The Triumph as Visual Ethnography

The Triumph as Visual

Ethnography

Ethnic Constructions and the Discourse of Power

Andrew J. Bird

Bird, Andrew J.Fall 2010 Seminar Paper – Triumph as Visual Ethnography

Dr. Langford

HIS 6939.901 – Ethnicity and Empire in Ancient Rome

Fall 2010 Seminar

When one thinks about the triumph, either within or without

a Roman context, a multiplicity of ideas, images, and

associations inevitably come to mind. The breadth of the

interpretive discourse surrounding the triumph is extensive,

covering a wide range of topics. For the Romans themselves, it is

difficult at best to positively nail down every theme and hidden

meaning of the triumph. This ritual was a ceremony that

celebrated and honored not only the triumphator himself and his

achievements, but also the Romans as a people.1 The complex web

of meaning interwoven throughout it may never find complete

understanding today, and the signification of the triumphs exist

in both their recounting and in the actual course of the event

1 Robert Payne, The Roman Triumph (London: Abelard-Schuman, 1963), 14 also asserts that the triumph was a ritual from “which all Roman history revolves” that strengthens the idea that this arguable most important spectacular ceremony functions – even if unconsciously – as a visual ethnography.

1


that together constructs, conveys, and maintains the cultural

associative elements in the minds of the Romans.2 It is through a

careful examination of the available evidence that one is able to

focus in on the strands of this essentially complex Roman

tapestry. Although each strand is fascinating individually, one

must always be conscientious of the entirety of this tapestry and

that each one inexorably involves and relates to the others.

Moreover, just as a multiplicity of meaning exists, so too does

the multiplicity of interpretations of the triumph – both from

the ancients themselves and from all others throughout history

who found (and continue to find) it to be an alluring and

mysterious ritual. The strands under examination in the present

study, while certainly involving the other strands in the whole

tapestry, explores how the triumph served as a “visual

ethnography.”3 In other words, the procession informed about the

2 Mary Beard, The Roman Triumph (London: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2009), 41.

3 Ibid., 4 argues “that the very ceremony which glorified military victory andthe values underpinning that victory also provided a context within which those values could be discussed and challenged.” It is within this vein of thought that allows too for an analysis of the display of captives as a visualethnography, for this concept likewise exists within the context of the triumphal procession.

2


ethnic identities of not only the captives, but also the

identities of the Roman spectators too.

The fact that the triumph is the most treated public ritual

in ancient accounts contributes to the transmission and

discussion of the meanings of the triumph to anyone who reads

about them.4 Moreover, it reveals just how important to the

Romans this ceremony was and gives insight into how they thought

of it at various points throughout their history. More

importantly for the present study, this also attests to how the

Romans memorialized and maintained the ethnicities of their

captives put on display long after their actual appearance in the

procession. The discourse involving these descriptions thus

weaves itself into the overall tapestry and conception of the

triumph not only for the ancients, but also for all who read

about it later.

There are two principal avenues of discussion in this

examination of the triumph as a visual ethnography. The first

endeavor is to show how the triumph initially constructed the

ethnic identities of the captives on display, then how the Romans

4 Ibid., 60-1.3


maintained and perpetuated these constructions. The second argues

that the constructed ethnicities of the captives also served to

shape the identities of the Roman spectators themselves through a

(conscious or unconscious) process of negative identification.

This latter aspect primarily involves a power relationship

between the Romans and the captives. For the former discursive

avenue, it is necessary to define captives broadly to include not

just the display of human prisoners, but captured spolia that

includes various images, statuary, simulacra, and other captured

objects as well. The reason for this rather broad definition is

that each piece of captive booty served to build upon the ethnic

conceptualizations of the human captives also on display.

Overall, the both human and material captives become symbolic

capital for the Roman imagination that allows for the

apperception of the ethnic identities of both the captives and

the spectators.

Nearly every ancient description of the captives displayed

in the triumphs, almost without exception, includes some

reference to their exotic character and place of origin. Several

scholars have associated this imagery as a means in which the

4


display “amounted to a physical realization of empire and

imperialism.”5 Furthermore, this ostensibly is a discourse of

power and how conquered and conqueror relate to one another, a

concept which this paper will address later. What is important to

note here, however, is that although the triumph certainly

contains an overtly apparent expression of power that scholarship

primarily focuses on, nowhere is there meaningful consideration

on how this also includes a discourse of identity for both the

conquered and conqueror. The following discussion will attempt to

fill this gap, beginning with describing how the triumph in the

first place constructs the identities of the conquered.

Arguably, one of the primary features of any triumph for the

spectators apart from the triumphator himself was the often-

extravagant display of captives paraded through the streets. The

Romans employed a variety of methods for constructing the way in

which these captives appeared, in turn constructing their images

in the imagination of the spectators. The focus on the production

5 Ibid., 123. See also Trevor Murphy, Pliny the Elder’s Natural History: the Empire in the Encyclopedia (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 154-5 who explains thatthe triumph as a ritual has the ability to inform Romans about foreign lands, yet he does not take the avenue of interpretation this paper follows in regards to viewing it as a way to not only inform about ethnicity, but construct it as well.

5


of the images exhibited in the triumph brings the spectator into

the conversation about what is on display. That is, they each

would decide for themselves upon the reality of the

representations shown to them and thus the construction of the

spectacle creates a discourse in which both the orchestrators of

the display, the spectators, and even the captives themselves

engage.6 This discourse subsequently formulates a complex image –

whether real or not – in the minds of all involved of a

multiplicity of constructions, including their ethnicities.7 The

triumph itself thus served as a conduit for the transmission of

the ethnic associations, rather than simply at first glance

functioning to exaggerate and bolster the achievements of the

conquest(s) celebrated. In other words, the triumph created and

passed on the Roman conceptualization of Otherness, but they did

this through a carefully constructed way that in no way required

6 Yasmin Syed, Vergil’s Aeneid and the Roman Self: Subject and Nation in Literary Discourse (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2005): 53-4 discusses the concept of the Gaze and its function in turning the reader into a spectator. This line of thought works well for the present study in that the literary accounts of the triumphs subsequently brings the reader into the associated discourses by allowing them to view the triumph from a distance.

7 Beard, 181-2 makes the case that descriptions of triumphs would consistentlyhighlight the method in which the Romans displayed the various elements in theprocession.

6


the accurate representation of the ethnic and cultural realities

of the foreigners on display.

The activities of the actual conquest are the first step in

the conceptualization of the Other in the minds of the Romans

afield, which they subsequently put on display in triumph. In his

panegyric to Trajan, Pliny the Younger first mentions how the

emperor’s forays abroad taught him mores gentium, the customs of

the inhabitants there (Pan. 15.3). This exposure to foreign ways

is an interesting notation, given that Pliny then projects a

future triumph over the Dacians.8 Contact with the Other provides

the initial formulation and perception of these people for the

Romans, who then constructs these notions for the spectator

through the medium of the triumph. Thus, first the triumph

transmits the conquered spolia to the spectators in Rome, which in

turn ostensibly constructs and transmits their identities.

As stated above, the Romans used several methods of

displaying their captives, each one contributing to the

construction of ethnic identity. The most visible method was the

8 Ibid., 121-2 discusses this same imagined triumph, but with a focus on how ancient writers would concentrate on the names of captured royalty.

7


use of tituli that spelled out for the spectators the identity of

each captive, including their places of origin, and examples of

these are prevalent in nearly every ancient description of the

triumph. Although at first glance this provided a utilitarian way

of informing the crowd about what they were seeing, the choice of

words in these labels would intimate the ethnicity of the

captives as well. For instance, placards in Claudius’ triumph

over Britain labeling Transalpine Gaul uses a word (comata) to

call to mind the long hair of the inhabitants – a stereotypical

association for them.9 Another good example of this feature of

the triumph occurs in the description of Aurelian’s triumph,

where placards identified every captive in relation to their

ethnicity. Included among the catalogue of various captives on

display, a placard identified ten Gothic women as Amazons. This

moreover shows that the Romans would also attach mythological

references to their captives that provide the spectator with

9 Pliny NH 33.16.54: Gallia comata titulis indicavit. It is important to note here, however, that its mention in the triumph itself did not coin this word to describe Transalpine Gaul, but rather was one of the names the Romans used forthat region (Transalpinus being another choice without an ethnic association). Either way, this lends to the point that the for this instance the label used in the context of the triumph still allowed for the transmission of ethnic identity of the captives displayed.

8


another way to construct the ethnic identities of captives in

their minds.10 The placards thus not only labeled the captives,

but also worked together closely with other methods of

representation that created a discourse of ethnic construction.

In addition to the tituli were models (simulacra), statuary,

paintings, and even floats (fercula) that together created scenery

relating to the exploits of the conquest.11 Inevitably, these

scenes contained representations of the captives both on display

and absent the event. The Romans carefully constructed each one

in a way that not only magnified or accentuated their

accomplishments, but also highlighted their conceptualization of

the peoples they conquered. Nearly every triumph that bears

descriptions of captives likewise portrays these other forms of

captive display. These constructed scenes could take a variety of

forms, from the simple to the grandiose, but each explicitly held

10 SHA Aurel. 33-4: ducta sunt et decem mulieres, quas virili habitu pugnantes inter Gothos ceperat, cum multae essent interemptae, quas de Amazonum genere titulus indicabat — praelati sunt tituli gentium nomina continentes.See also Beard, 122-3.

11 Tacitus, in a pedestrian manner, mentions that in the triumph of Germanicus, there were simulacra montium, fluminum, proeliorum, bellumque without any more detail (Ann. 2.41), but is a pithy list of the usual types of these scenes. See also App. Pun. 9.66 who mentions that the Romans carried πύργοι τεπαραφέρονται μιμήματα τῶν εἰλημμένων πόλεων, καὶ γραφαὶ καὶ σχήματα τῶν γεγονότων.

9


ethnic associations that the Roman spectator would be able to

relate to and understand. Artistic representation was an

important element for any triumph, and the Romans took extensive

pains to create the scenery for displaying to the crowd.12 Even

the rogue poet Ovid, in creating an imaginative triumph for

Germanicus, creates a picture of these other forms of media,

where he describes silver depictions of battlements and captured

barbarian towns that had their inhabitants painted on them.13 In

similar fashion, Pliny the Younger in his panegyric to Trajan

paints the scene of the captive parade complete with scenes of

the exploits of the barbarians, created in a way to highlight

their savagery. The captives themselves then followed the

representations, creating a strong link between the stereotypical

constructions displayed and the captives in tow.14 Thus, here is

evidence that the Romans specifically constructed the captive 12 Peter J. Holliday, “Roman Triumphal Painting: It’s Function, Development, and Reception,” in The Art Bulletin 79.1 (1997): 130 points out how these paintings served as cognitive tools for the Romans in that they had the ability “to affect and manipulate an audience.” Holliday’s article, however, does not apply this line of thought to the construction of ethnicity, but nonetheless it makes this essential point.

13 Ovid Pont. 2.1.37-8: protinus argento versos imitantia muros | barbara cum pictis oppida lataviris

14 Plin. Pan. 17.2: videor intueri immanibus ausis barbarorum onusta fercula, et sua quemque facta vinctis manibus sequentem.

10


procession in a way to highlight not the ethnic realities of

barbarian identities, but the Roman perception of such.

Velleius Paterculus, in describing the triumphs of Caesar,

describes several apparatus of each victory fashioned in materials

associated with each conquered land that one may assume also

conjured up correlating ethnic associations.15 Describing the

same triumphs, Florus takes the descriptions a step further by

illustrating the representations of the Rhine and Rhone Rivers,

along with Oceanus in gold for the Gallic triumph and a depiction

of the Nile on a float that also featured Arsinoe and a model of

the Pharos.16 This scene exhibits the personification of foreign

lands through their rivers that were “the bearers of cultural

identity,” which reinforced the ethnic identities corresponding

with the inhabitants.17 In other words, the rivers themselves

were both cultural and ethnic substitutions for the captives

present in the triumph and the people living within the lands

represented. Furthermore, that Caesar displayed Arsinoe on the

15 Vell. Pat. 2.121.3: Gallici apparatus ex citro, Pontici ex acantho, Alexandrini testudine, Africi ebore, Hispaniensis argento rasili constitit.

16 Flor. 2.13.88-9; see also Murphy, 158-9 and Beard, 136-7; 146; 154.

17 Murphy, 138.11


Egyptian simulacrum exemplifies in one sense that the display of

captives also visually functioned to encapsulate the

circumstances of their own defeat. Along these same lines, the

captives participated in the construction and subsequent

communication of their own ethnicity.

The Romans would sometimes force the captives to interact

with the scenery in which they were a part, as shown in the

example given regarding the display of Arsinoe in Caesar’s

triumph. Additionally, the ethnic associations related to these

captives would permeate these elaborate constructions. Thus, the

captives became not only living representations of their own

ethnicities, but also of the inhabitants in their homelands.18

Josephus provides a spectacular (pun intended) account of the

triumph celebrated concurrently by Vespasian and Titus, which is

one of the most thoroughly extensive ancient reports that

survives. His perspective is also unique in that it is possible

that he was a captive in the procession, and if true affords a

perspective of the triumph that does not have an equal. Before

describing the triumphal procession itself, he even makes a very

18 Beard, 145 and 147.12


acute comment on the impossibility of being able to describe the

totality of the display that gives the impression on the impact

the event had for all involved.19 Josephus’ account is one of the

best surviving reports on the Roman triumph that provides a

wealth of detail, made even more valuable given that he does not

maintain a Roman perspective. Amongst his listing of items on

display, he includes in his portrayal moving three-to-four-storey

high stages, representing various scenes from the war. The

appearance of these πηγμάτων evoked a sense of wonder among the

spectators, on which the Romans forced enemy commanders to act

out scenes in the war that led to their defeat.20 One can easily

imagine that the excitement these structures summoned forth

allowed these images and captive displays to render more firmly

in mind the ethnic identities associated with each one.

Even the images of captured deities could invoke the

ethnicities of the people who worshipped them.21 Appian gives an

example of this in his account of the triumph of Pompey over

19 Joseph. BJ. 7.132 and 146.

20 Ibid., 7.139 and 147.

21 Although Plutarch notes that in the triumph of Marcellus, the captive statues met with disapproval from the old guard in Rome (Marc. 21.4).

13


Mithridates in 61 BCE where, in addition to the captives

themselves, the procession featured εἰκόνες of vanquished foes

that also helped to formulate the ethnicities of the captives who

were there through artistic representation. Yet even more

tantalizing is the mentioning of the θεῶν τε βαρβαρικῶν εἰκόνες

καὶ κόσμοι πάτριοι, representations of barbarian gods dressed in

the garb of their homeland. 22 Dressing up these εἰκόνες thus

exemplified another way the Romans, in the construction and

discourse of ethnic identity, enlisted even these deities.

Josephus also gives a very enticing description of the statues of

the gods on display in the aforementioned triumph of Vespasian

and Titus. He reports that they were not only impressively large,

but that they were also impressive in their artifice, which taken

together suggests a conscious construction to magnify the image

desired by the orchestrators of the ceremony.23 The sense one

gets when reading this description, especially considering that

Josephus does not write from a Roman perspective, is the

impression made to the spectator that in turn strengthens any

22 App. Mith. 17.117, see also Beard 182.

23 Joseph. BJ 7.136: ἐφέρετο δὲ καὶ θεῶν ἀγάλματα τῶν παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς μεγέθεσι θαυμαστὰ καὶ κατὰ τὴν τέχνην οὐ παρέργως πεποιημένα.

14


ethnic association connected to these images presented in the

triumph.

The tituli, simulacra, paintings, and other such scenic

representations are only one part of the picture in how the

Romans constructed the ethnicity of the captives. The Romans

would use the captives themselves as symbolic capital in the

triumphal display that, although not expressly stated, greatly

influences the ethno-cultural identity associated with them. The

Romans did this in several ways, including the above-mentioned

passages referring to the utilization of captives in the scenic

representations. Yet the most common way for the Romans to

communicate the identities of the captives was to dress them in

their native garb that instantiated the dress of these people

into their ethnic persona for the Romans, which also resulted in

the frequent usage by Roman authors of distinctive clothing for

describing Others. Polybius provides one example of this in

describing the triumphal return to Rome by L. Aemilius Papus in

224/5 BCE, where he mentions among the spoils μανιάκαις, which is

the Greek term for the distinctive torques worn by the Gauls. He

states that Aemilius dedicated these in the Capitol and displayed

15


the remaining spoils – including the captives – in his triumph.24

Why these torques were chosen for display is most likely because

they are, to the Romans, ethnic identifiers of the conquered.

Their display here and in triumph – which the captives probably

wore – thus adds the captive’s ethnic identities to the Roman

mind.25

Constructing the appearance of captives down to the garb

worn by them during the procession was able to conjure in the

Roman mind various emotive responses as well. These in turn work

as powerful re-cognitive tools for remembering after the event

has concluded the associations with the memories of the triumph.

For instance, when Scipio returned to Rome in 201 BCE to

celebrate a triumph over Carthage, the procession of captives

evoked memories of the danger they used to pose.26 While it is

not the contention here to dispute Polybius on this, one can

24 Polyb. 2.31.5-6; see also Tac. Ann. 12.36-7.

25 Another famous example of this is the triumphal scenery emblazoned on Aeneas’ shield that includes a description of captives that Vergil (Aen. 8.722-8) described in terms of their ethnic garb or by how different their language, dress, and weaponry was. All these elements are identifiers for the Roman mind in constructing, maintaining, and perpetuation the image of ethnicity for the Other through the institution of the triumph.

26 Ibid., 16.23.4-6.16


certainly imagine how this would also extend to the

conceptualization of the Other in the Roman mind. This idea is

even more potent when one considers that the Romans also tended

to select for display in the triumph only those who suited the

desired look and role to play in the ceremony.

One of the motivations for dressing up captives, and thus

constructing their identities, was to display the glory of

conquest. It was in the triumphator’s best interest to show his

captives to be worthy foes rather than beaten down and

unimpressive.27 Thus because the level of glory and the

appearance of the captives ties together in such a way that

inexorably linked both to the discourse informing the spectators

on the identities of those on display. Furthermore, it was in

their best interest to construct these images of captives in as

fierce and imposing manner as possible, thus feeding into,

maintaining, and constructing their ethnicities all at once.

Conversely, the spectators had the opportunity with each passing

captive to reaffirm their own identity by negatively equating

themselves to them. That is to say, by seeing the captives going

27 Beard, 134.17


by, they are able to see and identify with what they are not,

which then gives them the moment to construct their own identity

as Romans. Thus, the triumphator, the captives, and the spectators

all participate (whether willing or not) in an elaborate

discourse of identity constructions. The way in which Romans are

able to self-identify through the display of captives will be in

the following section in more detail, but the essential point

here is that captives were selectively chosen for display in the

triumph and that the name/character/reputation of the enemy had

to be worthy enough to warrant a triumph at all.28 Thus, when one

celebrated a triumph, they decked out their captives in their

most formidable appearance to accentuate this concept, which in

turn also accentuated (if not exaggerated) the ethnic

associations and identities of the captives.

Another method using the captives themselves, which goes

hand-in-hand with the constructed appearance, was in the Roman

selectivity for choosing which ones to exhibit in the procession.

Before the captives made it onto the streets of Rome in the

28 Aul. Gel. 5.6.20-3 for instance states that the names of slaves and pirateswould not be worth adorning a triumph with: ovandi ac non triumphandi causa est cum...hostium nomen humile et non idoneum est, ut servorum piratarumque.

18


triumph, the Romans selectively picked which ones they wanted to

display. They were selective in several ways, but their

selectivity was primarily in order to fit whichever captives to

be in the triumph into a preconceived stereotype or because they

were the most imposing-looking. For instance, Velleius Paterculus

in describing the triumph of Tiberius over Germany, in which he

claims to have actually participated, describes the captives as

being omnis eminentissimos hostium duces…fama.29 The most eminent

leaders of the enemies were on display is the usual translation,

but eminentissimus also has the additional connotation of referring

to one’s height. Thus, this suggests that the Romans selected for

display only the tallest captives, which also is a trait the

Romans commonly associated with the Germans. Another instance of

this sense comes in Plutarch’s description of Aemilius Paulus’

three-day triumph in 167 BCE, where he describes that one of them

featured the most costly and beautiful Macedonian armaments that

were not only polished to a gleam, but were carefully arranged by

the Romans to appear as they had fallen right onto the

29 Vel. Pater. 2.121.3.19


battlefield.30 Plutarch here also notes how these weapons clanged

together, their sound and appearance evoking awe at their

formidability, which shows not just the level of impact such

displays had on the spectator, but also helped cement the

associated ethnic connotations.31

Triumphs also introduced a vast array of nova materia to the

Romans in the triumphal display, from the luxurious to the exotic

(although these two sometimes are one and the same to the Roman

mind). The introduction of captives into the heart of Rome

conjured up a variety of responses, each one revealing something

regarding their ethnicity and the effects of their introduction.

To exemplify this response and discursive participation, Pliny

the Elder records that the triumphs of Pompey, Scipio, Manlius,

and Mummius resulted in the Roman desire for foreign objects such

as pearls, embossed silver, Attalic (Pergamene) garments, bronze

30 Plut. Aem. 32.3: The use of the superlatives in κάλλιστα καὶ πολυτελέστατατῶν Μακεδονικῶν ὅπλων suggest a selective process was involved in choosing them for display.

31 Ibid., 32.4. Another reference to the selectivity of the Romans occurs in Josephus where Titus selected 700 captives to display in his triumph (Joseph. BJ 7.118; see also Murphy, 155; Beard, 118-9).

20


triclinia, and Corinthian pictures and bronze objects. 32 He

continues his description of the triumph by enumerating the great

panoply of spoils displayed at Pompey’s triumph, each one

highlighting the luxury and ostentation associated with the East

(orientis opes).33 Interestingly enough, the verb Pliny uses

(inclinavit) to describe this newfound interest in such things can

also carry a negative connotation denoting a decline, rather than

the usual meaning “to turn towards something.” Thus, this word

choice by Pliny hints at the disapproval associated with such

ostentation and luxury that many of our sources echo. Pliny’s

account accentuates this contempt even more by exclaiming that

Pompey’s ostentatious display, including a large portrait made of

pearls, conquered the Roman severitas of their ancestors.

Furthermore, this declamation regarding these foreign luxuries

shows how such a display becomes involved within the discourse of

32 Pliny NH 37.6.12: Victoria tamen illa Pompei primum ad margaritas gemmasque mores inclinavit, sicut L. Scipionis et Cn. Manli ad caelatum argentum et vestes Attalicas et triclinia aerata, sicut L. Mummi ad Corinthia et tabulas pictas. id uti planius noscatur, verba ex ipsis Pompei triumphorum actis subiciam.

33 Ibid., 37.6.13-7; see also 37.6.18-20 where Pompey presumably had Chinese porcelain (myrhinna)among the spoils paraded through Rome in his triumph that subsequently became the rage for luxurious display among elites. For the introduction of luxury through triumph that can subsequently inform upon ethnic associations, see also Plut. Marc. 21; Livy 39.6.6-7; August. De civ. D. 3.21; Beard, 68-9.

21


Roman identity, a point that the following section of this paper

will elucidate further.34 Moreover, many of these luxuries, such

as the ones listed above, in their descriptions will carry ethnic

identifiers that support the idea that things displayed in

triumph serve as a way of constructing ethnic identities for the

captives. The simple act of displaying and recording these

objects along with their ethnic associations constructs,

perpetuates, and maintains the Roman attitude regarding them. In

other words, because these foreign objects introduced a strong

desire for them, those who tried to acquire them took on the

negative connotations that correlated to their places of origin.

The ethnic associations of various luxury items had the potential

to alter the ethnic identity of the Romans themselves.35

In contrast with the attitude Pliny exhibited above, it is

reasonable to assume that the incorporation of objects originally

paraded and introduced by the conquests of exotic and foreign

34 Ibid., 37.6.14-5: ita severitate victa et veriore luxuriae triumpho! numquam profecto inter illos viros durasset cognomen Magni, si prima victoria sic triumphasset! For the introduction of luxury through triumph that can subsequently inform upon ethnic associations, see also Plut. Marc. 21; Livy 39.6.6-7; August. De civ. D. 3.21; Beard, 68-9.

35 Edward Ch. L. Van der Vliet, “The Romans and Us: Strabo’s Geography and the Construction of Ethnicity,” in Mnemosyne 56.3 (2003): 264.

22


lands into the homes of elites in some way also allowed them to

partake in the glory of the triumph, and by extension reinforcing

their own identities as Romans. These are also able to perpetuate

and maintain the ethnic associations inherent with them, as

evidenced by the declamation Pliny gives in regards to the

introduction of such Eastern luxuries. In other words, Eastern

luxury became associated with the negative connotations often

given to Eastern societies under Rome and in contact with Rome,

which in turn perpetuates the connection of these connotations to

the ethnic identities of those same conquered realms.

The captive objects displayed and introduced in the triumph

would also find their way into various places in Rome, adorning

homes and public spaces and buildings. These items would in turn

perpetuate and maintain the connotations originally constructed

in the triumph.36 They served as visual reminders to all who

viewed them, where they would conjure up the memory of the event,

often long after it had occurred. Statues, monuments, and even

literary descriptions of the triumph all worked to maintain the

36 Pliny states that the images and statues from triumphs that adorned houses stayed there even after the house changed owners: aliae foris et circa limina animorum ingentium imagines erant adfixis hostium spoliis, quae nec emptori refigere liceret, triumphabantque etiam dominis mutatis aeternae domus (NH 35.2.7).

23


constructed ethnic discourse from the event itself.37 One amusing

example of this comes from Suetonius when he mentions that in a

dream of Nero statues of Pompey set up around his theater harass

Nero.38 These statues presumably all originally adorned Pompey’s

triumphs, and this brief mention is evidence that even these

memorials reinforced the ethnic constructions in the Roman mind,

however stereotyped. Spolia dedicated in various temples throughout

Rome also served as visual reminders of the triumph, as evidenced

in its origin story given by Plutarch where he describes how

Romulus dedicated the first captive arms (spolia opima). These

would thus continue to display a constant reminder and

reinforcement of the conceptualizations associated with the

weapons – presumably including ethnicity.39 The Forum was also

another popular place for the dedication and setting up of

various spolia displayed in the triumphs. Florus remarks that

spoils were still on display in the Forum from the triumph of

Maenius over Antium. The display of spolia in such a way continues

37 Holliday 1997, 147 echoes this thought by asserting that the triumphal display and subsequent representations of it “kept the spectacle alive in the minds of those who had seen it.”

38 Suet. Nero 46.1; see also Beard, 25.

39 Plut. Rom. 16.24


the ethnic associations related to them, as well as perpetuating

them into the future, thus preserving the moment of the triumph

for posterity.40

The best example of the perpetuation and maintenance of the

ethnic identities constructed in the triumph occurs in Cicero’s

speech against Verres. Here Cicero mentions that Publius Servius,

after his triumph, registered a catalog of the spoils both in the

treasury and inscribed on public tablets that included full

descriptions of captured statues.41 These public tablets would

thus serve to conjure up any association related to their

triumphal display in the minds of the Roman reading them,

including the ethnic identities of the spoils. Cicero then

accentuates this further in the following passage (2.1.58), where

he mentions how captive statues and paintings adorned the Forum

and Comitium. Placed here, they served as a more powerful and

40 Flor. 1.5; see also Beard, 19 who makes the point that the triumphatores wanted to make the moment of their triumph last beyond the events themselves “to spread the experience beyond…the day itself.” In addition to the examples given above, they achieved this through other mediums of artistic expression, such as coinage, architecture, and monuments. Buildings constructed from triumphal proceeds, such as temples, memorialized the triumph and the events leading up to them (21), therefore both maintaining and perpetuating the associations implicit within the scenes.

41 Cicero Ver. 2.1.57: in tabula publica ad aerarium perscribenda curavi

25


continuous reminder and reinforcement of the ethnic

conceptualizations associated with them for all who saw them. He

illustrates the re-cognitive power of these monuments in the next

passage where he points out how Asian and Greek foreigners would

come to worship the statues of their deities set up there for

display (2.1.59). For these visitors, these captured statues

invoked in their minds the circumstances that led to their

placement there, but a different emotive and cognitive response

would occur for a Roman viewer. A Roman viewer of these statues

would not only instantly be able to correlate the constructed

identities associated with them, but they would also have these

conceptualizations reinforced at the same time. Thus, here one

sees how triumphal display and the constructed identities with

them perpetuate long after the event itself.

Cicero makes an illuminating comment regarding the spectacle

of the triumph in that he hints at one purpose underlying the

event that bears brief discussion here. In his speech against

Verres regarding the holding back of an enemy commander, he

points out that those ones slated for display in the triumph are

for the people. Cicero’s word choice here is interesting, where

26


he uses the verb percipere in reference to how the people interact

with and regard the display. This word has several connotations

besides the usual translation “to take completely,” one of which

is “to learn/understand/perceive/conceive” and other cognitive

associations. The usual translation melded with the cognitive

sense works especially well when considering how the spectator

interacts with the triumphal display. Cicero provides this

essential glimpse, which gives one the impression that the

procession of captives thoroughly allowed the spectator to

conceptualize the presentation and depiction of the display.

Thus, the populus Romanus is able to conceptualize thoroughly –

percipere – the most splendid triumphal display – pulcherrimum

spectaculum – and the results of victory – fructumque victoriae.42

Before concluding with how the triumphal imagery, in

relation to the captives, in a way constructed and informed the

spectators about their own identities, it is useful first to look

at a pair of examples that combine the elements discussed above.

The first comes from Suetonius and Persius in their accounts of a

42 Ibid., 2.5.77: at etiam qui triumphant eoque diutius vivos hostium duces reservant, ut his per triumphum ductis pulcherrimum spectaculum fructumque victoriae populus Romanus percipere possit

27


sham triumph celebrated by Caligula over the Germans. In

preparing for the event, Caligula had not only selected a few

captives and barbarians, but also had used various Gauls that

were ἀξιοθριάμβευτον (fit to be displayed in a triumph). These

Gauls, who were procerissimum (the most tallest or greatest in

stature), were compelled learn to speak German and take German

names, and they had to grow out their hair and dye it red.43

Thus, Suetonius provides a very telling piece of evidence that

the Romans did not only construct the identities of captives, but

also participated in the discourse of ethnic identity and its

perpetuation, however stereotyped. Persius also satirized

Caligula’s bogus triumph in some detail, stating that his wife

Caesonia was contracting for (locat) captives to put on display,

complete with distinctive garb and armaments that they were to

wear, having them fit more within the ethnic conceptualization

that people would believe.44 Even if the triumph itself was a

total fabrication all the way down to the fake captives, Caligula

had to draw upon some common image of what the Germans looked and43 Suet. Cal. 47: coegit rutilare et summittere comam et sermonem Germanicum addiscere et nomina barbarica ferre.

44 Pers. 6.46-7: ac iam postibus arma iam chlamydas regum, iam lutea gausapa captis essedaque ingentesque locat Caesonia Rhenos.

28


acted like so that the Roman spectators would find it believable.

To make that happen he utilized some of the same methods

described above, such as selecting captives with certain traits

or qualities. Of course, as Suetonius himself is testament, this

construction did not fool everyone.45

Ovid’s imaginative triumph of Tiberius over Germany

encapsulates nearly every element discussed above that argues for

the triumph as a visual ethnography. First, he envisions the

attitudes of the spectators, who would actively engage in the

identification of the passing captives, even after reading the

names.46 The method in which the Romans dressed up the captives

for this display, including the tituli that labeled them, as

discussed above, greatly influenced the transmission and

conceptualization of their identity to the spectators. Ovid

furthers this imagery by giving ethnic associations to his

descriptions, such as the depiction of Germany personified, where

the poet portrays it with the word crinibus: a reference to the

45 Beard, 185-6.

46 Ovid Tr. 4.2.19-26. Cf. Ars Am. 1.217-28: In his advice to the would-be lover boy trying to impress a girl at a triumph, he suggests that the boy should identify everything that passed – even if he really did not know. See also Beard, 183-4.

29


distinctive ethnic marker of the longhaired Germans.47 Mentioned

here too are the representations of the lands conquered, along

with the captives – all this, especially given that Ovid is

creating the entire scene in his imagination, illustrates just

how effective triumphal imagery and the associated ethnic

constructions exemplifies the idea that these thus contribute to

the Roman perception of the captives.48 Ovid had to conjure up

this scene from what he knows about the triumph, and thus he

(consciously or unconsciously) engages within the discourse

regarding the maintenance and conceptualization of these ethnic

associations. In sum, Ovid is an imaginative spectator of the

triumph – a rare instance of the perspective of the spectator,

and his cerebral creation is valuable for seeing the result of

the constructed captive display in the triumph infusing into the

minds of the spectators.

So far, the primary focus has zeroed in on the construction,

maintenance, and perpetuation of the ethnic identities of the

captives, but how did all this also play into the

47 Ibid., 4.2.44.

48 Ibid., 4.2.27-46 and 4.2.57.30


conceptualization of the identity of the spectator? As stated

above, the way the spectator was able to engage in a discourse

involving their own identity at the triumph was in relation to

how they viewed themselves in juxtaposition to the captives on

display. This constituted a sort of negative mirror, where the

Roman spectators identified themselves in terms of not being the

one on display.49 Thus, their identity during the triumph found

definition within a discourse of power where they essentially

distinguished themselves as Roman by seeing that they were the

conquerors rather than the conquered. The triumph was a ceremony

that not only constructed the identities of the viewer and the

viewed, but the concept of Roman power too.50 In other words, the

display engendered for the spectator a sense of possession and

49 Van der Vliet, 270, in discussing Strabo’s Geography, uses this concept of “negative self-identification, a kind of mirror” in a different way. His pointin using this concept is how Romans identify themselves as civilized vs. the uncivilized barbarian, and he describes a series of concentric circles to illustrate how identity relates to geographic (and political) position. This conceptual arrangement within the context of a triumph works well in that the act of displaying barbarians in the heart of Rome itself is a way of not only forming the image of these captives in the Roman imagination, but also a way to fortify the Roman identity itself through the power relationships implicit within the ceremony.

50 Beard, 4 states that the Romans did this through the “humiliation of the conquered,” which works well with the idea that the Romans could self identifyby not being the ones humiliated.

31


dominance over the captives and consequently served to conjure up

the image of their own ethnicities.51

The primacy and personification of power in the Roman

triumph was with the triumphator, whose imperium resulted in the

celebration of the ceremony. H.S. Versnal convincingly argues

that the imperium these men held was a power in itself that

transcended the secular. It was a power that allowed the

triumphator to accomplish astonishing acts, and it was a power

that others could draw from.52 It is reasonable to assume that

this power thus accentuated the Otherness of the captives on

display in the triumph, which in turn would also serve to cement

the image and construction of the ethnicities of the conquered.

Yet, more importantly, given that this power could impart itself

to others, it would indirectly highlight the ethnicities of the

spectators in a self-identification based upon the simple fact

they were not on display themselves. Moreover, the self-

identification involved here for the Romans finds definition in

terms of power – those in power watching those not in power were

51 Murphy, 158.

52 H.S. Versnal, Triumphus: An Inquiry into the Origin, Development and Meaning of the Roman Triumph (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 356-71.

32


Roman. The act of seeing these captives driven through the

streets of Rome, along with the panoply of ethnic identifiers,

allow each Roman to identify themselves as not those Others,

which the imperium of the triumphator strengthens in their minds by

means of that mystical power associated with it during the

triumph.53

One of the best ways of illustrating this concept within the

ancient accounts is in the extreme taboo of displaying Romans in

triumph. The multiple triumphs of Julius Caesar exemplify this

well in that, although resulting from successes in a civil war,

he celebrated them in the guise of foreign conquest. As discussed

above, he constructed his triumphs for the Roman spectators in

terms of conquering Gaul, Egypt, Pontus, Spain, and Africa.54

Appian, in his account of Caesar’s multiple triumphs,

unequivocally expresses this point by reporting that Caesar took

care not to label anything in his triumph as Roman. The Romans 53 Ibid., 371-82. See also Murphy, 158 who roughly echoes this line of thoughtby asserting that the display of foreign captives injected into the mind of the spectators “a sense of the culture divide” that laid between themselves and the captives on display.

54 Dio Cass. 43.19.2-3 suggests that this guise did not fool everyone in that some Roman citizens ostensibly were on display. Although this caused some consternation, he reports that the multitude of foreign captives overshadowed the circumstantial realities of the triumphs (43.20.1). Cf. Lucan 1.12 who classified the civil war as one that could bear no triumphs at all.

33


considered the display of citizens in triumph to be inauspicious,

and although Caesar did not expressly label anything as Roman,

his triumph still featured scenes depicting the demise of his

Roman foes – much to the distress of the spectators.55 Another

example that highlights the odious concept of captive Romans on

display occurs in a tantalizing account of a mock triumph the

Parthians “celebrated” over the disastrous defeat of Crassus at

Carrhae in 53 BCE. They constructed the procession in a way that

flaunted the trappings of an actual Roman triumph, such as

dressing up a Roman prisoner who looked like Crassus in a female

robe and forced to call himself αὐτοκράτωρ.56 Although this

episode highlights the abhorrence the Romans felt about their own

display in a triumph, it also shows how the discourse of

ethnicity extended outside the Roman context. This taboo and the

subsequent revulsion felt by Romans regarding the display of

their own strengthens the idea that their identity interwoven

55 App. B Civ. 2.15.101. See also Beard, 123-4 and Peter J. Holliday, “‘Ad Triumphum Excolendum’: The Political Significance of Roman Historical Painting,” in Oxford Art Journal 3.2 (1980), 7. This is also another example of how the emotive responses of the spectators played into the overall discourse surrounding ethnic identity.

56 Plut. Crass. 32: αὐτοκράτωρ = imperator.34


through the triumphal procession is defined by a power

relationship that must never be transgressed.

In conclusion, one can indeed interpret the triumph in terms

of its function as a visual ethnography, although it was a

ceremony infused with a multiplicity of interconnected meanings

steeped within the overarching discourse of power. The triumph

thus not only allowed the Romans to identify and construct the

ethnicities of those they conquered, but their own ethnicities as

well. Moreover, the actual event of the triumph represented only

one facet of this process of identification. The constructions,

themes, and meanings built into the thoroughly Roman procession

continued on well past the event itself through not just the

literary tradition, but through other mediums of representation.

Although a complete handling of every form of representation

would fill an entire volume, the examples provided throughout

this paper illustrate how the triumph functioned as a visual

ethnography for Roman and Other alike. In closing, it is useful

to point out that the captives, once paraded through Rome in the

triumph, did not typically come to an end. Instead, their

participation in the triumph represented a first step to becoming

35


Romans themselves in that the triumph in a way exposed these

people to the complexities of Roman power discourse that

consequently allowed them to find a place in Roman

society.57Although this was a popular topic of ancient authors to

point out the dimming of Romanness, the once captives would now

be able to fully engage in the socio-cultural tapestry of being

Roman.58 Thus, the triumph as a visual ethnography also became a

transformative ritual whereby newly conquered peoples could meld

their own ethnicities with that of their Roman conquerors.

57 Beard, 140-2 shows that many former captives eventually shed their captive identity for a Roman one.

58 Suet. Jul. 78-80 exemplifies this by reporting on Caesar’s decision to allowGauls to become senators and the subsequent contempt felt by the conservativesthat eventually led to his infamous assassination. Cf. Plut. Caes. 55.1-2 wherethe infant Juba paraded in Caesar’s triumph ended up becoming one of the most educated historians.

36


Bibliography

Beard, Mary. The Roman Triumph. London: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2009.

Bradley, Keith. “On Captives under the Principate.” Phoenix 58.3/4(2004): 298-318.

Deutsch, Monroe E. “Caesar’s Triumphs.” The Classical Weekly 19.13 (1926): 101-106.

Holliday, Peter J. “‘Ad Triumphum Excolendum’: The Political Significance of Roman Historical Painting.” Oxford Art Journal 3.2 Propaganda (1980): 3-8.

_____________. “Roman Triumphal Painting: Its Function, Development, and Reception.” The Art Bulletin 79.1 (1997): 130-47.

Murphy, Trevor. Pliny the Elder’s Natural History: The Empire in the Encyclopedia. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Payne, Robert. The Roman Triumph. London: Abelard-Schuman, 1963.

Syed, Yasmin. Vergil’s Aeneid and the Roman Self: Subject and Nation in Literary Discourse. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2005.

Versnal, H. S. Triumphus: an Inquiry into the Origin, Development and Meaning of the Roman Triumph. Leiden: Brill, 1970.

Van der Vliet, Edward Ch. L. “The Romans and Us: Strabo’s Geography and the Construction of Ethnicity.” Mnemosyne 56.3(2003): 257-72.

37

The Triumph as Visual Ethnography

Documents

Transcript of The Triumph as Visual Ethnography