Claire SmithEditor

Encyclopedia ofGlobal Archaeology

With 2619 Figures and 106 Tables

EditorClaire SmithDepartment of ArchaeologyFlinders UniversityAdelaide, SAAustralia

ISBN 978-1-4419-0426-3 ISBN 978-1-4419-0465-2 (eBook)ISBN 978-1-4419-0466-9 (print and electronic bundle)DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2Springer New York Heidelberg Dordrecht London

Library of Congress Control Number: 2013953915

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole orpart of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse ofillustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way,and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software,or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from thislegal reservation are brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis or materialsupplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, forexclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof ispermitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the Publisher’s location, in itscurrent version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer. Permissions foruse may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance Center. Violations are liableto prosecution under the respective Copyright Law.The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in thispublication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names areexempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date ofpublication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legalresponsibility for any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty,express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein.

Printed on acid-free paper

Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

BARRETT, J.H., D. ORTON, C. JOHNSTONE, J. HARLAND,W. VAN

NEER, A. ERVYNCK, C. ROBERTS, A.M. LOCKER, C. AMUND-

SEN, I. BØDKER ENGHOFF, S. HAMILTON-DYER, D. HEINRICH,

A.K. HUFTHAMMER, A.K.G. JONES, L. JONSSON, D.

MAKOWIECKI, P. POPE, T.C. O’CONNELL, T. DE ROO &

M. RICHARDS. 2011. Interpreting the expansion of sea

fishing in medieval Europe using stable isotope

analysis of archaeological cod bones. Journal ofArchaeological Science 38: 1516-25.

BEECH, M.J. 2004. Abu Dhabi Islands archaeologicalsurvey monograph 1 - In the land of the Ichthyophagi:modelling fish exploitation in the Arabian Gulf andGulf of Oman from the 5th millennium BC to the LateIslamic period (British Archaeological Reports

International series S1217). Oxford: ArchaeoPress.

BØDKER-ENGHOFF, I. 2005. Viking Age fishing in Denmark,

with particular focus on the freshwater site Viborg,

methods of excavation, and smelt fishing, in

H. Huster-Plogmann (ed.) The role of fish in ancienttime: 69-76. Rahden/Westf.: Verlag Marie Leidorf

GmbH.

BUTLER, V.L. 2011. Anadromous salmonids in the Upper

Klamath basin before hydro-development? Identifica-

tion of Pacific salmonid (Onchorhynchus spp.) species

and life history through mtDNA and geochemical

analysis of archaeological remains. Paper presented

at the 16th Meeting of the ICAZ Fish Remains

Working Group, Jerusalem, October 23rd -30th, 2011.

CASTEEL, R.W. 1976. Fish remains in archaeology andpaleoenvironmental studies. London: Academic Press.

CLARK, J.G.D. 1948. Development of fishing in prehistoric

Europe. The Antiquaries Journal 28 (1-2): 45-8.

COLLINS, M., J. HARLAND, M. BUCKLER & A. JONES. 2009.

ZooMS: Zooarchaeology by mass spectrometry,

collagen as a molecular fingerprint for fish remains?,

in D. Makowiecki, S. Hamilton-Dyer, N. Trzaska-

Nartowski & N. Makohonienko (ed.) 2009. Fishes-culture-environment through archaeoichthyology,ethnography and history (Environment and Culture 7):

191-3. Poznan: Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe.

ERLANDSON, J.M. & M. MOSS. 2001. Shellfish feeders,

Carrion eaters and the archaeology of aquatic adapta-

tions. American Antiquity 66(3): 413-32.FLANNERY, K.V. 1968. Origins and ecological effects

of early domestication in Iran and the Near East, in

P.J. Ucko & G.W. Dimbleby (ed.) The domesticationand exploitation on plants and animals: 73-100.

London: Gerald Duckworth & Co Ltd.

KETTLE, A.J., E. ROSELLO-IZQUIERDO, A. MORALES-MUNIZ,

D. HEINRICH & A. VOLLESTAD. 2010. Refugia of marine

fish in the Northeast Atlantic during the Last

Glacial Maximum: concordant assessment from

archaeozoology and palaeotemperature reconstruc-

tions. Climate of the Past Discussions 6: 1-39.LEACH, F. 2006. Fishing in pre-European New Zealand.

Archaeofauna 15: 1-266.

MORALES, A. 2010. Inferences about prehistoric fishing

gear based on archaeological fish assemblages, in

T. Bekker-Nielsen & D. Bernal Casasola (ed.) Ancient

nets and fishing gear: 25-53. Aarhus: Aarhus Univer-sity Press & Servicio de Publicaciones, Universidad de

Cadiz.

ROSELLO, E. 1989. Arqueoictiofaunas ibericas.

Aproximacion metodologica y bio-cultural.

Unpublished PhD dissertation, Universidad Autonoma

de Madrid, Madrid.

SAUVAGE, H.E. 1875. Essai sur la peche pendant

l’epoque du renne. Materiaux pour l’histoire del’homm, 2e serie 6: 308-15.

VAN NEER, W. 2004. Evolution of prehistoric fishing in

the Nile valley. Journal of African Archaeology2(2): 251-6.

VAN NEER, W. & A. ERVYNCK. 2004. Remains of traded

fish in archaeological sites: indicators of status, or bulk

food?, in S. Jones O’Day, W. Van Neer & A. Ervynck

(ed.) Behaviour behind bones. The zooarchaeology ofritual, religion, status and identity: 203-14. Oxford:Oxbow Books.

YANG, D.Y., A. CANNON & S.R. SAUNDERS. 2004. DNA

species identification of archaeological salmon bone

from a Pacific Northwest Coast of North America.

Journal of Archaeological Science 31: 619-31.ZOHAR, I. & M. BELMAKER. 2005. Size does matter:

methodological comments on sieve size and species

richness in fishbone assemblages. Journal ofArchaeological Science 32: 635-41.

Further ReadingCLEYET-MERLE, J.J. 1990. La prehistoire de la peche.

Paris: Editions Errance.

RICK, T.C. & J.M. ERLANDSON. (ed.) 2008. Human impactson ancient marine ecosystems: regional case studiesand global perspectives. Berkeley: University of

California Press.

STEWART, H. 1977. Indian fishing. Seattle: University of

Washington Press.

WHEELER, A. & A.K.G. JONES. 1989. Fishes. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Iconography in the Roman World

Matteo Cadario

Dipartimento di Scienza dell’Antichita, Sezione

di Archeologia, Universita degli Studi di Milano,

Milan, Italy

Introduction

The Roman world was populated by images.

They could be encountered everywhere, in both

public and private areas, as decorative aspects of

Iconography in the Roman World 3659 I

I

buildings or decorations on individual objects,

during shows, and on enduring monuments.

These images carried political, cultural, and eth-

ical messages that were relevant for the public

discourse, which promoted in a propagandistic

way values that were depicted as building blocks

of the collective identity. They were also relevant

for the private discourse for their contribution to

the illustration of the personal interests of owners

and consumers. The Roman culture was a visual

culture, the interaction between image and

spectator was very close, and images were one

of the most direct and efficient communication

channels.

Definition

For this entry, we have chosen to consider as

“Roman iconography” the ensemble of images

and figurative representations that were popular

in the Roman world of the Republican and

Imperial periods. The use of a more specific

definition to narrow the investigation to topics

considered more authentically Roman, in other

words without immediate and recognizable

Greek precedents (state-level ceremonies and

portraiture), would be misleading. In fact it is

very difficult to draw a distinction between the

two iconographic traditions; it would be

impossible to reconstruct the imaginary of an

era and its political, cultural, and social evolution.

Nevertheless, the studies of Paul Zanker on the

creation of the new visual language in the

Augustan period constitute an exemplary body

of work (Zanker 1987).

When we deal with iconography in the Roman

world, we have to face the problem of the close

relationship between reality and representation,

the key role of images in the preservation of

memories related to an event or a person, the

indissoluble connection between an image and its

model, and the ability to recreate the illusion of the

presence of a person by means of a static statue.

Consequently, an image could evoke strong reac-

tions in spectators (Gregory 1994). The power of

the image widens beyond its religious and propa-

gandistic meaning, as demonstrated by the various

ways inwhich images have been condemned in the

Roman society. Here we can recall the sanctions

against memory (referred to by scholars as

damnatio memoriae) imposed on the names and

images of unpopular emperors, disgraced family

members, and usurpers for reasons of politics and

ideology (Varner 2004).

Romans themselves were conscious of the

importance of images in their society; the

Greco-Roman culture of the Imperial period

focused its attention on the meaning of images

with the conviction that they covered a role of

primary importance for the paideia. The idea that

the role of imagination (phantasia) could bring

the artist closer to the poet was shared by

intellectuals. The description of images

(ekphrasis) became an autonomous genre in the

second century BCE; several authors adopted it

as their subject such as Philostratus the Elder and

Philostratus the Younger and Callistratus. Their

works offer a very interesting summary of ancient

iconographic and iconological thought and of its

exegetic methodology (Abbondanza 2008).

Another important field of investigation is the

ancient reaction to pantomime and the meaning

of the mythological tableaux vivant performed by

dancers: Plutarch, Lucian, and most of all

Libanius (Orationes 64.118) have in fact

described the connection between pantomime

and images, granted by the analogy between

durable iconographies, represented through mon-

uments, buildings and objects, and ephemeral

iconographies, visible at theatrical performances,

rituals, and public ceremonies.

Key Issues

A Ceremony That Generates Images: The

Triumph

In public art, the interaction between the reality

of state’s ceremonies and their idealized repre-

sentation was constant as we can deduce by

a brief analysis of the triumph, a ceremony capa-

ble of generating a wide iconographic repertoire

(La Rocca & Tortorella 2008). The triumph

itself was a sumptuous and multimedia sceno-

graphic show; images had a prominent role in

I 3660 Iconography in the Roman World

this scenario: statues and paintings were

exhibited in the parade (the so-called tabulae

pictae, painted panels representing the highlightsof military campaigns, together with the person-

ifications of defeated populations and the art-

works taken away from the enemy) together

with real tableaux vivants composed by the pris-

oners wearing their national costumes (Fig. 1c) or

by the triumphator driving the quadriga (chariot)wearing the characteristic triumphal clothing,

especially the toga picta (Fig. 1b–f).

The Roman triumph was also a subject for

iconography. The parade was part of the standard

repertoire of Roman public art, the ceremony

could have been depicted in its entirety (cf. the

processions illustrated in the “small friezes” of

the Arches of Titus and Septimius Severus in

Rome and the Arch of Trajan in Benevento

(Fig. 1e)), or just some of the main monuments

of the parade became subject of iconography

(the two reliefs illustrating the exhibit of the war

chest (Fig. 1d) and the quadriga of Titus (Fig. 1a)

located in the fornices of the Arch of Titus

provide a good synthesis of Jewish triumph in

71 CE). Besides, the triumphator could

have been depicted wearing his triumphal

costume (cf. the statues of the triumphali ornatuand the use of the triumphal crown) and the

tabulae pictae could have been transformed into

monuments.

The historical reliefs depicting the Parthianwar

of 198 CE on the Arch of Septimius Severus are

probably the marble copy of the paintings sent to

the senate by the emperor together with the written

reports of the military campaign (Herodian Ab

Excessu Divi Marci 3.9.12). The transposition of

these images on the triumphal arches erected along

the very same itinerary followed by the ceremony

increased the sense of correspondence between

reality and representation, highlighting also the

themes of eternality and universality of Rome’s

victory. The iconography of the Roman triumph

exploited the qualities of images to communicate

a message and the relationship between reproduc-

tion of a specific and unique ceremony and the

symbolic meaning of its never-ending repetition

in the many triumphs celebrated in Rome for

centuries.

Costumes and Statuesque Types in

Portraiture

Another key ceremony that helps to understand

the connection between reality and representation

in the Roman world is the funerals of nobles; they

had an important role in the transmission of

gentilician memory since the Republican period.

As has been reported by ancient historians

(Polybius Historiae 6.53.6-8; Diodorus Siculus

Bibliotheca Historica 31.25.2), during funeral

processions, actors represented the deceased’s

ancestors, wearing costumes (habitus) that

recalled the public role of the ancestors at the

peak of their political career while also wearing

a mask depicting their features. In Roman

society, in fact, social, political, public, and pri-

vate status were expressed through clothing;

accordingly, matters related to costume were

often at the center of public debate as shown by

the identity meaning attributed to the toga

in opposition to the Greek cloak/pallium

(Cadario 2010).

The creation in portraiture of a language

related to the bodies of statues comes from the

close relationship between costume and social

identity/status and from the relation between

choice of the statuary type and the motivations

behind the dedication of a statue (Fejfer 2008;

Cadario 2011). This language was based on the

functional distinction between the statue’s face

that had to depict features and character of the

person and its body that had to give more

“objective” information about public role,

career, and deeds. This language of bodies

was codified between the end of the Republic

and the beginning of the principate. It was

based on a conventional repertoire of statuary

types; often of Greek origin, it was changed in

its format, costume (habitus), posture, gesturesand “attributes” (insignia), and objects held by

the subject (patera, scroll, lituus, wand, globe,

lightning, weapons) or used as support located

at the side or underneath a foot (armor, shield,

rostrum, barbarian prisoner). Colors could also

give important information; for example, they

could help in distinguishing various kinds of

toga while the choice of the statuary kind was

done taking also into account the location, an

Iconography in the Roman World 3661 I

I

Iconography in the RomanWorld, Fig. 1 The iconog-

raphy of triumph. (a) Titus on triumphal quadriga (relief,

Rome, Arcus of Titus). (b) Octavian on triumphal

quadriga (Denarius struck by Octavian). (c) Triumphal

procession with prisoners (relief, Rome, Museo Nazionale

Romano). (d) Triumphal procession with spoils (relief,

Rome, Arcus of Titus). (e) Trajan on triumphal quadriga

(“small” frieze, Benevento, Arcus of Trajan). (f) Marcus

Aurelius on triumphal quadriga (relief, Rome, Musei

Capitolini)

I 3662 Iconography in the Roman World

essential part of the symbolic evaluation of

the statue’s dedication.

The diffusion of imperial statues and their

frequent reunions displaying cycles of various

members of a dynasty in power led to a clearer

standardization of the bodies’ language and an

increasing internal diversification of repertoire to

be able to express through the statuary types the

internal hierarchies among the honored as much

as their specific merits and public roles. The

buyers were taking into account the reciprocal

hierarchy and the meaning of each statuary type

when they had to establish the modalities to

honor the person.

The formats of Roman portraits, recalled also

by Pliny the Elder (HN 34.18-20) in hierarchical

order, included statues on cart (quadriga or biga)

and equestrian statues (Fig. 2a), in sitting position

(Fig. 2g) and standing. To these full-figured

images we have to add the so-called abbreviate

(imagines clipeatae (Fig. 2i), busts, herm) for-

mats; in this case, more importance was given

to the face, and the size of these statues offered

the advantages of handiness and cheapness and

they were mainly used in private funerals. For

what concerns male costumes in portraits, at least

in the western part of the empire, they were toga,

armor, and nudity, respectively, symbolic of

civilian, military, and “heroic” conditions. Other

costumes, such as the pallium (the Greek cloak),

were excluded from the public image in Rome,

but not in the Greek cities, where they continued

to illustrate the condition of good citizen; others,

such as statues with Lupercus’s or hunting

clothes were much more rare. On the other

hand, when it comes to female portraits, statuary

types gave little importance to the realism of the

costume (with a few exceptions: vestal portraits

and those where the subject was wearing a stola);they rather prefer to take inspiration from the

repertoire of Greek sculpture masterpieces to

emphasize qualities (fertility or beauty) or virtues

(chastity) and sometimes to give to the subject the

appearance of a goddess.

Toga was the Roman civilian robe by

excellence at least at official ceremonies, it was

symbol of citizenship, complex distinctions of

rank, class, and age (children wore an amulet

around the neck (bulla), while triumphal statues

wore the toga picta, identifiable by the colors).

Accordingly, the statue with a toga was the most

diffused and appreciated at all social levels; it

was adopted by both elites to indicate their career

and “provincials” to show their new status of

freeing or citizenship. The costume changed

over the centuries; its drapery evolved depending

on fashion, political, social, and cultural reasons

(Fig. 2b, c).

The cuirassed and naked statues, both

borrowed from the Hellenistic world, if

compared to the ones with togas, gave less spe-

cific information about the rank and career of the

subject honored, but they assigned him warrior

charisma and a superhuman aura. The cuirassed

statue (Fig. 2d), born as a royal costume, was

mainly used to highlight duties and military

merits, its main public use was progressively

limited to emperors and imperial family

members. This statuary type also offered the

advantage of using the armor’s surface for

decorations illustrating typical topics of military

propaganda; in this way, the cuirassed statue

became a very efficient figurative medium such

as in the breastplate of Augustus’ statue from

Prima Porta; the restitution of Crassus’ legionary

standards to the Roman people (20 BCE) has

been placed in a cosmologic contest coherent

with the beginning of the new golden age granted

by the Augustan peace (Fig. 2h).

Nudity has been considered a costume that did

not belong to the Roman tradition until the sec-

ond century BCE when the prejudice against

athletic nudity was overcome. After this,

weapons were exhibited to add military charisma

to the representation. The message, in naked or

semi-naked portraits, was symbolized by the

objects carried by the subject or used as

a support and by the drape of the cloak; the

drape could suggest heroic or divine characteris-

tics. Statues with the cloak worn around the hips

(Huftmantel) (Fig. 2e) were more prestigious if

compared to those that were completely naked

(Fig. 2f). These considerations over the meaning

of the costumes chosen are valid for statues as

well as for images with the toga, lorica, or nudity

included in reliefs, coins, or paintings.

Iconography in the Roman World 3663 I

I

“Roman” Iconographies: Public Ceremonies,

Ludi, and Scenes of Work

The tendency to create a repertoire common to

the entire empire is also present in another impor-

tant aspect of Roman art (Elsner 1998: 27-51).

The representation of significant historical events

and the reproduction of main ceremonies and

institutions typical of the public life constitute

a key component of Roman art and iconography

(Alfoldi 1999; Holliday 2002). A single historical

event could have been represented to amplify,

through its replica, its meaning in the political

competition. When the Numidian king Bocchus

delivered Jugurtha to Sulla in 105 BCE, he had

the scene engraved on the ring that he then used

as a seal; in 91 BCE, Bocchus represented the

event with a statuary group, the monumentaBocchi, erected in the area Capitolina; Marius

tried to destroy it, while Sulla restored it (82–80

BCE). Finally, Faustus, Sulla’s son, reproduced

Iconography in the RomanWorld, Fig. 2 Language of

bodies in Roman portrait. (a) Equestrian statue of M.

Nonius Balbus from Herculaneum (Napoli, Museo

Archeologico). (b) Republican togate statue, the so-called

Arringatore (Florence, Museo Archeologico). (c) Togate

statue of Augustus from Via Labicana (Rome,

Museo Nazionale Romano). (d) Cuirassed statue of

Drusus Maior from Caere (Rome, Musei Vaticani).

(e) Hip-mantle nude statue of Divus Claudius (Ancient

Olympia Museum). (f) Nude statue of Gaius Caesar

(Ancient Corinth Museum). (g) Seated togate statue

(Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano). (h) Breastplate of

Augustus’ cuirassed statue from Prima Porta (Rome,

Musei Vaticani). (i) Imago clipeata with a togate bust

from Cuma (Museo Archeologico dei Campi Flegrei)

I 3664 Iconography in the Roman World

again the handover of Jugurtha on a coin minted

in 56 BCE (RRC 426) (Fig. 3), probably copying

the image originally created for the signet ring.

The same iconography was replicated through

different media, in both private and public con-

texts, in two or three dimensions, for almost 50

years covering an important role of propaganda

during the first half of the first century BCE.

The ceremonial and military functions of the

state usually celebrated the commitment of the

emperor, the army, and that of the most important

state magistrates, all the while carrying

a propagandistic content. The language used

was cultured due to the level of the clients. The

most frequently attested iconographies (scenes of

triumph, battle, clemency and barbarian subjec-

tion, speech to troops (adlocutio), return and

departure for the war (adventus et profectio),sacrifice, civilian oration, food distribution, apo-

theosis, etc.) were represented through various

figurative media and realized at various scales

according to the space available. Coins in partic-

ular provide an excellent source of information

since they reproduce on a small scale a basic

version of the same iconographies of the official

historical reliefs together with legends that

nowadays can be almost used as captions of the

reliefs, too. So the legend decursio on a Neronian

sestertius representing a single galloping

horseman(RIC1 145) explains also the two

horsemen “carousel” scenes located on the panels

at the base of the Column of Marcus Aurelius,

next to the apotheosis of Antoninus Pius and

Faustina Maior: these two reliefs represent only

a more elaborate version of the same subject.

A ceremony could have also been represented

in a symbolic way, for instance, reproducing just

the objects used during the ceremony and/or one

or more categories of the participants. The icon-

ographical scene of the sacrifice is a good exam-

ple of this (Ryberg 1955). The various phases of

the Roman ritual had been carefully selected to

attribute to each one of them a direct or indirect

easily recognizable iconography (Huet et al.

2004). The images of the procession of victims

(Fig. 8) and musicians recalled the preliminary

rituals (praefatio); libation was illustrated by the

figure of the officiant of the ceremony pouring the

contents of the patera over the altar; the killing

(immolatio) and examination of the victim’s vis-

cera were represented by the victimarius depicted

in the act of striking the figure of the already dead

animal; only the final banquet was not

represented. Usually more actions, consecutive

during the ritual, were represented in the same

scene as shown by the Altar of the Qurtii from

Angera (Fig. 4): libation was located at the center

to highlight the figure of the ceremony’s officiant

or sponsor; the figures of some of the assistants,

such as the flautist and one of the sacrificial

victims, were used to refer to the previous and

successive scenes of the ceremony (praefatio et

immolatio).

Other iconographies were part of this official

repertoire, they did not describe specific ceremo-

nies, and consequently, they could be used in

various scenes to introduce a reminder of the

Roman ideology of victory. Those are images of

trophies, often accompanied by winged victories,

and prisoners of war. Images of prisoners,

wearing different ethnic costumes to distinguish

eastern and northern barbarians and depicted at

the moment of defeat or clemency, and finally the

images related to the personification of subdued

populations and provinces were useful to mark

the geographical extent of the empire.

Iconography in the Roman World, Fig. 3 Denarius

struck by Faustus Cornelius Sulla

Iconography in the Roman World 3665 I

I

Other images, usually excluded from official

art, show salient moments of civilian life. The

people who promoted the games (editores) were

often those who started this iconographic tradi-

tion with the intention to immortalize their gen-

erosity (liberalitas). The procedure was similar to

the state’s ceremonial but simplified; an icono-

graphic koine was created for each ludus, and it

was realized through various figurative media

and constituted by the representation of the

show by a selection of its most relevant moments:

munera gladiatoriawere represented by the duels

between gladiators, with different contexts and

participants according to the specialty (Fig. 5a).

In the venationes (scenes of hunting), the moment

of the fight against the animal was depicted

(Fig. 5a); circus games were represented by the

initial processions and racing quadriga, and

the background was often the one of the architec-

tonic and sacred landscape of the Circus

Maximus in Rome (Fig. 5b). The athletic games

were summarized in the sequence of the three

most violent matches: boxing, pankration, and

wrestling; these events reminded viewers of the

earlier Greek iconographic tradition (Fig. 5c).

Finally, we have to recall the “public” reper-

toire of iconographies related to the lives of com-

mon people, often depicted with a more simple

and “popular” language (Clarke 2003). The rep-

resentation of people in funeral contexts was in

fact not just the privilege of the elite, as demon-

strated by the discussion of the tomb of the liter-

ary character Trimalchio, who was a freedman

(Petronius Satyricon, 71.5-8). The representation

of various scenes of work depicted the person

who died performing actions related to his or

her profession (res gestae) (Zimmer 1982);

these iconographies provide us with information

about daily life in the Roman world. The

biographical sequences depicted on sarcophagi

were similar, as they represented the life of the

deceased through a selection of meaningful

episodes: scenes of the daily life of women or

children, comedic scenes, and convivial scenes

that updated the Greek iconography of the

symposium through the introduction of new

contexts, the triclinium first and the stibadium

afterward (Dunbabin 2003).

The creation of these new images often

happened through a process of transformation

(or Romanization) of Greek models and figura-

tive types, adapted to the new contents and socio-

political context by including appropriate details.

The iconography of hunting in the Hellenistic

period was usually reserved for the image of the

king, mostly in Macedonian contexts (e.g., Alex-

ander the Great) to illustrate the courage (arete)that justified his role. This aspect is present in

Rome in rare images of aristocrats or emperors

hunting, such as the eight circular reliefs (roun-

dels) of the Hadrianic period that decorate the

Arch of Constantine. In the iconography of

venationes, the Hellenistic tradition had been

deeply transformed by the new context of the

amphitheater; extraordinary creativity was

displayed by the variety of prey hunted by the

venatores (cf. the mosaics of the Zliten villa

(Libya) or the relief from Obzor (Thrace), today

in Sofia, Bulgaria) and the cruelty of death

Iconography in the RomanWorld, Fig. 4 “Ara” of the

Qurtii from Angera (Milan, Museo Archeologico)

I 3666 Iconography in the Roman World

sentences executed by beasts (damnatio ad

bestias) (Fig. 5d).Another activity apparently marginal as the

capture and transportation of exotic beasts has

been the object of a complex and detailed

representation attested by some of the mosaics

of the Imperial Roman villa in Piazza Armerina,

Sicily (Fig. 6). The repertoire of the iconography

of hunting in the Roman world was very complex

and efficient in its illustration of hunting roles in

society at that time.

“Greek” Iconographies: Divinities and Images

of Myth

A substantial portion of the images of the Roman

repertoire derived from Greek models; in this

way, the Classical world often shows a millenary

iconographic continuity. The transmission of this

Iconography in the RomanWorld, Fig. 5 The iconog-

raphy of the ludi. (a) Amphiteatral games: munus

gladiatorum and venatio (funerary relief from Pompeii).

(b) Circus games (picture from a mosaic in Luni).

(c) Athletic games (sarcophagus, Rome, Museo

Gregoriano Profano). (d) Damnatio ad bestias (mosaic

from El Djem, Thysdrus)

Iconography in the Roman World 3667 I

I

heritage to Rome started during the Archaic

period, facilitated in part by Etruscan influence,

and continued during the Late Republic, when

Rome itself gradually became one of the main

artistic centers of the Hellenistic world (Pollitt

1978). The authority attributed to the Greek cul-

ture influenced the iconography of the Roman

pantheon (from cult statues to votive images)

and the main cults (such as the Dionysiac cult)

and myths; these images of Greek origin were

often used in new contexts, thereby gaining new

meaning. For instance, the many Roman copies

of Greek masterpieces, used as statuary orna-

ments in villas and domus, are examples of

statues that were meant to be displayed in tem-

ples, sanctuaries, theaters, and agorai, but often

ended up in private spaces. The athletes’ images

were used in many villas to reproduce Greek

gymnasia on a small scale; for example, in the

peristyle of the Villa of the Papyri in Hercula-

neum, the two statues representing runners at the

start of a race, copies of an original dated between

the end of the fourth century BCE and the begin-

ning of the third century BCE, were meant to

recreate the atmosphere of a competition in the

space between the arcade and the big natatio

(Romano &Warden 1994). The original meaning

was consequently changed by the new context.

For what concerns mythological scenes, their

repertoire, originally from Greece, was increased

by the new iconographies in the Roman world

(e.g., images of Roman myths such as the nursing

of Romulus and Remus or the romance of Dido

and Aeneas). These images related to myths were

also modified by the new context of use and

progressively became “cultural icons” (Zanker

2002). Their symbolic meaning was connected

with the person who commissioned them to dec-

orate the walls of his residence or to the deceased

who chose them for his funeral monument. Their

naturalism could attract the observer and induce

him to believe to be living in the imaginary world

of the Greek myth, or it could recall a series

of intellectual connections to understand

a decorative plan usually based on the combina-

tion of different myths. This phenomenon was

related to painting and sculpture and it led to

new iconographies related to the reinterpretation,

often sophisticated, of Greek myths (such as the

eight reliefs of the Palazzo Spada (Fig. 7),

executed for a villa in the second century CE

(Newby 2002)).

Iconography in theRoman World,Fig. 6 Capture of beasts

(mosaic from Piazza

Armerina’s Roman villa)

I 3668 Iconography in the Roman World

The most interesting result of this recontex-

tualization was the new biographical cycles of

gods and heroes, such as the one imagined by

Longus (Erotica 4.3.2) in a temple of Dionysus

in Mytilene (on the island of Lesbos) depicting

the god in a series of consecutive scenes. The

combination of the creation of a visual language

and its inclusion into a narrative dimension is

an important development introduced by the

Romans in the iconography of mythology. In

the exemplary case of Achilles, the existing

images of various episodes of his life, often of

Classical or Hellenistic origin and represented

through different figurative meanings in the

Imperial period, were little by little reunited into

a very articulated biographic cycle (birth, paideiawith Chiron, life at Scyrus, and the TrojanWar) in

Late Antiquity. New scenes were introduced to

fill the voids in the figurative reconstruction of the

hero’s life. This repertoire had been replicated

with different typologies of objects (Ghedini

2009). The figurative cycle of Mithras was new

in its contents and iconographies; it described the

deeds of the god next to the big tauroctony scenes.

Images of Context

As has been observed, Roman iconography

provided a variety of subjects that helped con-

struct important relationships between images

and memories, as well as events both actual and

Iconography in the Roman World, Fig. 7 The reliefs

from Palazzo Spada (Rome, Palazzo Spada). (a) Bellero-

phon and Pegasus. (b) Amphion and Hermes (?). (c) Paris

and Eros. (d) Paris and Oenone. (e) Diomedes and Odys-

seus. (f) Pasiphae and Daedalus. (g) Death of Opheltes.

(h) Dying Adonis (?)

Iconography in the Roman World 3669 I

I

mythical; these iconographies serve to guarantee

the messages and provide other meaningful char-

acteristics. The standardization of this repertoire

is a general phenomenon that concerns state-level

ceremonies, the images of games (ludi), and

mythological scenes as well as a general ten-

dency to include these images in brief cycles,

usually composed of a series of scenes separated

one from the other. The iconography was in fact

also influenced by the patterns of narration in

which it was included since they could modify

the scheme (Brilliant 1984). A long continuous

frieze, such as the exceptional one depicted on the

Column of Trajan, had a size that made the

difference in the representation if compared to

the narration through separate scenes/panels or

Iconography in the RomanWorld, Fig. 8 The iconog-

raphy of the suovetaurilia. (a) Suovetaurilia procession in

the so-called Altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus (Paris, Lou-

vre). (b) Tetrarchic Decennalia Base with suovetaurilia

scene (Rome, Forum). (c) Relief of Marcus Aurelius cel-

ebrating a suovetaurilia (Rome, Arcus of Constantine).

(d–f) Scenes representing suovetaurilia in the Trajan’s

column frieze (Rome)

I 3670 Iconography in the Roman World

to single reliefs; on the other hand, the space

available in sarcophagi was often a composition

of sequences where various scenes were arranged

into a hierarchical order.

The introduction into different narrative forms

could change, even deeply, the iconography: the

suovetaurilia (Vermarseren 1957) was a Roman

ritual of purification; its distinctive element was

the presentation of the three sacrificial victims

(pig, ram, and bull). They usually are presented

in a sequence, as in the Altar of Domitius

Ahenobarbus (Fig. 8a) (the order is reversed in

this case) or as in a relief of the base of the

Decennaliain the Louvre in Paris (Fig. 8b) (with

the three victims in the “correct” order). On

the Column of Trajan, the suovetaurilia is

represented through three different scenes, each

one placed at the beginning of one of the years of

the Dacian war; if we look at all of them at the

same time, we see the progressive advancement

of a procession around the castra (Fig. 8d–f). TheTrajanic frieze, using a bird’s-eye view, could

show the itinerary of the procession and recall

that the ritual had the aim of purifying the partic-

ipants within it. The limited space of the panel of

one of the Aurelian reliefs reused on the Arch of

Constantine led to a different composition again;

the three animals are almost overcome by the

procession, depicted illusionistically as if they

are advancing from the back of the relief ground

(Fig. 8c). The same iconography has led to inter-

pretation and compositions each very different

one to each other due to the narrative form.

These solutions gave different information to

the spectator: for instance, the emphasis of the

itinerary of the procession around the castra of

the Column of Trajan clarified that the ritual of

purification, conducted by the emperor,

concerned the military.

Finally, we have to mention the importance of

where the images were located; their location was

regulated with the aim to achieve a correspon-

dence with the buildings and the rest of the dec-

orative plan. Vitruvius (Arch. 7.5.6) promoted the

relationship between the statuary type and the

functions (proprietates) of their location. The

location in a public or private context could influ-

ence even deeply the iconography: for instance,

the increasing violence in scenes depicting

venationes and munera gladiatoria between

the second and the fourth centuries CE and

their location in high-class villas and houses.

These were private spaces designed for pleasure

(otium) that evidently was nourished also by the

memory of the bloodshed during the ludi;

the kind of space where the images were located

led to the major cruelty visible in the images

(Papini 2004).

Future Directions

It is possible to fully understand the meaning of

an image only if the image exists within a context

(Rose 2010); the context is not just the physical

context of use (buildings or objects) but also the

social and cultural context where the image was

created and produced. If images do not have

a dialogue with what surrounds them, they are

mute: we must consider the iconographic tradi-

tion of their context, the formal language chosen

for their representation, their relationship with

the literary tradition, the function of the figurative

media adopted, the material context in which they

were produced and circulated, the kind of clients

and public that will enjoy them, taking into

account a different perception of the images

according to the social class and cultural

competence of the viewer.

Cross-References

▶Aesthetics in Archaeology

▶Amphitheater

▶Architecture, Roman

▶Baths and Bathing, Roman

▶Burial Practices and Tombs in the Roman

World

▶Ceramics: Roman Republican and Early

Principate

▶Ceramics, Roman Imperial

▶Economy, Roman

▶ Iconography in the Roman World

▶ Infrastructure in the Roman World: Roads and

Aqueducts

Iconography in the Roman World 3671 I

I

▶ Italy, Sicily, Malta, and the Lipari Islands:

Prehistory

▶Maps, Cartography, and Worldview in the

Roman World

▶North Africa, Roman

▶Numismatics, Roman Imperial

▶Numismatics, Roman Republican

▶Romanization

▶Topography of Rome

References

ABBONDANZA, L. 2008. Introduzione, in L. Abbondanza

(ed.) Le immagini: 3-99. Turin: N. Aragno cop.

ALFOLDI, M.R. 1999. Bild und Bildersprache derromischen Kaiser: Beispiele und Analysen. Mainz am

Rhein: P. von Zabern.

BRILLIANT, R. 1984. Visual narratives: storytelling inEtruscan and Roman art. Ithaca (NY): Cornell Uni-

versity Press.

CADARIO, M. 2010. Quando l’habitus faceva il romano (o il

greco). Identita e costume nelle statue iconiche tra II

e I sec. a.C., in E. La Rocca, C. Parisi Presicce & A. Lo

Monaco (ed.) I giorni di Roma. L’eta della conquista(catalogo mostra Roma): 115-24. Milan: Electa.

- 2011. Il linguaggio dei corpi nel ritratto romano, in E. La

Rocca, C. Parisi Presicce & A. Lo Monaco (ed.)

Ritratti le tante facce del potere (catalogo della mostra

Roma): 209-21. Rome: Mondo Mostre.

CLARKE, J.R. 2003. Art in the lives of ordinary Romans.Visual representation and non-elite viewers in Italy,100 B.C. – A.D. 315. Berkeley, Los Angeles: Univer-sity of California Press.

DUNBABIN, K.M. 2003. The Roman banquet. Imagesof conviviality. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

ELSNER, J. 1998. Imperial Rome and Christian triumph:the art of the Roman Empire AD 100-450. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

FEJFER, J. 2008. Roman portraits in context. Berlin, NewYork: Walter de Gruyter.

GHEDINI, F. 2009. Il carro dei Musei Capitolini: epose mito nella societa tardo antica. Rome: Quasar.

GREGORY, A.P. 1994. Powerful images: responses to por-

traits and the political uses of images in Rome. Journalof Roman Archaeology 7: 80-99.

HOLLIDAY, P. J. 2002. The origins of Roman historicalcommemoration in the visual arts. Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press.

HUET, V. et al. 2004. Les sacrifice dans le monde romain,

in J. C. Balty et al. (ed.) Thesaurus Cultus et RituumAntiquorum, Lexikon antikerKulte und Riten (ThesCRA)I: 183-236. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum.

LA ROCCA, E. & S. TORTORELLA. (ed.) 2008. Trionfi romani.Milan: Electa.

NEWBY, Z. 2002. Reading programs in Greco-Roman art.

Reflections on the Spada reliefs, in D. Fredrick (ed.)

The Roman gaze: vision, power, and the body: 110-48.Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

PAPINI, M. 2004. Munera gladiatoria e venationes nel

mondo delle immagini. Atti Accademia Nazionale deiLincei. Memorie 19(1): 7-221.

POLLITT, J.J. 1978. The impact of Greek art on Rome.

Transactions of the American Philological Association108: 155-174.

ROMANO, D.G. & P.G. WARDEN. 1994. The course of glory:

Greek art in a Roman context at the villa of the Papyri

(Herculaneum). Art History 17(2): 224-50.ROSE, C.B. 2010. Iconography, in A. Barchiesi &

W. Scheidel (ed.) The Oxford handbook of Romanstudies: 49-76. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

RYBERG, I. S. 1955. Rites of the state religion in Roman art(MAAR 22). Rome: American Academy in Rome.

VARNER, E.R. 2004. Mutilation and transformation.Damnatio memoriae and Roman imperial portraiture(Monumenta Graeca et Romana 10). Leiden:

E. J. Brill.

VERMARSEREN, M.J. 1957. The Suovetaurilia in Roman art.

BABESCH 32: 1-12.

ZANKER, P. 1987. Augustus und die Macht der Bilder.Munchen: C. H. Beck.

- 2002. Un’arte per l’impero. Funzione e intenzione delleimmagininel mondo romano. Translated by E. Polito.

Milan: Electa.

ZIMMER, G. 1982. Romische Berufsdarstellungen. Berlin:Mann.

Further ReadingBIANCHI BANDINELLI, R. & M. TORELLI. 1976. L’arte

dell’antichita classica. Etruria e Roma. Torino: UTET.CADARIO, M. 2004. La corazza di Alessandro. Loricati

di tipo ellenistico dal IV sec. a.C. al II d.C.Milano: LED.

CARANDINI, A., A. RICCI & M. DE VOS. 1982. Filosofiana.La villa di Piazza Armerina. Palermo: Flaccovio.

HASSEL, F.J. 1966. Der Trajansbogen in Benevent. EinBauwerk des romischen Senates. Magonza: Philip

von Zabern.

LA REGINA, A. (ed.) 2001. Sangue e arena (catalogo

mostra Roma). Milano: Electa.

- 2003. Nike. Il gioco e la vittoria (catalogo mostra

Roma). Milano: Electa.

LA ROCCA, E., S. TORTORELLA&A. LOMONACO. (ed.) 2010.

I giorni di Roma. L’eta della conquista (catalogo

mostra Roma). Milano: Skira.

- 2011. Ritratti le tante facce del potere (catalogo mostra

Roma). Rome: Mondo Mostre.

LUNI. 1985. Luni, guida archeologica. Sarzana: EditoreZappa.

SETTIS, S. (ed.) 1989. La Colonna traiana. Roma: Einaudi.

I 3672 Iconography in the Roman World