Identity in mosaics of the north-western Roman provinces

James Hunter King’s College London

1

4,977 words

Much of the recent scholarship on the phenomenon of Romanization has largely

focussed on the concept of regional identity. Indeed, this concept has been utilised in

order to demonstrate the nuanced nature of the Roman empire in terms of the cultural

differences that exist between provinces, between classes, and between genders. 1

Mosaics can reveal the attitudes of the creator, the patron, and the intended audience,

and “may be seen as one index of Romanisation”. 2 By way of this physical

manifestation of cultural differences (or, indeed, similarities), we can render the

theory of regional identity more tangible. In this paper, I shall compare the mosaics of

Caerleon, Cologne and Trier in order to explore three topics:

1. the attitude each settlement had towards Rome and her authorities;

2. the relationship(s) that existed between the settlements;

3. the individual identity of each settlement.

The mosaics of the north-western provinces have been extensively studied in the past,

but in isolation. The majority of the scholarship, therefore, has almost completely

ignored the cultural networks that must have existed between Britons and Gauls, for

example, and the movement of people that the Roman Empire facilitated. By studying

the mosaics at three different sites, we can establish how they were used to express

identity, be it regional or ‘Roman’. ‘Roman’ identity might manifest itself through

depictions of ‘Roman’ activities (chariot-racing, gladiatorial games, leisure hunts), of

a thirst for knowledge (literature, philosophy), and of ‘Roman’ religion (state-

endorsed, based in classical mythology). Regional identity could be expressed by

veering away from these standards. I shall also explore the differences between the

mosaics at a settlement of military origin (Caerleon) with a civilian settlement (Trier).

Did soldiers express identity differently and for a different purpose? Did Trier’s role

as a major urban centre affect how its residents viewed themselves and therefore how

they expressed themselves in material culture? By answering these questions, we can

establish whether mosaics did exhibit regional idiosyncrasies or whether Roman

culture was dominant at these sites. 1 Hingley (2005) is (perhaps) the main proponent of this theory at this time. 2 Dunbabin 1999, 73.


2

Migration

One issue we should address is the process of migration, by which an artistic trait is

transferred into a different region of the empire. Regional traits naturally stand out

when they are removed from their original setting. An expression of what we think is

a regional identity could in fact have been imported from elsewhere. This

phenomenon is especially evident in Wales, where mosaics are so rare. The mosaics

found in the baths and principia of the fortress at Caerleon were probably not

produced by professional mosaicists; 3 but this does not automatically suggest that the

mosaics had little meaning and could be manufactured by anyone, for anyone. Instead

it demonstrates that it was important for the Roman soldiers, who had only recently

settled in the area, to bring with them something visibly Roman, no matter what the

quality was. One of these Roman motifs was the labyrinth (Fig. 1). It was probably

highly significant for the soldiers since it was a common element in Roman designs

across the empire, going all the way back to the Pompeii in the 1st century BC. 4

However, the labyrinth is not commonly found in Britain. 5 Perhaps here it is a result

of the particular preference of the commissioner or of the artist. Wherever the soldiers

were from, they had most likely seen similar motifs before, since they were in

frequent use at the time across the empire.

The second mosaic within the fortress at Caerleon has recently been described as “one

of the most enigmatic Romano-British mosaics” (Fig. 2). 6 Found in the fortress baths,

it is another demonstration of how typically Roman motifs can be unaffected by

provincial and military contextual issues. We only possess fragments of the design,

and, at first glance, the relatively plain red and black borders and the checkerboard

rings within the central compartment are nothing out of the ordinary. Most of the

scholarly debate has revolved around the small motif in the bottom left hand corner

(Fig. 3). It can best be described as a black, pear-shaped object, with black and white

‘ribbons’ flying out on either side. Witts identifies the object as a thyrsus, typical of

3 Neal and Cosh 2010, 328. 4 Daszewski (1977, 40-5) provides the most recent catalogue. 5 The only other examples are at Cirencester (Neal 1981, 62-3, fig. 18), Harpham (Neal and Cosh 2002, 339, no. 132.1, fig. 306) and Oldcoates (Neal and Cosh 2002, 274-5, no. 110.1, fig. 239). 6 Neal and Cosh 2010, 331. It should be noted that the reliability of the 1877 reconstruction, which is our main source for the mosaic as an entire piece, is dubious to say the least.


3

the Bacchic iconography commonly found on mosaics across the empire. 7 Both Boon

and Rainey suggest it is a thyrsus disguised as a spear (thyrsolonchus). 8 This is a

possibility, since it neatly combines the more commonplace Bacchic iconography

with a display of military identity. However, to me at least, the object does not look

like a spear, and whether it would have been recognised as such is questionable. Nor

does it look like a standard thyrsus, “a fennel stalk or the like with a tuft of ivy-leaves

inserted at the end”. 9 But the nail in the coffin of this interpretation is the rarity of

Bacchic iconography within bath structures. Marine fauna are many times more

popular. 10 It is for this reason that Neal’s argument for identification as a type of flat

fish, as part of a wider aquatic scene, is most convincing. 11 It certainly has more

parallels elsewhere than Ling’s suggestion of an amphora. 12

There is little evidence for any native influence in the mosaics at Caerleon. Indeed,

the soldiers who lived or visited the site “would have seen nothing in their decorations

which would have been out of place in the wider Roman world”. 13 Based on the

iconography alone, Caerleon seems to show little evidence of any expression of a

native regional identity. It seems as though there was an imposition of Roman culture

from the outside, with the migration of the army into the province acting as the

primary agent.

Migration also took place at Trier, whose “citizens … were eager to prove how

completely they had assimilated Graeco-Roman culture”. 14 That a provincial capital

could become a centre for learning and the propagation of Roman ideas 15 is

illustrated most effectively by the Monnus mosaic (Fig. 4), so called because of the

inscription that bears its creator’s name. 16 However, it is also evidence for the

migration of artistic motifs both in and out of Trier. Consequently, it demonstrates

7 Witts 2005, 116. 8 Boon 1986, 276; Rainey 1973, 32. 9 Ling 2008, 19. 10 Neal 2005, 16-17. 11 Neal 2006. 12 Ling 2008, 20-21. 13 Ling 2008, 21. 14 MacKendrick 1970, 229. 15 Wightman 1985, 99. 16 Hoffmann 1999, 138-41; pls. 64-9. The mosaic is succinctly summarized by Lewis (1898). The inscriptions are best listed in CIL 13.3710.


4

how an expression of regional identity on the part of the mosaicist could be combined

with the classical/Roman ideals of his patron, or vice versa.

Nine octagons frame each of the Muses, in the process of inspiring a mortal character

from history; eight squares contain the busts of famous Greek and Roman authors of

the past; 17 further towards the edges are the signs of the zodiac, the seasons, and the

months of the year. 18 We can be highly confident that, by the 3rd century AD, most, if

not all, of the subjects covered in the mosaic were recognised by people across the

empire. 19 In an important city like Trier this was certainly the case, and, since the

location for this mosaic might have been a building associated with the study of the

arts, 20 we might imagine the centre of Trier to have been an area bustling with

academic activity, going hand-in-hand with the mosaics which at the time were

emerging from the nearby workshop. 21 In one of the octagons is a bearded figure,

ARATOS, with a globe in front of him (Fig. 5). The scene is iconographically similar

to the later depiction of the ‘Astronomer’ at Brading, as well as earlier examples from

further east in the empire. 22 Iconography from the East could reach as far as the very

west of the empire, at Trier and on the Isle of Wight, for example. Furthermore,

through the mosaicist Monnus himself, we can attain a first-hand view of Trier’s

cosmopolitan nature. For it is highly likely that he was neither a native of Trier, nor of

Italy. Indeed Monnus’ name has led to the conclusion that he was originally from

either Mesopotamia 23 or Africa, 24 and had travelled to Trier in the third century to

make his name as a mosaicist. There are, however, very few stylistic traces in his

mosaic to betray his alien origins, surely a result of his customers desire to fit in with

the Roman trends.

17 We can positively identify Ennius, Hesiod, Livy, Virgil, Cicero and Menander. 18 As Lewis (1898, 230) notes, the division of the year was a popular subject among mosaicists. See also the ‘Dionysus and the Seasons’ mosaic, likewise from Trier (Hoffmann 1999, pl. 88). 19 Daniel 1996, 33. 20 Lewis (1898, 233) suggests a library. 21 Wightman 1985, 90. 22 Brading: Wilson 2006, 307ff. Earlier examples from Arroniz (Blàzquez and Mezquiriz 1985, 15-22 (no. 2), at 20 with pl. 13 lower; Lancha 1997, 182 (no. 87)), Pompeii (Andreae 2003, 248-55), and Sarsina (Bol 1994, 456, pl. 273). 23 Robert 1963, 362-65. 24 Parlasca (1959), 41 n.5. Parlasca argues that the stylistic features of the Monnus-Mosaic do not hint at an African origin; however Ako-Adounvo (1991, 49 n. 42) notes a similarity with the La Chebba mosaic.


5

The evidence from Caerleon and Trier shows that we should not assume that an

expression of identity in a mosaic necessarily represents the view of a native of the

region in which it was found. Craftsmen and patrons were free to migrate across the

empire and take their preferences with them. But it is under these circumstances that

perhaps any expression of identity became more obvious. The evidence also

demonstrates some of the primary methods by which the migration of motifs could

occur. The labyrinth was brought to Caerleon either by the movement of soldiers or

by an itinerant craftsman, influenced by designs elsewhere in Britain. At Trier we see

a combination of the influence that such a craftsman might wield with the trend for

patrons to embrace traditionally classical or Hellenistic themes in their mosaics.

Being Roman

What the Monnus mosaic begins to suggest through its treatment of the common

Greco-Roman intellectual themes is that Trier and (at least) its elite inhabitants

welcomed Rome and her culture. Indeed, the acceptance and implementation of

Graeco-Roman motifs was widespread in the mosaics of civilian Germany. The

military focus at Caerleon, however, surely placed a limit on how much time there

was for pondering philosophical questions or discussing literature. At Trier, one

sympathetically restored mosaic of particularly high quality opus vermiculatum

represents the Muses in nine separate portraits (Fig. 6), 25 and is especially

reminiscent of another mosaic from Kos (Fig. 7). 26 Further mosaics depict a young

Bacchus with a feline figure, 27 a reclining Venus, 28 and Medusa. 29 Allusions to

literary culture and the importance of learning at Trier can be found in the Orator

mosaic, 30 and in a mosaic that probably depicts Anaximander of Miletus (Fig. 8). 31

The situation is similar at Cologne, where the elite’s desire for knowledge is further

exemplified by a largely lost mosaic of Epicurus. And from the same period, we have

the Philosopher Mosaic (Fig. 9) “[qui] représentait … une série de philosophes,

25 Hoffmann 1999, pls. 54-58. 26 Currently in the Archaeological Museum of Kos. 27 Hoffmann 1999, pls. 88-89. 28 Ibid., pl. 119. 29 Ibid., pls. 41-42. 30 Ibid., pls. 37-39. 31 Ibid., pl. 22. Smith (1977, 108) and Stupperich (1980, 297) suggest that the ‘astronomer’ at Brading can be identified as Anaximander, in spite of the important differences in iconography. The focus at Brading is on the globe, at Trier the sun-dial.


6

poètes et hommes d’Etat grecs”. 32 The individuals are labelled in Greek, which

attributes knowledge of classical languages to the patron and/or the mosaicist, or at

least intent to engage with classical culture. It has been tentatively suggested that the

mosaic might have decorated a school of philosophy. 33 If this were the case then it

further underlines the significance of classical culture to the wealthier, better-educated

residents of Cologne. It is this that distinguishes Cologne from Caerleon, in spite of

their common military origins. Residents of the latter did not ever engage with

classical culture in such an advanced way.

For the elite, to display one’s knowledge of classical, and by adoption Roman, culture

was very much in vogue. But it was not only the rich that wished, or indeed were

able, to take part in Roman activities. The ‘Rennfahrer’ mosaic from Trier, for

example, depicts victorious charioteers, who would not necessarily have come from

an elite background (Fig. 10). 34 The bust of Victoria appears in the centre (Fig. 11),

therefore instead of celebrating a particular charioteer, it is championing the Roman

ideal of victory itself, 35 perhaps mimicking the image of the imperial victor. Hunting

and gladiatorial games were also illustrated in Germany. 36 Indeed, from Cologne we

have a fragment (Fig. 12) that depicts a group of spectators at the amphitheatre. 37 The

two men in the foreground are wearing brown cloaks and leggings / trousers of some

sort. Behind there are two men in togas – presumably these are Roman citizens. And

in the back row are a man and woman, their less significant position possibly

indicating their status as a lower class couple. Here, then, we have a microcosm of the

population that made up Cologne as a whole, from the native aristocracy at the front,

to the poorer elements of society at the back. Whether this is an accurate depiction of

some of the native population is difficult to say. It seems unlikely that it is particularly

realistic since the faces of every character in this fragment are very similar, and seem

almost generic. There is no attempt by the mosaicist to distinguish between the facial

expression of each person, but the leggings and brown cloaks of the men at the front

of the group could be an expression of a regional native identity – a Roman citizen

would almost certainly be wearing a toga and sandals, with no leggings. They are 32 Grenier 1925, 136. 33 von Elbe 1995, 50. 34 Hoffmann 1999, 108, pls. 71-3. 35 Dunbabin 1982, 83. 36 Parlasca 1959: pl. 88; pl. 97. 37 Presumably to watch scenes like those depicted on the mosaic at Nennig (Dunbabin 1999, fig. 84).


7

sporting very different attire from those in amphitheatre scenes in Italy or North

Africa. 38

Yet the amphitheatre scene in which we find these spectators is very much Roman. It

emphasises the positive attitude that patron, and perhaps the local population depicted

in the mosaic, held towards this most Roman of activities. Thus it is possible for

regional identity to be conveyed within a specifically Roman setting. We should also

note the difference in the figures themselves. In the amphitheatre scenes they are “less

Classical”. 39 This might be a result of a lack of skilled craftsmen. However, I believe

Dunbabin is right to attribute this to a discrepancy between the portrayal of

traditional, sometimes mythological, characters that are part of the ‘Mosaicist’s 101’

and “those with more contemporary subject-matter”. 40 But I would like to add a

further point. By rendering the ‘contemporary’ figures less naturalistic, the mosaicist

is able to distinguish members of the local population from ‘any other Roman’;

furthermore he can dress them in the customary clothing of the region and lend a

sense of individuality to the ‘natives’. This approach of using costume to differentiate

is found elsewhere (in North Africa, for example). 41 At Cologne, it is one of the few

ways in which regional identity can be expressed within an artistic sphere that was

becoming ever more Romano-centric.

There is one final mosaic at Trier worth examining as evidence of German

participation in Roman activity: the so-called Polydus Mosaic (Fig. 13). 42 A

charioteer (Polydus) sits upon his favoured horse (Compressor), holding the victory

palm in his left hand, a wreath and a whip in his right. We might imagine Polydus to

have been quite the celebrity: the ‘Lewis Hamilton of the Roman period’. Like the

figures in the amphitheatre mosaics, Polydus, although of a well-known iconographic

type, is not classical in style. This is probably partly down to the need to distinguish

between mythological history and real events of the present or recent past. But it is

also possible that the Polydus mosaic is a celebration and commemoration of a local

38 Dunbabin 1999, 82. Dunbabin 1978: Zliten, pls. 46-9; Djemila, pl. 66; El Djem, pl. 68. 39 Dunbabin 1999, 82. 40 Ibid. 41 Ibid., 123-4, fig. 127. 42 Hoffmann 1999, pls. 100-101.


8

man who has reached the top of his profession and achieved widespread fame, 43 in

which case the design is the ultimate expression of regional identity. It acknowledges

the fact that a man probably born in the provinces has become successful within the

most Roman of activities. What the Polydus mosaic certainly does demonstrate is the

familiarity that mosaicists at Trier had with chariot racing as a subject – the high

frequency of similar mosaics found in the region support this claim. 44 The

iconography is consistent with other depictions of chariot racing in mosaics, and the

detail in the clothing is exceptional. 45 If the artist is native to Trier, then he is

certainly not copying the Polydus-design from a pattern-book (the specific naming of

horse and charioteer also suggests this is the case), but is in fact most familiar with the

subject. Therefore there are two possibilities: the mosaicist is Roman and has moved

to Trier to work, using his knowledge of Roman topics as a selling point; or, and this

is the more likely option if we take into account the evidence from all three case

studies in this paper, the mosaicist is native to Trier, but the demands of his many

Romanophile customers and the Romanized city he had grown up in had rendered

him very much au fait with Graeco-Roman motifs and iconography.

Religion

As well as demonstrating ‘native’ participation in a traditional Roman activity, the

victorious image in the Polydus mosaic is thought to have been a bearer of good

fortune. Indeed, there was no better example than the charioteer of what good fortune

at work could bring about in terms of riches. 46 In a more direct way of bringing good

fortune and warding evil, the labyrinth at Caerleon quite possibly had an apotropaic

function. 47 The difference is that at Caerleon the felicitas was expected to come on

the battlefield or in some sort of military action; at Trier, where there was minimal

soldierly activity until the 4th century, the fortune would have manifested itself in the

form of prosperity and material wealth. In the context of Caerleon, an apotropaic

motif might have been adapted and used as a way of warding off marauding Celts or

some other enemy. In this way it became more important in the face of the dangers

that a military setting brought with it. The evidence from gemstones strongly suggests 43 Dunbabin 1982, 82. 44 Ibid., no. 160, pls. 98-9. Parlasca 1959, pls. 2.1, 25, 26.3. 45 Humphrey 1986, 425. 46 Martial, Epigrams 10.74; Juvenal 7.105-114; Futrell 2006, 198. 47 Grafton, Most, Settis 2010, 505; Kern (1982, 77-83) notes that the labyrinth also had an apotropaic function in India, indicating its widespread nature.


9

that prosperity symbols and the deities of Fortune and Prosperity themselves were

regarded as important in Caerleon, therefore it is not unreasonable to view the

labyrinth mosaic as a combination of the traditional Roman motif with a specific

military-apotropaic function. Moreover, in Britain the labyrinth was usually located in

a prominent position. Those at Harpham and Oldcotes were without doubt set up in

important reception spaces; at Cirencester, it was placed at the centre of a corridor,

and faced the main entrance of the house. Where the labyrinth was set up at Caerleon

is uncertain, 48 but it seems reasonable to assume a prime location, best suited for its

apotropaic function.

Depictions of religion in civilian Germany are generally very much based in classical

mythology. 49 The ‘Dionysus Mosaic’ (Fig. 14), from the first half of the 3rd century

AD, is the best example. It is an elaborate, multi-figured mosaic, of such a quality that

we do not encounter at Caerleon. Composed of approximately 1.5 million pieces, it

originally covered the floor of a triclinium inside a relatively large peristyle villa,

similar to a type known at Pompeii. 50 Squares of guilloche overlap to form irregular

octagons, in between which are smaller squares. Within these compartments are

mythological characters such as Cupid, Pan, and figures associated with the Bacchic

cult. In the central square is the main figure: Dionysus supporting himself on a satyr

(Fig. 15). The figures are naturalistic and in the classical style. The outer frame, as is

often the case with dining-room mosaics, relates to the function of the room in which

the mosaic was situated. Visible are oyster shells, various birds, fruits, and images of

gardening and harvesting. von Elbe argues that the owner of the house was “no doubt

a native of sunny Italy” who was enjoying the good life in the northern provinces. 51

This might indeed be the case, but the explanation may be simpler. This mosaic is one

of many in Germany that seem to embrace Roman culture. By the 3rd century AD, the

owner of this house could just as easily have been a German who had reached the top

of the social ladder, or perhaps a veteran who now wished to savour the benefits of

Roman rule. And this owner wished to demonstrate his knowledge of, if not his

adherence to, classical Roman religion and mythology.

48 Ling 2008, 17. 49 Hoffmann 1999: no. 58, pls. 23-4; no. 76, pls 8, 41-2; no. 98, pls. 54-8; no. 100, pls. 59-61; no. 129, pls. 81-2; no. 144, pls. 88-90. Parlasca 1959: pl. 2.3; 3.1; 12.1; 28.1; 92.6; 93-6. 50 von Elbe 1995, 30. 51 Ibid., 31.


10

But mosaics could also be used to demonstrate a religious identity separate from what

was officially endorsed by the state. The late 4th century AD Kornmarkt mosaic at

Trier (Fig. 16) is clear evidence for the existence of an active Mystery cult, at a time

when Christianity was the official religion of the Roman Empire. 52 The scenes on the

mosaic, along with accompanying inscriptions, seem to outline the rituals of the cult.

The design consists of a series of guilloched medallions, alternating between being

circular and elliptical in shape, and two concave octagons in the middle. In the

circular medallions are depictions of men from the waist upwards. There are three

men, Paregorius (Fig. 17), Eusebius, and Felix - each is depicted twice - who carry on

their heads trays loaded with food and drink. In the elliptical medallions are full

human figures, all of which are named. Men hold items such as bowls, jugs, and

lamps. Two girls hold crotala. The medallions, then, represent the elements of the

cultic ritual that existed at this site: food, drink, music, and dancing. The two central

octagonal compartments provide more information about the cult. One reveals details

of what might be the cult’s most important ritual. It involves three men, one wielding

a spoon and a dead bird, one holding out a bowl, and the other on his knees presenting

a basin containing an egg. The inscriptions name each individual, and also seem to

provide instructions as to how to carry out the ritual. 53 The other scene (Fig. 18)

depicts the birth of the Dioscuri and Helen from an egg. Moreau (1960) has argued

that this version of the myth is that in which Leda was not mother but nurse, and

suggests the deity worshipped primarily in this cult was Nemesis.

Some have interpreted the mosaic as Christian propaganda, which mocks pagan ritual

activity. 54 We only have to look at the well-known Hinton St Mary mosaic, which

seems to combine Christian iconography with pagan, to understand that the concept of

such an elaborate and well-constructed mosaic being anti-Christian propaganda is

surely implausible. 55 Whether the mosaic would have been viewed by anybody

outside the cult is difficult to say, but what is clear is that Qodveldeus, Felix, and

Andegasus were all proud of their religion. The fact that they are named is evidence

of this. Furthermore, the members of the cult deemed mosaic an appropriate medium 52 Parlasca 1959, 56-7, pls. 54-5; Moreau 1960. 53 Moreau (1960, 13-14) reconstructs the instructions. 54 Schwartz & Hatt 1985. 55 Neal and Cosh 2005, 156-60, no. 172.1.


11

for the expression of their religious identity, perhaps in opposition to the state religion

at the time. What the mosaic also demonstrates is that, by the end of the 4th century

AD, classical aspects of pagan religion had become so established at Trier, and some

had accepted it to such an extent, that they felt it necessary to celebrate and perhaps

defend their rituals.

Conclusions

The first thing that should be said is that, no matter what displays of regional identity

we have seen, the three sites studied in this paper were nevertheless highly

Romanized. Cologne and Trier both embraced Roman culture, at least at the elite

level. Caerleon had it imposed by the presence of the military. The specific priorities

that each settlement had and the socio-economic context that existed there have led to

differences in expressions of identity.

Millett has argued that in Britain there was a lack of knowledge of the principles of

Roman art. He states that “what was important was that the subject-matter and form

were ‘Roman’ in taste” and as part of a commission “details of style are unlikely to

have been specified”. 56 This concept might have value at certain sites, but at a

military settlement like Caerleon, where travel is in the nature of most inhabitants, it

is less likely to be true. Indeed, pottery suggests that the residents of the canabae at

Caerleon were more Romanized than civilians in the immediately surrounding areas. 57 We should therefore not be oblivious to the itinerant nature of craftsmen and their

ability to spread Roman ideas. 58 How then do we explain the lack of typically

classical figural iconography at Caerleon? I believe it is due to a combination of two

factors. As a military settlement, priorities at Caerleon were inevitably different as

regards art. The majority of the elaborate mythological scenes in Britain are from a

much later period and found at rural villa sites, the owners of which were, of course,

wealthier than the average townsman at Caerleon. Knowledge of ancient literature

and mythology had always gone hand-in-hand with wealth. The majority of customers

at Caerleon, therefore, could not afford such elaborate designs. Coupled with the

threat of military activity, it seems likely that the town’s inhabitants were not inclined 56 Millett 1995, 99. 57 Evans 2000, 486. 58 See the similarity of the square panels at Woodchester (Cosh and Neal 2010, n. 456.1) to those in a mosaic at Trier (Hoffmann 1999, pl. 77); Wightman 1970, 107-8.


12

to spend time and money on such extravagance, despite an awareness of the

possibility. This was not an act of purposeful resistance against any Romanizing

process, but rather a natural consequence of the lack of wealth and inclination to

produce mosaics of the highest quality – we should not forget that mosaics themselves

were by the 2nd century AD a ‘Roman’ product in any case. Romanization took hold

of Caerleon in the guise of architecture, and was shaped by the military nature of the

town.

Caerleon, then, has shown that a greater distance from Rome does not necessarily

mean a settlement is less affected by the metropolis’ influence. But the concept of

proximity certainly had an effect when it comes to Trier and Cologne. Indeed

Dunbabin has suggested that the two be discussed together, 59 and from the mosaic

evidence we have seen this seems a sensible approach. In spite of Cologne’s military

background, in terms of its mosaics the town is more similar to Trier than to Caerleon.

The valuable transport links between the two were such that the wealth available at

Trier in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD was readily transferrable to Cologne, and the

significant mosaic workshop that existed at the former could use this link to its

advantage. It is no wonder that we see strong similarities between mosaics at these

two sites. These two thriving urban centres were now together displaying in their

mosaics a ‘Roman’ identity, with popular subjects being ‘Roman’ activities,

intellectual interests, and classical religion. However, the naming of individuals

makes it clear that some mosaics were designed specifically for certain members of

the local population. The demands of the wealthy, Romanized customers who were

commissioning the mosaics and requesting traditionally Graeco-Roman motifs were

fulfilled, but a less classical style was used to depict contemporary, possibly local, but

unmistakeably Roman events. 60

In terms of subjects treated and motifs used, the mosaics of Caerleon, Trier and

Cologne generally expressed a Roman identity on the part of the patron. But certain

aspects – the labelling of local individuals, the depiction of regional dress, the

59 Dunbabin 1999, 79. 60 Stewart might call this ‘hybridity’ (2010, 7), but I would avoid such a term in this case, since the scenes are still very much dominated by Roman themes.


13

adaptation of common artistic motifs to create a specific regional significance 61 -

express a regional identity within a Romanized setting. I shall end with a caveat,

however. We must always be aware that the mosaics studied in this paper were the

product of the military and the elite, and are by no means representative of the attitude

of every member of society towards Rome and her culture.

61 Labyrinth: supra p. 2.


14

Bibliography

Ako-Adounvo, G. (1991). The Mosaic of Neptune and the Seasons from La Chebba.

Open Access Dissertations and Theses , Paper 6117 .

Andreae, B. (2003). Antike Bildmosaiken. Mainz am Rhein.

Blàzquez, J.M., and Mezquiriz, M.A. (1985). Mosaicos romanos de Navarra, Corpus

de Mosaicos de España VII. Madrid.

Bol, P.C. (ed.) (1994). Forschungen zur Villa Albani. Katalog der antiken Bildwerke

IV. Berlin.

Boon, G.C. (1986). The design of the Backhall Street baths. In J. D. Zienkiewicz, The

Legionary Fortress Baths at Caerleon. I: The Buildings (pp. 273-76). Cardiff.

Daniel, R.W. (1996). Epicharmus in Trier: a note on the Monnus-Mosaic. Zeitschrift

für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 114, 30-36.

Daszewski, W.A. (1977). Nea Paphos II. La mosaïque de Thésée : études sur les

mosaïques avec représentations du labyrinthe, de Thésée et du Minotaure. Warsaw.

De Matteis, L.M. (2004). Mosaici di Cos: dagli scavi delle missioni italiane e

tedesche (1900-1945). Athens.

Dragotta, A.M. (1979). Piazza Armerina: the mosaics at Villa del Casale. Palermo.

Dunbabin, K. (1978). The Mosaics of Roman North Africa. Oxford.

Dunbabin, K. (1982). ‘The Victorious Charioteer on mosaics and related monuments’,

AJA 86, 65-89.

Dunbabin, K. (1999). Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World. Cambridge.

Elbe, J.v. (1995). The Romans in Cologne and Lower Germany: a guide to Roman

sites and museums. Düsseldorf.

Evans, E. (2000). The Caerleon canabae: excavations in the civil settlement 1984-90 .

London.

Futrell, A. (2006). The Roman Games: a sourcebook. Blackwell.

Grafton, A., Most, G. W., & Settis, S. (Eds.). (2010). The Classical Tradition.

Harvard.

Grenier, A. (1925). Quatre villes romaines de Rhénanie, Trèves, Mayence, Bonn,

Cologne. Paris.

Hingley, R. (2005). Globalizing Roman Culture: unity, diversity and empire.

Routledge.

Hoffmann, P., Hupe, J., & Goethert, K. (1999). Katalog der römischen Mosaike aus

Trier und dem Umland. Rheinisches Landesmuseum Trier.


15

Humphrey, J.H. (1986). Roman circuses: arenas for chariot racing. Berkeley.

Kern, H. (2000). Through the Labyrinth: designs and meanings over 5,000 years.

Munich.

Lancha, J. (1997). Mosaïque et culture dans l'Occident romain, Ier-IVe siècles. Rome.

Ling, R. (1998), Ancient Mosaics. London.

Ling, R. (2008). ‘Mosaics for the Military: the Evidence from Caerleon’, Mosaic 35,

16-23.

Lewis, B. (1898). The mosaic of Monnus. London.

MacKendrick, P.L. (1970). Romans on the Rhine: archaeology in Germany. New

York.

Millett, M. (1995). English Heritage Book of Roman Britain. London.

Moreau, J. (1960). Das Trierer Kornmarktmosaik. Cologne.

Munby, J., and Henig, M. (eds) (1977). Roman Life and Art in Britain, British

Archaeological Reports 41 (i). Oxford.

Neal, D.S. (1981). Roman Mosaics in Britain: an Introduction to their Schemes and a

Catalogue of Paintings. Britannia Monograph Series 1. London.

Neal, D.S. (2005). ‘New Mosaics from Wigginton’, Mosaic 32, 15-18.

Neal, D.S. (2006). ‘The mosaic from Backhall Street, Caerleon’, Mosaic 33, 9-13.

Neal, D.S., & Cosh, S.R. (2002). Roman Mosaics of Britain I: Northern Britain.

London.

Neal, D.S., & Cosh, S.R. (2005). Roman Mosaics of Britain II: South-West Britain.

London.

Neal, D.S., & Cosh, S.R. (2010). Roman Mosaics of Britain IV: Western Britain.

London.

Parlasca, K. (1959). Die römischen Mosaiken in Deutschland. Berlin.

Rainey, A. (1973). Mosaics in Roman Britain: a gazetteer. Newton and Abbot.

Reusch, W. (1977). Treveris: a guide through Roman Trier. Trier: Spee-Verlag.

Robert, L. (1963). Noms indigèns dans l’Asie-Mineure gréco-romaine. Paris.

Schwartz, J., & Hatt, J.J. (1985). ‘Une interpretation nouvelle de la mosaïque dite du

Kornmarkt de Trêves’, BSNAFr 1985, 37-45.

Smith, D.J. (1977) 'Mythological figures and scenes in Romano-British pavements', in

Munby and Henig 1977, 105-58.

Stewart, P. (2010). Geographies of Provincialism in Roman Sculpture. Journal of the

International Association of Research Institutes in the History of Art, 0005.


16

Stupperich, R. (1980). 'A reconsideration of some fourth-century British mosaics',

Britannia 11, 289-301.

Wightman, E.M. (1970). Roman Trier and the Treveri. London.

Wightman, E.M. (1985). Gallia Belgica. London.

Wilson, R.J.A. (2006). ‘Aspects of Iconography in Romano-British Mosaics: The

Rudston 'Aquatic' Scene and the Brading Astronomer Revisited’, Britannia 37, 295-

336.

Witts, P. (2005). Mosaics in Roman Britain: stories in stone. Stroud: Tempus.

Zienkiewicz, J.D. (1986). The Legionary Fortress Baths at Caerleon I-II. Cardiff.


17

List of Figures 1. Labyrinth mosaic, Caerleon (Neal & Cosh 2010, 482.2, fig. 337).

2. Mosaic found in fortress baths, Caerleon (Neal & Cosh 2010, 482.3, fig. 339).

3. ‘Thyrsus’, section of the mosaic from fortress baths, Caerleon (Neal & Cosh 2010,

482.3, fig. 340A).

4. Monnus mosaic, Trier (Hoffmann 1999, pls. 64-9).

5. Aratos; section of the Monnus mosaic, Trier (Hoffmann 1999, pls. 64-9).

6. Muses mosaic, Trier (Hoffmann 1999, pls. 54-8).

7. Muses mosaic, Kos (De Matteis 2004, pl. 80.1).

8. Anaximander mosaic, Trier (Hoffmann 1999, pl. 22).

9. Philosopher mosaic, Cologne (Parlasca 1959, pl. 80).

10. Rennfahrer mosaic, Trier (Hoffmann 1999, pls. 71-3).

11. Bust of Victoria; section of the Rennfahrer mosaic, Trier (Hoffmann 1999, pls.

71-3).

12. Amphitheatre mosaic, Cologne (Parlasca 1959, pl. 83).

13. Polydus mosaic, Trier (Hoffmann 1999, pls. 100-101).

14. Dionysus mosaic, Cologne (Parlasca 1959, pl. 66).

15. Dionysus supporting himself on a satyr; section of the Dionysus mosaic, Cologne

(Parlasca 1959, pl. 68).

16. Kornmarkt mosaic, Trier (Parlasca 1959, pls. 54-5).

17. Paregorius; section of the Kornmarkt mosaic (Parlasca 1959, pls. 54-5).

18. Dioscuri and Helen; section of the Kornmarkt mosaic (Parlasca 1959, pls. 54-5).


18

Figure 1

Figure 2


19

Figure 3


20

Figure 4


21

Figure 5


22

Figure 6


23

Figure 7

Figure 8


24

Figure 9


25

Figure 10


26

Figure 11

Figure 12


27

Figure 13


28

Figure 14


29

Figure 15


30

Figure 16


31

Figure 17

Figure 18

Identity in mosaics of the north-western Roman provinces

Documents

Transcript of Identity in mosaics of the north-western Roman provinces