman and served various civic and juridical purposes. The habit of planners from the first century B.C.E. onwards had been to prefer to use the basilica as a framing device, so as to have it communicate with the flanks of a forum square. We see this in many cases, although with some variation. In the case of the Forum of Trajan the massive and monumental Basilica Ulpia is constructed at the northern edge of the open courtyard. It thus serves to bisect the complex, with the portico-lined courtyard lying to its east and the libraries and the Column of Trajan to its west.

The basilica is massive—its overall length is some 169 meters and the interior nave is 25 meters wide. It is apsidal at both ends, with a raised central floor, and the main hall has a double surround of columns (96 in total) that were probably of white or yellow marble, in the Corinthian order. The basilica was also famous in antiquity for its gilded bronze roof tiles, as commented on by Pausanias, who remarked that the building was “worth seeing not only for its general beauty but especially for its roof made of bronze” (Description of Greece 5.12.6).

The Markets of Trajan (dedicated c. 110 C.E.)

Adjacent to the Forum of Trajan is a separate architectural complex attributed to Trajan that is commonly referred to as the Markets of Trajan. This multi-level commercial complex was built against the flank of the Quirinal Hill which had to be excavated for the purpose. The complex of the markets takes its planning cue from the eastern hemicycle of the Forum of Trajan. The ruins of the markets today preserve 170 rooms and the complex covers a space of approximately 110 by 150 meters; its walls stood to 35 meters above the level of the pavement of the Forum of Trajan. The original extension is hard to ascertain, based in part upon subsequent re-use and construction in the Medieval period (and later). The archaeologist Corrado Ricci (1858–1934) cleared the ruins in the twentieth century, but the markets themselves have received comparatively less attention than the adjacent forum.

The function of the markets was mercantile—indeed the markets may have been designed to relocate shops (tabernae) and offices that were displaced by the Trajanic building project. The ground floor offices (at the forum level) were likely occupied by cashiers of the imperial treasury (arcarii caesariani), while upper level rooms may been leased out or used by imperial officials associated with the grain dole (annona).

The great, vaulted market hall (above) is an ambitious and brilliant design—just as with the rest of the complex, reflecting the skills of the designer / architect who executed the project. The medieval Militia Tower (Torre delle Milizie) (12th century) and the now-demolished convent of Santa Caterina a Magnanapoli utilized portions of the structure of the market’s buildings.

The architect—Apollodorus of Damascus

Apollodorus of Damascus was a military engineer and architect who was active during the first quarter of the second century C.E. He accompanied the emperor Trajan on his campaigns in Dacia and is famous for building a bridge across the Danube river that was both described by ancient authors and depicted in art. The relief from the Column of Trajan depicts the bridge in the background (see below). Built c. 105 C.E., the segmental arch bridge was the first across the lower Danube and allowed Roman soldiers to cross the river easily. Apollodorus, who is described as “the master-builder of the whole work” is credited with the project (Procopius, Buildings, 4.6.11–14; tr. H.B. Dewing). Upon return from the Dacian Wars, Apollodorus is thought to have been the architect behind the project that produced the Forum and Column of Trajan, as well as the adjacent markets. A textual tradition is preserved by Cassius Dio that has Apollodorus running afoul of (and being executed by) Hadrian, Trajan’s successor, although it is unclear whether credence should be given to this story (Cassius Dio, Roman History, 69.4; tr. Cary).

Significance of the “construction unique under the heavens”

The Forum of Trajan earned a great deal of praise in antiquity—and it has been the focus of scholarly study perhaps since 1536 when Pope Paul III ordered the first clearing of the area around the base of the Column of Trajan. Paul III would then protect the column itself in 1546 by appointing a caretaker to look after it. The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries saw various artists and architects produce renderings and plans of the forum and its monuments. Among the most famous of these are those of Dosio (c. 1569) and Etiénne Du Pérac (1575). In terms of public architecture in Imperial Rome, the Forum of Trajan complex is a crowning achievement in its vast monumentality. The execution of its sophisticated and elegant design surpassed all of its predecessors in the complex of forum spaces in the city. The value of vast public spaces in the city of Rome cannot be underestimated. For the average city dwellers accustomed to narrow, dim, crowded streets the soaring, the gleaming open space of the forum, bounded by elaborate architecture and sculpture, would have had a powerful psychological effect. The fact that the monuments glorified a revered leader also served to create and reinforce important ideological messages among the Romans. Overall the role of public architecture in the Roman city, and the Roman consciousness, is an important reminder of the ways in which Romans used built space to establish and perpetuate messages about identity and ideology.

The enduring ruins, in this case cleared initially by the excavations sponsored by the Fascist regime of Benito Mussolini, stand as strong, and stark, reminders of these Roman realities. Modern viewers still extract and reinforce ideas about identity based on looking at and visiting the ruins. Even with these ruins we still come away with an idea about Trajan’s greatness and his martial accomplishments. We might, then, judge the architectural program to be a great success—so successful that a great many of our own public monuments still operate on the basis of conventions established in antiquity.

View this site on Google MapsSource: Dr. Jeffrey A. Becker, “The Forum of Trajan,” in Smarthistory, August 8, 2015, accessed October 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/forum-and-markets-of-trajan/.

The Pantheon (Rome)

by Dr. Paul A. Ranogajec
The Pantheon has one of the most perfect interior spaces ever constructed—and it’s been copied ever since.

The Pantheon, Rome, c. 125. Speakers: Dr. Steven Zucker and Dr. Beth Harris
class=”video-caption”>Video URL: https://youtu.be/KaY8zqYfQI0

The eighth wonder of the ancient world

The Pantheon in Rome is a true architectural wonder. Described as the “sphinx of the Campus Martius”—referring to enigmas presented by its appearance and history, and to the location in Rome where it was built—to visit it today is to be almost transported back to the Roman Empire itself. The Roman Pantheon probably doesn’t make popular shortlists of the world’s architectural icons, but it should: it is one of the most imitated buildings in history. For a good example, look at the library Thomas Jefferson designed for the University of Virginia.

While the Pantheon’s importance is undeniable, there is a lot that is unknown. With new evidence and fresh interpretations coming to light in recent years, questions once thought settled have been reopened. Most textbooks and websites confidently date the building to Emperor Hadrian’s reign and describe its purpose as a temple to all the gods (from the Greek, pan = all, theos = gods), but some scholars now argue that these details are wrong and that our knowledge of other aspects of the building’s origin, construction, and meaning is less certain than we had thought.

Whose Pantheon?—the problem of the inscription

Archaeologists and art historians value inscriptions on ancient monuments because these can provide information about patronage, dating, and purpose that is otherwise difficult to come by. In the case of the Pantheon, however, the inscription on the frieze—in raised bronze letters (modern replacements)—easily deceives, as it did for many centuries. It identifies, in abbreviated Latin, the Roman general and consul (the highest elected official of the Roman Republic) Marcus Agrippa as the patron: “M[arcus] Agrippa L[ucii] F[ilius] Co[n]s[ul] Tertium Fecit” (“Marcus Agrippa, son of Lucius, thrice Consul, built this”). The inscription was taken at face value until 1892, when a well-documented interpretation of stamped bricks found in and around the building showed that the Pantheon standing today was a rebuilding of an earlier structure, and that it was a product of Emperor Hadrian’s patronage, built between about 118 and 128. Thus, Agrippa could not have been the patron of the present building. Why, then, is his name so prominent?

The conventional understanding of the Pantheon

A traditional rectangular temple, first built by Agrippa
The conventional understanding of the Pantheon’s genesis, which held from 1892 until very recently, goes something like this. Agrippa built the original Pantheon in honor of his and Augustus’ military victory at the Battle of Actium in 31 B.C.E.—one of the defining moments in the establishment of the Roman Empire (Augustus would go on to become the first Emperor of Rome). It was thought that Agrippa’s Pantheon had been small and conventional: a Greek-style temple, rectangular in plan. Written sources suggest the building was damaged by fire around 80 C.E. and restored to some unknown extent under the orders of Emperor Domitian.

When the building was more substantially damaged by fire again in 110 C.E., Emperor Trajan decided to rebuild it, but only partial groundwork was carried out before his death. Trajan’s successor, Hadrian—a great patron of architecture and revered as one of the most effective Roman emperors—conceived and possibly even designed the new building with the help of dedicated architects. It was to be a triumphant display of his will and beneficence. He was thought to have abandoned the idea of simply reconstructing Agrippa’s temple, deciding instead to create a much larger and more impressive structure. And, in an act of pious humility meant to put him in the favor of the gods and to honor his illustrious predecessors, Hadrian installed the false inscription attributing the new building to the long-dead Agrippa.

New evidence—Agrippa’s temple was not rectangular at all

Today, we know that many parts of this story are either unlikely or demonstrably false. It is now clear from archaeological studies that Agrippa’s original building was not a small rectangular temple, but contained the distinctive hallmarks of the current building: a portico with tall columns and pediment and a rotunda (circular hall) behind it, in similar dimensions to the current building.

And the temple may be Trajan’s (not Hadrian’s)
More startling, a reconsideration of the evidence of the bricks used in the building’s construction—some of which were stamped with identifying marks that can be used to establish the date of manufacture—shows that almost all of them date from the 110s, during the time of Trajan. Instead of the great triumph of Hadrianic design, the Pantheon should more rightly be seen as the final architectural glory of Emperor Trajan’s reign: substantially designed and rebuilt beginning around 114, with some preparatory work on the building site perhaps starting right after the fire of 110, and finished under Hadrian sometime between 125 and 128.Lise Hetland, the archaeologist who first made this argument in 2007 (building on an earlier attribution to Trajan by Wolf-Dieter Heilmeyer), writes that the long-standing effort to make the physical evidence fit a dating entirely within Hadrian’s time shows “the illogicality of the sometimes almost surgically clear-cut presentation of Roman buildings according to the sequence of emperors.” The case of the Pantheon confirms a general art-historical lesson: style categories and historical periodizations (in other words, our understanding of the style of architecture during a particular emperor’s reign) should be seen as conveniences—subordinate to the priority of evidence.

What was it—a temple? A dynastic sanctuary?

It is now an open question whether the building was ever a temple to all the gods, as its traditional name has long suggested to interpreters. Pantheon, or Pantheum in Latin, was more of a nickname than a formal title. One of the major written sources about the building’s origin is the Roman History by Cassius Dio, a late second- to early third-century historian who was twice Roman consul. His account, written a century after the Pantheon was completed, must be taken skeptically. However, he provides important evidence about the building’s purpose. He wrote,

He [Agrippa] completed the building called the Pantheon. It has this name, perhaps because it received among the images which decorated it the statues of many gods, including Mars and Venus; but my own opinion of the name is that, because of its vaulted roof, it resembles the heavens. Agrippa, for his part, wished to place a statue of Augustus there also and to bestow upon him the honor of having the structure named after him; but when Augustus wouldn’t accept either honor, he [Agrippa] placed in the temple itself a statue of the former [Julius] Caesar and in the ante-room statues of Augustus and himself. This was done not out of any rivalry or ambition on Agrippa’s part to make himself equal to Augustus, but from his hearty loyalty to him and his constant zeal for the public good.

A number of scholars have now suggested that the original Pantheon was not a temple in the usual sense of a god’s dwelling place. Instead, it may have been intended as a dynastic sanctuary, part of a ruler cult emerging around Augustus, with the original dedication being to Julius Caesar, the progenitor of the family line of Augustus and Agrippa and a revered ancestor who had been the first Roman deified by the Senate. Adding to the plausibility of this view is the fact that the site had sacred associations—tradition stating that it was the location of the apotheosis, or raising up to the heavens, of Romulus. Even more, the Pantheon was also aligned on axis, across a long stretch of open fields called the Campus Martius, with Augustus’ mausoleum, completed just a few years before the Pantheon. Agrippa’s building, then, was redolent with suggestions of the alliance of the gods and the rulers of Rome during a time when new religious ideas about ruler cults were taking shape.

The dome and the divine authority of the emperors

By the fourth century C.E., when the historian Ammianus Marcellinus mentioned the Pantheon in his history of imperial Rome, statues of the Roman emperors occupied the rotunda’s niches. In Agrippa’s Pantheon, these spaces had been filled by statues of the gods. We also know that Hadrian held court in the Pantheon. Whatever its original purposes, the Pantheon by the time of Trajan and Hadrian was primarily associated with the power of the emperors and their divine authority.

The symbolism of the great dome adds weight to this interpretation. The dome’s coffers (inset panels) are divided into 28 sections, equaling the number of large columns below. 28 is a “perfect number,” a whole number whose summed factors equal it (thus, 1 + 2 + 4 + 7 + 14 = 28). Only four perfect numbers were known in antiquity (6, 28, 496, and 8128) and they were sometimes held—for instance, by Pythagoras and his followers—to have mystical, religious meaning in connection with the cosmos. Additionally, the oculus (open window) at the top of the dome was the interior’s only source of direct light. The sunbeam streaming through the oculus traced an ever-changing daily path across the wall and floor of the rotunda. Perhaps, then, the sunbeam marked solar and lunar events, or simply time. The idea fits nicely with Dio’s understanding of the dome as the canopy of the heavens and, by extension, of the rotunda itself as a microcosm of the Roman world beneath the starry heavens, with the emperor presiding over it all, ensuring the right order of the world.

How was it designed and built?

The Pantheon’s basic design is simple and powerful. A portico with free-standing columns is attached to a domed rotunda. In between, to help transition between the rectilinear portico and the round rotunda is an element generally described in English as the intermediate block. This piece is itself interesting for the fact that visible on its face above the portico’s pediment is another shallow pediment. This may be evidence that the portico was intended to be taller than it is (50 Roman feet instead of the actual 40 feet). Perhaps the taller columns, presumably ordered from a quarry in Egypt, never made it to the building site (for reasons unknown), necessitating the substitution of smaller columns, thus reducing the height of the portico.

The Pantheon’s great interior spectacle—its enormous scale, the geometric clarity of the circle-in-square pavement pattern and the dome’s half-sphere, and the moving disc of light—is all the more breathtaking for the way one moves from the bustling square (piazza, in Italian) outside into the grandeur inside.

One approaches the Pantheon through the portico with its tall, monolithic Corinthian columns of Egyptian granite. Originally, the approach would have been framed and directed by the long walls of a courtyard or forecourt in front of the building, and a set of stairs, now submerged under the piazza, leading up to the portico. Walking beneath the giant columns, the outside light starts to dim. As you pass through the enormous portal with its bronze doors, you enter the rotunda, where your eyes are swept up toward the oculus.

The structure itself is an important example of advanced Roman engineering. Its walls are made from brick-faced concrete—an innovation widely used in Rome’s major buildings and infrastructure, such as aqueducts—and are lightened with relieving arches and vaults built into the wall mass. The concrete easily allowed for spaces to be carved out of the wall’s thickness—for instance, the alcoves around the rotunda’s perimeter and the large apse directly across from the entrance (where Hadrian would have sat to hold court). Further, the concrete of the dome is graded into six layers with a mixture of scoria, a low-density, lightweight volcanic rock, at the top. From top to bottom, the structure of the Pantheon was fine-tuned to be structurally efficient and to allow flexibility of design.

Who designed the Pantheon?

We do not know who designed the Pantheon, but Apollodorus of Damascus, Trajan’s favorite builder, is a likely candidate—or, perhaps, someone closely associated with Apollodorus. He had designed Trajan’s Forum and at least two other major projects in Rome, probably making him the person in the capital city with the deepest knowledge about complex architecture and engineering in the 110s. On that basis, and with some stylistic and design similarities between the Pantheon and his known projects, Apollodorus’ authorship of the building is a significant possibility.When it was believed that Hadrian had fully overseen the Pantheon’s design, doubt was cast on the possibility of Apollodorus’ role because, according to Dio, Hadrian had banished and then executed the architect for having spoken ill of the emperor’s talents. Many historians now doubt Dio’s account. Although the evidence is circumstantial, a number of obstacles to Apollodorus’ authorship have been removed by the recent developments in our understanding of the Pantheon’s genesis. In the end, however, we cannot say for certain who designed the Pantheon.

Why Has It Survived?

We know very little about what happened to the Pantheon between the time of Emperor Constantine in the early fourth century and the early seventh century—a period when the city of Rome’s importance faded and the Roman Empire disintegrated. This was presumably the time when much of the Pantheon’s surroundings—the forecourt and all adjacent buildings—fell into serious disrepair and were demolished and replaced. How and why the Pantheon emerged from those difficult centuries is hard to say. The Liber Pontificalis—a medieval manuscript containing not-always-reliable biographies of the popes—tells us that in the 7th century Pope Boniface IV “asked the [Byzantine] emperor Phocas for the temple called the Pantheon, and in it he made the church of the ever-virgin Holy Mary and all the martyrs.” There is continuing debate about when the Christian consecration of the Pantheon happened; today, the balance of evidence points to May 13, 613. In later centuries, the building was known as Sanctae Mariae Rotundae (Saint Mary of the Rotunda). Whatever the precise date of its consecration, the fact that the Pantheon became a church—specifically, a station church, where the pope would hold special masses during Lent, the period leading up to Easter—meant that it was in continuous use, ensuring its survival.

]Yet, like other ancient remains in Rome, the Pantheon was for centuries a source of materials for new buildings and other purposes—including the making of cannons and weapons. In addition to the loss of original finishings, sculpture, and all of its bronze elements, many other changes were made to the building from the fourth century to today. Among the most important: the three easternmost columns of the portico were replaced in the seventeenth century after having been damaged and braced by a brick wall centuries earlier; doors and steps leading down into the portico were erected after the grade of the surrounding piazza had risen over time; inside the rotunda, columns made from imperial red porphyry—a rare, expensive stone from Egypt—were replaced with granite versions; and roof tiles and other elements were periodically removed or replaced. Despite all the losses and alterations, and all the unanswered and difficult questions, the Pantheon is an unrivaled artifact of Roman antiquity.]

The Pantheon on Google MapsSee also: Virtual Roman Pantheon.Source:  Dr. Paul A. Ranogajec, “The Pantheon (Rome),” in Smarthistory, December 11, 2015, accessed October 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/the-pantheon/.

Hadrian: The imperial palace, Tivoli

by The British Museum
The Empire in miniature, see how Hadrian’s Villa served as a space for both business and pleasure.

Video from The British Museum.
Video URL: https://youtu.be/t6npEWNrHGMSource: The British Museum, “Hadrian: The imperial palace, Tivoli,” in Smarthistory, January 25, 2016, accessed October 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/hadrians-imperial-palace-tivoli/.

Hadrian’s Wall

by Dr. Kimberly Cassibry

Hadrian’s Wall in England has always been a place where communities intersect.

Have you ever been to a birthday party for a fortified wall?Hadrian’s Wall in Britain recently turned 1,900 years old. Its construction began in 122 C.E., when the emperor Hadrian ordered the Roman army to build a wall separating the province Britannia from contested land to the north. Sections of this stone wall still stretch across northern England. To celebrate the anniversary of this innovative landmark, the Hadrian’s Wall Management Board organized a series of special events, including costume parties and a colorful art installation. While these celebrations brought local communities together, excavations have revealed evidence for the people who lived here in antiquity—including soldiers from Europe, North Africa, and West Asia.

Running approximately 73 miles (117 kilometers) from coast to coast, Hadrian’s Wall stands out on maps and in aerial photographs. On site, experiencing the wall takes time: at least a week is needed to walk along the rocky and hilly terrain. The weather here can be cold and rainy, likely a shock for Roman soldiers accustomed to warmer climates. [1]

Rome’s invasion of Britain

Why was an empire based in Italy interested in controlling a region as far north as Britain? Natural resources such as metal deposits drew the attention of Rome’s leaders, as did the personal glory of conquering new territory. The famous Roman general Julius Caesar visited and considered an invasion as early as the 50s B.C.E., but then refocused on completing his conquest of France (Gallia). What he found in Britain were people who spoke Celtic languages and were organized into small competing kingdoms with constantly shifting alliances. Taking advantage of ongoing political divisions, the Roman emperor Claudius ordered the Roman army to invade Britain in 43 C.E. The new Roman province Britannia was established in the lands that we now call England and Wales. Rome’s conquest of neighboring regions was never complete: Ireland always remained free, as did most of Scotland.Roman rule of Britannia was sometimes violently contested, most famously by queen Boudicca (Boadicea) of the Iceni people. Following abuse by Roman officials, she raised an army and attacked Roman London in the 60s C.E. Other leaders, such as Queen Cartimandua of the Brigantes people, allied themselves with Rome. These two queens were exceptional in their power—most of the island’s leaders were men—but it was common for communities to respond to Rome’s invasion in radically different ways.

Locating Hadrian’s Wall

When the Roman emperor Hadrian toured Britannia in 122 C.E., he ordered the construction of the wall that would bear his name. The site chosen was a stretch of land across northern England, where the island narrows. The wall’s location and design discouraged invasions of Britannia from the north, while allowing the Roman army to monitor the circulation of traders and travelers. The wall fortified a frontier, but was not necessarily a political border. Rome sometimes claimed territory farther north, and the modern border between Scotland and England lies farther north, too.

Designing Hadrian’s Wall

Hadrian’s Wall was one of the largest architectural projects of the ancient world. The plan for this frontier included not only the wall, but also defensive landscaping, and a network of forts.The stone wall at the center of the plan has eroded over time, but is thought to have risen as high as 15 feet (4.5 meters), with a width that generally varied between 6 and 10 feet (2 to 3 meters). Deep ditches and mounds ran parallel to the wall to create an obstacle course for anyone trying to cross the border without permission. Authorized crossings were possible through well-guarded gates.

There were eventually sixteen forts built directly along the wall. Ideal spacing between them was 7 miles (11 kilometers), a distance equivalent to a half day’s march, though actual distances varied due to uneven terrain. Between these forts were smaller installations called milecastles. They were spaced a mile apart and between them stood watchtowers called turrets.Additional freestanding forts stood to the north and south of the defensive landscaping. This layered design allowed for constant surveillance, quick communication, and the rapid deployment of troops. [2]

An unusual frontier

The Roman empire claimed territory in Europe, North Africa, and West Asia, and each imperial frontier had a different appearance. The one running through Germany (Germania), for instance, made extensive use of wooden fencing.In comparison, Hadrian’s Wall took the concept of a stone wall encircling a city or fort and applied it to the northern edge of a province that was otherwise surrounded by the sea. Although Hadrian did not leave records describing why he ordered a new defensive system for Britannia, he is famous for sponsoring other ambitious and innovative architectural projects such as his Pantheon in Rome and his Villa at Tivoli.

Community perspectives

The wall’s significance varied among Britannia’s diverse residents. For the soldiers who came from all over the Roman empire to construct and repair the wall and defend its forts, this frontier zone was a place of work, camaraderie, and even family life. Perspectives of the island’s Celtic communities can be difficult to recover due to a lack of written sources, but the wall certainly cut across ancestral lands. Material evidence from the Chesters and South Shields forts helps us imagine the experiences of these different groups.

Chesters Fort (Cilurnum)

Chesters (ancient Cilurnum) had the typical shape of a Roman fort: a rectangle with curved corners. Directly connected to the wall, the fort projected north toward contested territory and south into the Roman province.

Chesters housed about 500 cavalrymen, including a unit from Roman Spain. [3] In the fort’s northeastern corner are remains of barracks, rows of narrow rooms that resemble modern dormitories. The cavalrymen lived here to deploy quickly through the northern gates.<

The belongings that they sometimes left behind are now displayed at the site’s museum, along with finds from nearby forts. Metal adornments and figurines have survived due to their lasting materials, as have stone monuments dedicated to different gods.Remains of Hadrian’s Wall can still be seen descending toward the River North Tyne. Chesters guarded this vulnerable location, where the river cut across the wall’s defenses. A Roman bridge once stood here so that soldiers could conduct patrols across the water.

South Shields Fort (Arbeia)

Whereas Chesters Fort stood near the center of the island, South Shields Fort (ancient Arbeia) had a strategic location on the frontier’s eastern end. Located where the River Tyne flows into the North Sea, this freestanding<fort served as a clearinghouse for the frontier’s supplies.Sections of South Shields Fort have been reconstructed for visitors. The western gateway has been rebuilt to show its stone archways and towers. The commander’s residence within the fort has been reconstructed to reveal a painted dining room (triclinium) where elite officers and visitors could dine comfortably on cushioned couches. These reconstructions help us imagine what it was like to enter a Roman fort and to live in one. Tombstones preserve the names of the frontier’s residents.

Tombstones for Regina and Victor 

Most of the tombstones from the frontier commemorate fallen soldiers, yet an especially lavish one from South Shields Fort honors a woman named Regina, who likely died between 175 and 200 C.E. [4] The relief sculpture shows her seated in a wicker chair, wearing regionally popular clothes and jewelry, and holding sewing equipment in a pose that showcased a woman’s expected skills. Her head is now missing, but probably did not capture Regina’s appearance. Relief sculptures on tombstones often featured generic rather than particular people, with individual identities communicated through inscriptions.The tombstone’s Latin inscription tells us that Regina was approximately thirty years old when she died and that she was a member of the Celtic Catuvellauni people of southern England. It also tells us that she was the enslaved servant and then the wife of a man named Barates, who set up the monument. Barates was from Palmyra, Syria, and added a phrase of mourning in the Palmyrene language and script just beneath the Latin.It would be extremely valuable to know what Regina thought of frontier life, but evidence for her own perspective does not survive. Barates likely freed her so that they could marry, but how she became enslaved in the first place remains a mystery. Regina’s story nonetheless reminds us that women were present in the frontier zone and that the identities of Celtic peoples, such as the formerly powerful Catuvellauni, persisted long after Rome’s invasion. [5]

Regina was not the only freedperson commemorated at Arbeia. Another tombstone honors a man named Victor, who came from Rome’s Mauretanian provinces in northwestern Africa. [6] He likely died between 150 and 200 C.E. His tombstone has an architectural frame with pilasters and a triangular pediment. [7] The main relief sculpture shows a man reclining on a banqueting couch, with a servant (perhaps an enslaved one) standing beneath and offering a cup. These figures are a good example of the hierarchy of scale in art, with the more important person (the banqueter) shown in a relatively larger size. Details in this particular scene, such as the carving of the drapery folds, have parallels at Palmyra, and the sculptor may have traveled from that region. Banqueting imagery was common in funerary art and often reflected aspirations rather than reality.<

The Latin inscription beneath the figures tells us that Victor was approximately twenty years old when he died. It also indicates that he had been owned and then freed by a man named Numerianus, who served in a cavalry unit from Roman Spain. Given that tombstones were often set up by close friends or loved ones, scholars have wondered if Victor and Numerianus became partners.These and other tombstones document the complex identities, relationships, and journeys of the people who lived and worked along Hadrian’s Wall. They remind us that enslaved individuals and freedpersons contributed to frontier life, though only a select few were commemorated with luxuriously sculpted monuments.

Commemorating Hadrian’s Wall

Ancient souvenirs from Hadrian’s Wall have been found in northern France and southern England, regions where soldiers retired. These rare mementoes are small metal vessels decorated with colorful enameling that has faded over time. One design (shown above) combines names of the wall’s forts with depictions of a fortified stone wall.

An alternative design survives on an artifact discovered by metal detector in 2003. [8] This composition combines names of the wall’s forts with swirling patterns typical of Celtic aesthetics, which remained popular in Britain for centuries after Roman conquest. [9] These vessels reveal how craftsmen evoked the frontier for those who wished to remember it.

Hadrian’s Wall as heritage

In the early 400s C.E., the Roman empire withdrew from the island because of ongoing land and sea attacks by rival powers. Yet remains of the wall and its forts have endured. Hiking Hadrian’s Wall has become a popular activity, with a well-mapped trail following the wall’s ruins over hills and valleys. Many of the forts along the way, such as Chesters, are managed as tourist destinations by English Heritage. UNESCO even recognizes the entire frontier as a World Heritage site. [10] This is a fascinating fate for a wall that began as a divisive barrier built by invaders.See also:English Heritage, “Hadrian’s Wall”Learn more about Chesters Fort (and look at a plan)Source:  Dr. Kimberly Cassibry, “Hadrian’s Wall,” in Smarthistory, November 9, 2022, accessed October 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/hadrian-building-the-wall/

The Arch of Septimius Severus, portal to ancient Rome

by Dr. Darius Arya and Dr. Beth Harris

Triumphal Arch of Septimius Severus, 203 C.E., marble above a travertine base, roughly 23 x 25 m, Roman Forum, speakers: Dr. Darius Arya, executive director of the American Institute for Roman Culture and Dr. Beth Harris

 

Video URL: https://youtu.be/mbzqlOj-yHU
Source: Dr. Darius Arya and Dr. Beth Harris, “The Arch of Septimius Severus, portal to ancient Rome,” in Smarthistory, June 10, 2020, accessed October 3, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/arch-septimius-severus-ancient-rome/.

Baths of Caracalla

by Jessica Mingoia

The remains of broken vaults, towering arches, and expansive walls soar into the air, some as high as 130 feet. Rooms now lie open to the sky above while colorful mosaics still remain underfoot. Although the Baths of Caracalla retain only a fraction of their former opulence, the sprawling complex, the second largest ancient baths in Rome, is still impressive today.

Expansive public bathing complexes like the Baths of Caracalla were made possible thanks to the extensive aqueducts that the Romans constructed to supply water to cities like Rome. A new aqueduct, the Aqua Antoniniana (a branch of the earlier Aqua Marcia), was constructed to transport water to the baths. The Via Nova (New Road), was also created to provide access to the structure. This new construction, as well as the structure itself and the decorations within it, were paid for from imperial funds.The structures were comprised of brick-faced concrete, which was once hidden under marble, mosaics, and decorative stucco work, topped with enormous vaults covered with polychrome glass mosaic. These vaults contained coffers that helped reduce their weight. Today, much of the decoration is gone, leaving the brick-faced concrete exposed.

The importance of bathing

Bathing was an essential part of ancient Roman urban life and spending the afternoon in the baths was a normal occurrence. The ancient Romans believed that daily exercise and bathing were necessary components to maintaining a healthy lifestyle, which is not so different from us today. The baths were also places to socialize and even conduct business.The baths were a place where all levels of Roman society could mix. While some elite ancient Romans did have small baths in their homes and villas, even they would sometimes frequent public baths. Because the baths were free and open to the public, the non-elite peoples of Rome could also enjoy these lavish facilities.Marcus Agrippa, the best friend and son-in-law of Augustus (the first emperor of Rome), is credited with building the city’s first permanent public bathing complex in the Campus Martius in 25 B.C.E. Over the next three centuries, various emperors of Rome constructed their own bath complexes. This not only helped serve the growing population of Rome, but also allowed emperors to leave a lasting legacy. Baths were not only found in the capital city, but in cities across the empire. However, even though imperial bath complexes (thermae) had existed for as long as the empire had, Caracalla’s baths dwarfed all the others.

More than just baths

Though today we label the structure as “baths,” the bathing rooms make up only one portion of these large complexes. Located near the Aventine Hill in Rome, the complex sprawls across an area of approximately 27 acres. It was surrounded by a large perimeter wall, and public shops lined the entire northeast wall as well as portions of the northwest and southeast walls.

The main entrance into the complex was in the center of the northwest wall. Upon entering, visitors would be confronted with extensive, manicured gardens beyond which rose the walls of the bath building. The gardens surrounded the entire bath building within the precinct walls and included plants, walking paths, and fountains.

Part of the southeast and northwest precinct walls were designed as large exedrae (the semicircular areas) containing additional rooms such as gymnasia, lecture halls, and nymphaea (monumental fountains or grottos).

Other rooms in the precinct walls include two large libraries, one for Greek texts and one for Latin. Only one of the libraries remains today, heavily damaged but still recognizable. Within it are 32 large niches which once held wooden shelves on which papyrus scrolls had rested. A monumental niche topped with a half-dome in the center of the wall opposite the entrance originally held a sculpture. The floor was covered in opus sectile (cut stonework) made up of expensive marbles. Masonry benches running the interior perimeter of the room provided seating. Many of the marble columns in the library survived for centuries but were removed in the 12th century and reused in the Church of Santa Maria in Trastevere in Rome.On the far side of each library were two large staircases which linked the southwestern side of the complex with the neighboring Aventine Hill. Between the two libraries was a stadium for athletic events which also functioned as a running track, surrounded on three sides with a seating area. Behind that was a large, two-story reservoir connected to the Aqua Antoniniana. Water was also held in various cisterns around the property and transported to the baths and fountains through underground pipes.

The bathing block 

The changing room

The design of the baths was symmetrical on the central axis, with male-only rooms on one side, female on the other, and the bathing rooms in the middle. Every bather’s first stop was the male or female apodyterium (changing room). Here, visitors could store their clothes in individual cubbies. Many wealthy Romans would bring an enslaved person with them to watch over their belongings, as items were sometimes stolen from the changing rooms. Their next step was to oil their bodies prior to exercise and, if wanted, they could either purchase a massage or be massaged by someone they enslaved.

Palestrae (open-air exercise areas) and steam rooms

After this, guests would head to one of the two palestrae (open-air exercise areas). In these spaces they could stretch, lift weights, play ball, and in the case of the men, wrestle, or box. Some visitors would also run in the stadium. Post-exercise, the next stop was the steam rooms. The baths are thought to have offered both wet steam rooms (sudatoria) and dry heat rooms (laconica). Visitors (or an enslaved person) would then scrape away the oil on their bodies to cleanse themselves with an item known as a strigil, or scraper. This would help remove the dirt and sweat from their bodies before entering the pools.

Hot baths

After this, it was time to move to the hot baths. In this complex, the caldarium was a large circular room topped with a 130-foot dome, which is nearly as large as the Pantheon. However, unlike the Pantheon, which had an oculus or open window in the center of the dome, the caldarium was lit by three-tiers of large glass-covered windows which faced onto the gardens outside. The windows of both the caldarium and steam rooms faced the southwest where they could receive the most sunlight, and therefore additional warmth throughout the day, consciously employed by the architects. One bathing pool was in the center of the caldarium (“A” on the plan) under the dome while seven others were in rectangular niches encircling most of the room.

Warm baths

Once finished, one would proceed to the tepidarium (warm baths). This was a smaller space with only two pools and served as a transitionary area between the hot and cold baths. Some Romans would even use this bath twice: both before and after the hot baths to help make the transition between the different temperature pools easier. The warm and hot baths were both heated by underground furnaces which would circulate hot air beneath the floors and in the walls.

Cold baths, fountains, and pools

The frigidarium (cold baths) was located in the grandest hall of the complex. The rectangular hall was topped by three massive groin vaults more than 100 feet tall. Both the walls and floor were clad in expensive marble, and there were four colossal marble columns on each of the short ends of the hall. A pathway was left open between the middle two columns on each end of the room, but sculptures were placed between the others, including a marble copy of Lysippos’s Weary Herakles statue, known today as the Farnese Herakles.Additionally, the hall contained fountains and pools, two of which are now located in fountains in the Palazzo Farnese in Rome (with later additions) and one of which is now at the National Archaeological Museum of Naples. Clerestory windows helped to light the vast space. Four plunge pools were located in the corners of the room, but the hall also served as a meeting place and main passageway to other areas of the baths. The two pools closest to the natatio (swimming pool), were separated from it only by waterfalls which created a glistening wall between the two spaces. The natatio could be entered between columns located beneath a monumental archway on the northeast side of the frigidarium.

Unlike the other bathing areas, the natatio was open to the sky. It was surrounded on four sides by walls approximately 65 feet tall. The pool itself was approximately 164 feet long and 72 feet wide, nearly identical to the size of Olympic swimming pools today. The southwest wall was mostly open to the frigidarium, but the northeast wall was divided into three sections separated by colossal gray granite columns. Part of the wall functioned as a nymphaeum, creating the effect of a waterfall. The areas in between were filled with niches and statuary and clad in marble in a way that resembled the scaenae frons (architectural stage façade), of a Roman theatre. The pool itself was approximately three feet deep and was a place for both exercise and socializing. There was even a game board carved into the marble of one of the blocks surrounding the pool where people could sit and play together.

The baths were said to accommodate 1,600 bathers at one time and up to as many as 8,000 each day. There was once a second story over some parts of the building, as evidenced by staircases, but the remains at this level are so incomplete that the function of the upper story is unknown.

The grandest baths in the city

At the time when they were constructed, the Baths of Caracalla were the largest and grandest in the city. Caracalla spared no expense with the decorations. There were precious imported marble columns and slabs to cover the floors and walls, extensive (and expensive) marble sculptures, and colorful mosaics. Some of the vaults were covered in glass-paste mosaics, others in decorative stuccowork. Very little of the marble decoration survives, though some small pieces can still be seen on the walls. Many of the floor mosaics are still on site today including colorful geometric patterns, black and white seascapes. Mosaics of athletes originally in the palestrae are now located in the Vatican Museums.

The overall design of the building was one of opulence, from the soaring vaults to the marble covered walls and colored mosaics. Sunlight streaming through the windows once reflected off the pools and fountains, sending sparkles dancing across the highly polished marble and glittering glass mosaics. The public areas of the complex were meant to dazzle, but a large portion of the structure was actually hidden from view.

The service areas

The Baths of Caracalla sit atop a large series of subterranean chambers. These rooms and hallways were like a small city all by themselves. Together, the known tunnels are more than a mile in length, though there are others still unexcavated. The barrel-vaulted halls were wide enough for horse-led carts to transport wood to the approximately 50 underground furnaces. One tunnel connected directly to the Via Antonina to allow carts to enter the underground areas easily and out of sight of the guests. The furnaces consumed approximately 10 tons of wood each day, fires that were stoked all day long by enslaved people to keep the caldarium and steam rooms hot. Hot air from the furnaces would circulate through a hypocaust system, an open space a few feet high located above the underground rooms, but below the flooring of the bathing rooms. This space contained rows of stacks of bricks known as pilae. Air would circulate between them at this level and move upwards through pipes in the walls. This was aided by a hydraulic system which permitted a controlled distribution of air through the pipes.

In addition, there were large storage rooms for wood, linens, oil, and other supplies. Staircases led from the underground areas into the baths themselves so enslaved people could supply the visitors with linens and oil. Hidden corridors and stairs were located in many of the walls and piers (large, rectangular supports) out of view of the bathers. There was also an underground Mithraeum, a sanctuary dedicated to the god Mithras.

Later History

The baths served as inspiration for other structures such as the Baths of Diocletian and the Basilica of Maxentius in Rome and even more modern buildings like the old Pennsylvania Station in New York City. The baths remained in operation until 537 C.E. when Ostragoths destroyed the aqueduct leading to the structure during a siege of Rome, ending the water supply and leading to its abandonment. Over the years, the complex fell into disrepair due to earthquakes and was later used as a quarry for building materials in the late medieval and Renaissance periods.During the Italian Renaissance, the structure was excavated with the intention of obtaining sculptures and other finds for private and the papal collections. Scientific excavations did not begin until the 19th century. Though little to none of the grand marble revetment remains and most of the vaults and ceilings no longer exist, you can still get a sense of massive scale when visiting the baths today.

See also:  Virtual Walk-through of the Reconstruction of the Baths of CaracallaSource:  Jessica Mingoia, “Baths of Caracalla,” in Smarthistory, June 10, 2022, accessed October 3, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/baths-of-caracalla/.

Leptis Magna

by UNESCO
Leptis Magna was enlarged and embellished by Septimius Severus, who was born there and later became emperor. It was one of the most beautiful cities of the Roman Empire, with its imposing public monuments, harbor, market-place, storehouses, shops and residential districts.

Video URL: https://youtu.be/i0nfdSy7vD0Source: UNESCO, “Leptis Magna,” in Smarthistory, May 27, 2021, accessed October 3, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/leptis-magna/.

LATE EMPIRE 235-410 CE

Portraiture

• Trebonianus Gallus
• The Four Tetrarchs
• Colossus of Constantine

Sculpture

• Symmachi Panel

Architecture

• Basilica of Maxentius and Constantine
• Arch of Constantine

 

Portraiture 

Trebonianus Gallus — emperor or athlete? Rethinking a modern attribution

by Dr. Elizabeth Marlowe and Dr. Beth Harris

In the chaos of the 3rd century, can we be sure about the identification of this statue?

Bronze statue of the emperor Trebonianus Gallus, 251-53 C.E., bronze, 241.3 cm high (The Metropolitan Museum of Art) Speakers: Dr. Elizabeth Marlowe and Dr. Beth Harris.   Video URL: https://youtu.be/QDPSayuUNl0
Further reading:This work at The Metropolitan Museum of ArtDr. Elizabeth Marlowe, “Said to be or not said to be: the findspot of the so-called Trebonianus Gallus statue at the Metropolitan Museum in New York,” Journal of the History of Collections, vol. 27, issue 2 (July 2015)Roman Portrait Sculpture: The Stylistic Cycle on The Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Heilbrunn Timeline of Art HistorySource: Dr. Elizabeth Marlowe and Dr. Beth Harris, “Trebonianus Gallus — emperor or athlete? Rethinking a modern attribution,” in Smarthistory, April 16, 2018, accessed October 3, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/trebonianus-gallus-emperor-or-athlete-rethinking-a-modern-attribution/.

Portraits of the Four Tetrarchs

by Dr. Steven Zucker and Dr. Beth Harris

Learn how the solid, abstracted forms of these co-emperors reject earlier understanding of the human body.

Portraits of the Four Tetrarchs, from Constantinople, c. 305, porphyry, 4′ 3″ high (St. Marks, Venice)   

Video URL: https://youtu.be/Dui5V8TZYbE

Source:  Dr. Steven Zucker and Dr. Beth Harris, “Portraits of the Four Tetrarchs,” in Smarthistory, December 10, 2015, accessed October 3, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/portraits-of-the-four-tetrarchs/.

The Colossus of Constantine

by Dr. Beth Harris and Dr. Steven Zucker

Does the abstraction of form and faraway look in this colossal portrait hint at the growth of Christianity in Rome?

The Colossus of Constantine, c. 312–15 (Palazzo dei Conservatori, Musei Capitolini, Rome)   

Video URL: https://youtu.be/MuD06cnjtAM

See also:   Replica of Constantine

View on Google Maps

Source: Dr. Beth Harris and Dr. Steven Zucker, “The Colossus of Constantine,” in Smarthistory, December 9, 2015, accessed October 3, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/the-colossus-of-constantine/.

Sculpture

The Symmachi Panel

by Dr. Beth Harris and Dr. Steven Zucker<

Holding on to pagan traditions in the early Christian era.

The Symmachi Panel, c. 400 C.E., ivory, 32 x 13 cm (Victoria and Albert Museum, London)   

Video URL: https://youtu.be/ca5bG939xL8

This work at the Victoria and Albert Museum

Source: Dr. Beth Harris and Dr. Steven Zucker, “The Symmachi Panel,” in Smarthistory, April 20, 2019, accessed October 3, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/symmachi-panel/.

Architecture

Basilica of Maxentius and Constantine

by Dr. Darius Arya and Dr. Beth Harris

Built using new technologies, this building is overwhelming and unprecedented—displaying Roman imperial power.

Basilica of Maxentius and Constantine (Basilica Nova), Roman Forum, c. 306-312   

Video URL:https://youtu.be/tZQJgqBcyw4

See this building on Google Maps

Source: Dr. Darius Arya and Dr. Beth Harris, “Basilica of Maxentius and Constantine,” in Smarthistory, December 15, 2015, accessed October 3, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/basilica-of-maxentius-and-constantine/.

Arch of Constantine, Rome

by Dr. Andrew Findley

For the first time, a Roman emperor celebrated victory over fellow Romans, and appropriated the art of earlier rulers.

Speakers: Dr. Beth Harris and Dr. Steven Zucker. Video produced by Dr. Naraelle Hohensee, Dr. Steven Zucker and Dr. Beth Harris.  Video URL:  https://youtu.be/vvDcrzeBRyM

The Emperor Constantine, called Constantine the Great, was significant for several reasons. These include his political transformation of the Roman Empire, his support for Christianity, and his founding of Constantinople (modern day Istanbul). Constantine’s status as an agent of change also extended into the realms of art and architecture. The Triumphal Arch of Constantine in Rome is not only a superb example of the ideological and stylistic changes Constantine’s reign brought to art, but also demonstrates the emperor’s careful adherence to traditional forms of Roman Imperial art and architecture.

Location and Appearance

The Arch of Constantine is located along the Via Triumphalis in Rome, and it is situated between the Flavian Amphitheater (better known as the Colosseum) and the Temple of Venus and Roma. This location was significant, as the arch was a highly visible example of connective architecture that linked the area of the Forum Romanum (Roman Forum) to the major entertainment and public bathing complexes of central Rome.

The monumental arch stands approximately 20 meters high, 25 meters wide, and 7 meters deep. Three portals punctuate the exceptional width of the arch, each flanked by partially engaged Corinthian columns. The central opening is approximately 12 meters high, above which are identical inscribed marble panels, one on each side, that read:

To the Emperor Caesar Flavius Constantinus, the Greatest,
pious, fortunate, the Senate and people of Rome,
by inspiration of divinity and his own great mind
with his righteous arms
on both the tyrant and his faction
in one instant in rightful
battle he avenged the republic,
dedicated this arch as a memorial to his military victory

The end of the Tetrarchy

Beginning in the late 3rd century, the Roman Empire was ruled by four co-emperors (two senior emperors and two junior emperors), in an effort to bring political stability after the turbulent 3rd century. But in 312 C.E., Constantine took control over the Western Roman Empire by defeating his co-emperor Maxentius at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge (and soon after became the sole ruler of the empire). The inscription on the arch refers to Maxentius as the tyrant and portrays Constantine as the rightful ruler of the Western Empire. Curiously, the inscription also attributes the victory to Constantine’s “great mind” and the inspiration of a singular divinity. The mention of divine inspiration has been interpreted by some scholars as a coded reference to Constantine’s developing interest in Christian monotheism.

Sculpture from different eras

Perhaps the most striking feature of the Arch is its eclectic and stylistically varied relief sculptures. Some aspects of the sculpture are quite standard, like the Victoria (or Nike) figures that occupy the spandrels above the central archway or the typical architectural moldings found in most imperial Roman public and religious architecture (below).

Other sculpted elements, however, show a multiplicity of styles. In fact, most scholars accept that many of the sculptures of the arch were spolia taken from older monuments dating to the 2nd century C.E. Although there is some scholarly disagreement on the origins of the sculptures, their imperial style corresponds to those of the reigns of Trajan (ruled 98-117 C.E.—the figures surmounting the decorative columns), Hadrian (ruled 117-138 C.E.—the middle register roundels), and Marcus Aurelius (ruled 161-180 C.E.—the large panel reliefs on the top registers). Most of the reliefs feature the emperors participating in codified activities that demonstrate the ruler’s authority and piety by addressing troops, defeating enemies, distributing largesse, and offering sacrifices.

Some sculptural elements of the structure also date to Constantine’s reign, most notably the frieze which is located immediately above the portals. These relief sculptures are of a drastically different style and narrative content when compared with the spoliated (older, borrowed) sections (below, left); Constantine’s relief sculptures (below, right) feature squat and blocky figures that are more abstract than they are naturalistic.

 

The Constantinian reliefs also depict historical, rather than general events related to Constantine, including his rise to power and victory over Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge. There is also a scene of Constantine distributing largesse (funds) to the public—recalling the scenes of emperors from the earlier sculptures.

Clarity of form

Regarding style, the relief figures from Constantine’s age still seem like outliers. Yet in comparison to the idealized naturalism of the earlier sculptural elements (for example, in the roundels in the image below), the thick, bold outlines of the Constantinian figures render them remarkably legible to passersby. While the Constantinian figures lack natural aesthetics, their clarity of form ensured that they were informative and communicated Constantine’s official (and celebrated) history to viewers of his own time.

Analysis and Meaning

Until relatively recently, art historians viewed the blocky sculptures and use of spolia in the arch as signs of poor craftsmanship, deficient artistry, and economic decline in the late Roman Empire (this reading is now almost wholly rejected by art historians). Even one of the most prolific and influential art historians of the modern age, Bernard Berenson, titled his short book on the arch, The Arch of Constantine: The Decline of Form. More recently, however, analysis of the arch has focused on the political and ideological goals of Constantine and the objectives of the artists, which has highlighted new possibilities for the interpretation of the arch.

If, indeed, the spoliated (older) material from the arch can be traced to the reigns of Trajan, Hadrian, and Marcus Aurelius, then it situates Constantine as one worthy of the same level of reverence as those emperors—all of whom earned deserved levels of acclaim. This was vitally important to Constantine, who had himself essentially bypassed lawful succession and usurped power from others. Moreover, Constantine encouraged major social changes in Rome, such as decriminalizing Christianity. Any religious change was a threat to the ruling and political classes of Rome. By aligning himself with well-regarded emperors of Rome’s 2nd-century C.E. golden age, Constantine was signaling that he intended to model his rule after earlier, successful leaders.

Additional resources:
The Arch on Google Maps

List of rulers of the Roman Empire on the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History

The Roman Empire on The Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History

Source: Dr. Andrew Findley, “Arch of Constantine, Rome,” in Smarthistory, November 25, 2015, accessed October 2, 2024, https://smarthistory.org/arch-of-constantine-rome/