Sacred and Civic Stone Monuments of the Northwest Roman Provinces 1407306502, 9781407306506, 9781407336473

Citation preview

BAR S2109 2010 McGOWEN

Sacred and Civic Stone Monuments of the Northwest Roman Provinces

SACRED AND CIVIC STONE MONUMENTS OF THE NORTHWEST ROMAN PROVINCES

S. L. McGowen

BAR International Series 2109 2010

B A R McGowen 2109 cover.indd 1

17/05/2010 14:24:25

Sacred and Civic Stone Monuments of the Northwest Roman Provinces

S. L. McGowen

BAR International Series 2109 2010

ISBN 9781407306506 paperback ISBN 9781407336473 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407306506 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................................ iii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS .......................................................................................................................................... iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................................ vii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1 Part 1: The Scope of the Study .................................................................................................................................... 1 Part 2: Contexts – Establishing the Sample ............................................................................................................... 4 General Regional Trends ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Type of Site .............................................................................................................................................................. 11 CHAPTER 2: THE MONUMENTS ............................................................................................................................. 15 Part 1: End of the First Century B.C. to the Late First Century A.D. .................................................................. 15 I. Arch of Augustus, Susa (Segusio): 9/8 B.C. .................................................................................................... 15 II. Arch, Carpentras (Carpentoracte Meminorum): Early First Century A.D.. .................................................... 18 III. Arch, Glanum: Early First Century A.D. ......................................................................................................... 19 IV. Arch of Tiberius(?), Orange (Arausio): Early First Century A.D. ................................................................... 21 V. Sanctuary of Sulis Minerva, Bath (Aquae Sulis): c. A.D. 65-75. ..................................................................... 23 Part 2: Early to Middle Second Century A.D. ......................................................................................................... 27 VI. Sanctuary of an Unknown Deity, Champlieu: c. A.D. 110. ............................................................................. 27 VII. Sanctuary of Mars(?), Montmarte: Early Second Century A.D.. ..................................................................... 29 VIII. Sanctuary of Mercury and Rosmerta(?), Genainville: Early to Mid Second Century A.D.. ............................ 31 IX. Sanctuary of Hercules, Deneuvre: Middle of the Second Century A.D.. ......................................................... 34 X. Sanctuary of Apollo and Sirona, Hochscheid: Middle to Late Second Century A.D.. .................................... 35 Part 3: Late Second to Early Third Century A.D... ................................................................................................. 37 XI. Arch, Besançon (Vesontio): Late Second Century A.D.. ................................................................................. 38 XII. Arch, Reims (Durocortorum): Late Second Century A.D.. ............................................................................. 41 XIII. Sanctuary of the Matronae Aufaniae, Nettersheim: Late Second to Early Third Century A.D.. ..................... 43 XIV. Arch, London (Londinium): Late Second to Early Third Century A.D.. ......................................................... 45 XV. Arch of Dativius Victor, Mainz (Mogontiacum): Early Third Century A.D.. ................................................. 47 XVI. Temple of Mithras, London (Londinium): Middle of the Third Century A.D.. ............................................... 48 CHAPTER 3: THE INTERPLAY OF AGENCY, MATERIAL, AND STYLE........................................................ 53 Part 1: Agency – Patrons and Makers ...................................................................................................................... 53 Patrons. ..................................................................................................................................................................... 53 Makers. ..................................................................................................................................................................... 56 Part 2: Material .......................................................................................................................................................... 61 Type and Source. ...................................................................................................................................................... 61 Quantity. ................................................................................................................................................................... 61 Distance and Transport............................................................................................................................................. 63 Imports. .................................................................................................................................................................... 64 Part 3: Style................................................................................................................................................................. 65 CHAPTER 4: FORM AND ICONOGRAPHY – CHOICES AND DEVELOPMENT ............................................ 71 Part 1: Form – Layout and Design ............................................................................................................................ 71 The Direct Approach. ............................................................................................................................................... 71 Repetition. ................................................................................................................................................................ 72 The Visual Barrage................................................................................................................................................... 72 Part 2: Iconography ................................................................................................................................................... 73 Iconographic Programs: The Evidence from the Sacred Sites. ................................................................................ 73 Iconography from the Center: Celebrating Victory and the Emperor. ..................................................................... 79 CHAPTER 5: COMPARING TRENDS – FUNERARY MONUMENTS FROM THE NORTHWEST PROVINCES ........................................................................................................................................ 89

CHAPTER 6: A WIDER PICTURE – SACRED AND CIVIC STONE MONUMENTS OF NORTH AFRICA AND THE EAST ...................................................................................................................... 99 CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................... 107 CATALOGUE OF MAIN SITES AND MONUMENTS .......................................................................................... 109 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................................. 147

ii

Acknowledgements The words printed on the following pages are much more than just years of research. They are the culmination of support and inspiration from numerous sources. Although the list is long, to each one I owe my most profound thanks.

Meyer for their indispensable counsel and unflagging encouragement. I would also like to thank Dr. J.E. Lendon and Dr. John F. Miller for their always kind assistance and sage advice. For help in preparing the final draft, I should like to thank Alana Cash for her diligence.

I should like to thank my supervisor Prof. R.R.R. Smith for his assistance and wisdom. I am also grateful to my substitute supervisors for 2007-2008, Prof. Andrew Wilson and Dr. Martin Henig, for guiding the course of this project at a critical time. I should also like to thank Prof. Chris Gosden and especially Dr. Janet DeLaine for their helpful comments at an important transition phase of the study. I owe many thanks to my D.Phil. examiners, Prof. John Wilkes and Dr. Peter Stewart, for their contribution to the final stages of this work. I am also grateful to Dr. Niels Gaul, Dr. Harry Sidebottom, and Mrs. Carmella Elan-Gaston from Lincoln College for their support and assistance.

For their assistance with the images, I am grateful to Ian Cartwright, Barry Cunliffe, Andrew Wilson, and Bert Smith of the Institute of Archaeology at the University of Oxford; Danièle Terrer at Centre Camille Jullian, CNRSUniversité de Provence; Francis Grew and Nikki Braunton of the Museum of London; Elizabeth Royles of the Grosvenor Museum, Chester; Teresa Calver of the Colchester Museum; Carmen McCoy of the LVRLandesmuseum Mainz; Andrea Bussman and Susanne Willer of Landesmuseum Bonn; Elizabeth Hahn of the American Numismatic Society; McKenzie Lewis; Marc Lamuà; Christine Jewell; Delphine Cingal; Dominique Pipet; Gordon Higgs; Adriaan Neervoort; and Jonathan Wallace.

This work was produced largely during the course of my D.Phil. degree at the University of Oxford. During this time, I was fortunate to receive funding from various generous bodies. I am especially appreciative of the financial support I have received from Universities UK, from Lincoln College, both in the form the Polonsky Foundation Grant and travel funds, and from the Institute of Archaeology and the Meyerstein Fund.

For their support and encouragement, I am especially thankful for the friendship of Raffaele Renella and Chantal Berna, Anthony Lock, Martin and Faye Roets, Amy Johnson and Deb Cannon, Emily and Thomas Scott, Kevin Perry, Patrick Wright and Mark Goad, Fred and Anne Drogula, Steven and Jackie Shuman, Brian Yost, Dexter Sowell, Samantha Price, Rich Grenyer and Louise Johnson, Amy Pedersen, Peter Burian, John and Franny Henkel, and McKenzie Lewis.

For assistance at various stages of this project, for providing me with valuable sounding boards for ideas, and for friendship and support, I should like to thank Jane Anderson, Christina Triantafillou, Ben Russell, Matt McCarty, Roberto Rossi, Marc Lamua, Wendy Morrison, Jason Mander, Elizabeth Macaulay-Lewis, and Marc Lamuà.

Finally, this book is dedicated to my family: Sally, Ray and Jane, Shannon, Wade, Tyler and Mason, and last but certainly not least, Cath.

From the University of Virginia, I am particularly indebted to Dr. Tyler Jo Smith and Dr. Elizabeth A.

Rome, March 2010

iii

List of Illustrations 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 2.19

Map of the core sixteen sites. (Image: ©S. McGowen) Map showing the largest concentrations of inscriptions. (Image: ©S. McGowen) Map of the major urban centers in the northwest provinces. (Image: ©S. McGowen) Map of the road network in the northwest provinces. (Image: ©S. McGowen) South façade of the arch at Susa. (Image: ©S. McGowen) Lictors and horn-players from the north façade of the arch at Susa. (Image: ©S. McGowen) Ram with victimarius and a rider from the north façade of the arch at Susa. (Image: ©S. McGowen) Cavalry and infantry soldiers from the north façade of the arch at Susa. (Image: ©S. McGowen) Central sacrifice scene from the south façade of the arch at Susa. (Image: ©S. McGowen) Right half of the frieze on the west façade of the arch at Susa. (Image: ©S. McGowen) Central scene of the frieze on the west façade of the arch at Susa. (Image: ©S. McGowen) The arch at Carpentras. (Image: ©M. Lamuà) West façade of the arch at Carpentras. (Image: ©M. Lamuà) East façade of the arch at Carpentras. (Image: ©M. Lamuà) East façade of the arch at Glanum. (Image: ©D. Pipet) Captives from the north panel of the east façade at Glanum. (Image: ©C. Jewell) Captives from the north panel of the west façade at Glanum. (Image: ©C. Jewell) South façade of the arch at Orange. (Image: ©C. Jewell) Weapons panels from the north façade of the arch at Orange. (Image: ©C. Jewell) Romans battling Gauls from the frieze of the arch at Orange. (Image: ©S. McGowen) Captives from the east façade of the arch at Orange. (Image: ©S. McGowen) Detail of a ship fragment held by a triton from the east façade of the arch at Orange. (Image: ©S. McGowen) Pediment from the late first century temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath. (Image: ©Institute of Archaeology, Oxford)

2.20 2.21 2.22 2.23 2.24 2.25 2.26 2.27

Bacchus from the altar at Bath. (Image: ©Institute of Archaeology, Oxford) Spring Goddess from the altar at Bath. (Image: ©Institute of Archaeology, Oxford) Hercules from the altar at Bath. (Image: ©Institute of Archaeology, Oxford) Jupiter from the altar at Bath. (Image: ©Institute of Archaeology, Oxford) Quadrifrons in front of the sacred spring at Bath. (Image: ©Institute of Archaeology, Oxford) Cupid as one of the seasons from the sculpted screen at Bath. (Image: ©Institute of Archaeology, Oxford) Small pediment from Bath decorated with a bust of Luna. (Image: ©Institute of Archaeology, Oxford) Sculpted panels from Champlieu: Thetis with the infant Achilles (L) and Apollo wearing a laurel wreath (R). (Image: Espérandieu)

2.28 2.29

Sculpted panels from Champlieu: Figure wearing a Persian costume (L) and Apollo (R). (Image: Espérandieu) Two blocks of a sculpted panel from Champlieu showing a collapsed, nude female, possibly a Niobid. (Image: Espérandieu)

2.30 2.31 2.32 2.33 2.34 2.35 2.36 2.37 2.38 2.39 2.40

Wing of an eagle likely carrying Ganymede from Champlieu. (Image: ©Bases NEsp et RBR) Prometheus enchained from Champlieu. (Image: ©Bases NEsp et RBR) Leda and the swan from Champlieu. (Image: ©Bases NEsp et RBR) Torso of Mercury with an infant. (Image: ©Bases NEsp et RBR) Limestone Mars from Montmarte. (Image: ©S. McGowen) Composite of several marble statues of Mars from Montmarte. (Image: ©S. McGowen) Vanquished giant from Montmarte. (Image: ©S. McGowen) Limestone Genius from Montmarte. (Image: ©S. McGowen) Inscription from Montmarte, with the name of the unknown deity NVRC appearing in the first line. Cyclopes from Genainville. (Image: ©S. McGowen) Resurrection of the ram by Medea from Genainville: Leg of Pelias (Image: ©L); arm and lower legs of Medea; cauldron (Image: ©R). (Image: ©S. McGowen)

2.41

Medallion from the reverse of the sculpted façade at Genainville. (Image: ©S. McGowen) iv

2.42 2.43 2.44 2.45 2.46 2.47 2.48 2.49 2.50 2.51 2.52 2.53 2.54 2.55 2.56 2.57 2.58 2.59 2.60 2.61 2.62

Pair of goddesses from a small pediment at Genainville. (Image: ©S. McGowen) Reclining goddess from a small pediment at Genainville. (Image: ©S. McGowen) Hercules at rest from Deneuvre. (Image: ©S. McGowen) Hercules combatant from Deneuvre. (Image: ©S. McGowen) Hercules with his club resting on his shoulder from Deneuvre. (Image: ©S. McGowen) Spring Goddess from Deneuvre. (Image: ©S. McGowen) Small Apollo from Hochscheid. (Image: ©S. McGowen) Large Apollo from Hochscheid. (Image: ©S. McGowen) Sirona from Hochscheid. (Image: ©S. McGowen) North façade of the arch at Besançon. (Image: ©Bildarchiv Foto Marburg) Reclining emperor from the east side of the interior bay at Besançon. (Image: ©Bildarchiv Foto Marburg) Diademed figure from the west side of the interior bay at Besançon. (Image: ©Bildarchiv Foto Marburg) Snake-legged giant form the north face of the arch at Besançon. (Image: ©S. McGowen) East pier of the north façade of the arch at Besançon. (Image: ©Bildarchiv Foto Marburg) East pier of the south façade of the arch at Besançon. (Image: ©Bildarchiv Foto Marburg) South façade of the arch at Reims. (Image: ©Ad Meskens) Clipeus, caducei, and putti with curtains from the arch at Reims. (Image: ©S. McGowen) Diagram of the proposed decorative scheme of the arch at Reims. (Image: ©S. McGowen) Lupercal from the eastern vault of the arch at Reims. (Image: Espérandieu) Leda and the Swan from the western vault of the arch at Reims. (Image: Espérandieu) Aion or Annus with the Four Seasons surrounded by an agricultural calendar from the central vault of the arch at Reims. (Image: Espérandieu)

2.63 2.64 2.65 2.66 2.67

Dedication to the Matronae Aufaniae. (Image: ©Landesmuseum Bonn) Dedication to the Matronae Aufaniae. (Image: ©Landesmuseum Bonn) Reconstruction of the arch at London. (Image: ©Museum of London) Apollo from the narrow end of the arch at London. (Image: ©Museum of London) Block from the frieze of the arch at London with Mars (L) and the moneybag and shoulder of Mercury (R). (Image: ©Museum of London)

2.68

Block of the frieze of the arch at London with the head of a diademed female, likely Venus. (Image: ©Museum of London)

2.69 2.70 2.71 2.72 2.73 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.7 4.1 4.2

Façade of the arch of Dativius Victor from Mainz. (Image: ©LVR-Landesmuseum Mainz) Marble head of Mithras from the London Mithraeum. (Image: ©Museum of London) Marble plaque of Mithras from the London Mithraeum. (Image: ©Museum of London) Cautopates from the London Mithraeum. (Image: ©Museum of London) Marble head of Serapis from the London Mithraeum. (Image: ©Museum of London) Map of the inscriptions realted to stoneworkers. (Image: ©S. McGowen) Votive altar from Bath dedicated by the sculptor Sulinus. (Image: ©Institute of Archaeology, Oxford) Grave-stele of the sculptor Amabilis from Bordeaux. (Image: ©D. Cingal) Freestanding sculpture of Hercules from Deneuvre. (Image: ©S. McGowen) High-quality relief of Hercules from Deneuvre. (Image: ©S. McGowen) Schematic relief of Hercules from Deneuvre. (Image: ©S. McGowen) Stele from Aïn Nechma. (Image: ©A.I. Wilson) Relief of Hercules from Deneuvre showing partial contrapposto stance. (Image: ©S. McGowen) Panel of so-called Tellus from the Ara Pacis in Rome (Image: ©M. Lewis) Reverse of a denarius of Sulla showing a lituus and jug with two trophies (Image: ©American Numismatic Society)

4.3 4.4 4.5 5.1

Jupiter handing over his thunderbolt from the Arch of Trajan at Benevento. (Image: ©S. McGowen) Trajan receiving the thunderbolt of Jupiter from the Arch of Trajan at Benevento. (Image: ©S. McGowen) Mosaic of Aion with a zodiacal wheel and the Seasons. (Image: ©Public domain) Cast from Trier of the Monument of the Secundinii from Igel. (Image: ©J. Wallace)

v

5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12

Grave-stele of M. Favonius Facilis from Colchester. (Image: ©Colchester Museum) Grave-stele of a craftsman from Bordeaux. (Image: ©D. Cingal) Grave-stele of a woman from Châtillon. (Image: ©Bases NEsp et RBR) Grave-stele of Gaius Largennius from Strasbourg. (Image: ©Bases NEsp et RBR) Grave-stele of M. Aurelius Nepos. (Image: ©Grosvenor Museum, Chester) Grave-stele of the so-called Rhenish couple. (Image: ©LVR-Landesmuseum Mainz) Grave-stele of Caecilius Avitus. (Image: ©Grosvenor Museum, Chester) Grave-stele of a shoemaker from Reims. (Image: ©S. McGowen) Grave-stele of the imaginifer Genialis from Mainz. (Image: ©LVR-Landesmuseum Mainz) Grave-stele of Gnaeus Musius from Mainz. (Image: ©LVR-Landesmuseum Mainz) Relief from the Mausoleum of the Julii identified as the battle between Hector and Patroclus. (Image: ©D. Pipet)

5.13 5.14 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8

Front façade of the grave-stele of Blussus and his wife from Mainz. (Image: ©LVR-Landesmuseum Mainz) Detail of the grave-stele of Silius from Mainz. (Image: ©LVR-Landesmuseum Mainz) The Arch of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus at Oea. (Image: ©G. Higgs) Detail of the captives from the Arch of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus at Oea. (Image: ©G. Higgs) Arch of Caracalla at Volubilis. (Image: ©J. Wallace) Fragment of naval spolia from arch at Pisidian Antioch. (Image: ©DAI-Istanbul) Cupid with garland from the arch at Pisidian Antioch. (Image: ©DAI-Istanbul) Barbarian with a trophy from the arch at Pisidian Antioch. (Image: ©DAI-Istanbul) Ethnos of the Piroustae from Aphrodisias. (Image: ©New York University Excavations at Aphrodisias) Stele from Aïn Nechma. (Image: ©A.I. Wilson)

vi

List of Abbreviations AE BMC

L’Année épigraphique. 1888-. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Mattingly, H. and R.A.G. Carson. 1923-1962. Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum. London: British Museum.

CIL CSIR I.2

Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. 1863-. Berlin: Gruyter. Cunliffe, B.W. and M.G. Fulford. 1982. Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani, Great Britain I.2. Bath and the Rest of Wessex. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

CSIR I.7

Henig, M. 1993. Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani Great Britain I.7. Roman Sculpture from the Cotswold Region with Devon and Cornwall. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

CSIR I.8

Huskinson, J. 1994. Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani Great Britain I.8. Eastern England. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

CSIR I.9

Henig, M., G. Webster, and T.F.C. Blagg. 2004. Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani Great Britain I.9. Roman Sculpture from the North West Midlands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

CSIR I.10

Coombe, P., F. Grew, K. Hayward, M. Henig, with T. Blagg. (Forthcoming). Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani Great Britain I.10. Roman Sculpture from London and South-East England. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

CSIR II.2

Bauchhenss, G. 1984. Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani Deutschland II.2. Die Große Iuppitersäule aus Mainz. Mainz: Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums.

CSIR II.3

Bauchhenss, G. 1984. Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani Deutschland II.3. Denkmäler des Iuppiterkultes aus Mainz und Umgebung. Mainz: Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums.

CSIR II.5

Boppert, W. 1992. Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani Deutschland II.5. Militärische Grabdenkmäler aus Mainz und Umgebung. Mainz: Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums.

CSIR II.6

Boppert, W. 1992. Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani Deutschland II.6. Zivile Grabsteine aus Mainz und Umgebung. Mainz: Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums.

CSIR IV.3

Binsfeld, W.K., Goethert-Polaschek, and L. Schwinden. 1988. Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani Deutschland IV.3. Katalog der römischen Steindenkmäler des Rheinischen Landesmuseums Trier. Mainz: Phillip von Zabern.

Espérandieu

Espérandieu, E. 1907-1966. Recueil géneral des bas-reliefs, statues et bustes de la Gaule romaine. Paris: Imprimerie nationale.

Espérandieu, Germanie

Espérandieu, E. 1931. Recueil général des bas-reliefs, statues et bustes de la Germanie romaine. Paris and Brussels: G. van Oest.

ILTG

Wuilleumier, P. 1963. Inscriptions latines des trois Gaules (France). Paris: Center national de la recherche scientifique.

LIMC Ness-Lieb

Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae. 1981-1999. Zurich: Artemis. Nesselhauf, H. and H. Lieb. 1960. Inschriften aus den germanischen Provinzen und dem Treverergebiet. Berlin: de Gruyter.

RIB

Collingwood, R.G. and R.P. Wright, eds. 1965. The Roman Inscriptions of Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

RIC

Mattingly, H., E.A. Sydenham, C.H.V. Sutherland, and R.A.G. Carson. 1923-1981. The Roman Imperial Coinage. London: Spink.

Unless stated otherwise, all translations are by the author.

vii

Introduction

Chapter 1: Introduction prior to their incorporation, its subsequent use can illuminate not only how the indigenous populations adopted and adapted these new traditions to suit their needs and desires, but also how and why later generations maintained or changed them.

Part 1: The Scope of the Study By the end of the first century A.D., all of the countries of northwest Europe up to the Rhine, including northern Italy, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, and much of Britain, had been incorporated into the Roman Empire. They eventually became the Roman provinces of Alpes Poenninae, Alpes Cottiae, Alpes Maritimae, Gallia Narbonensis, Gallia Aquitania, Gallia Lugdunensis, Gallia Belgica, Raetia, Noricum, Germania Superior, Germania Inferior, and Britannia. Before Roman control was established in the mainland provinces in the first century B.C. and in Britain in the first century A.D., some Roman goods, and before them Greek and Etruscan products and technical skills, had been flowing into the Northwest for some time.1 The degree to which imported items were used varied widely. 2 For example, although the Gallic fondness for wine was a common motif in both Greek and Latin literature, 3 if Caesar is to be believed, the Belgic Nervii 4 as well as the Suebi5 did not allow the importation of Roman wine or other luxury items into their territory.6

As in the rest of the Empire, in the northwest provinces stone sculpture was used in four main contexts. In the private sphere, sculpture decorated private homes and villas. For example, a pair of busts made of imported Greek marble was found among the remains of a villa at modern-day Lullingstone in the province of Britannia, 11 and a statue of Minerva in a Greek archaic style was set up in a house in the town of Limonum Pictonum (Poitiers) in Gallia Aquitania.12 While sculptures such as these said much about the wealth and status of their owners, they were visible only to a select audience – namely, the owner and his invited guests. Sculpture, however, abounded in more readily visible places. Funerary monuments, from monumental structures such as the Mausoleum of the Julii at Glanum13 to smaller stelai such as the tombstone of M. Favonius Facilis from Colchester,14 were erected with varying density throughout the region. Public places, such as the forum at Lyon,15 and the theater at Orange,16 were also decorated with sculpture. Moreover, numerous religious sites, such as the sanctuary of Sulis Minerva at Bath17 or the altar of the Roma and Augustus at Lyon, had elaborate sculptural decoration.18 Unfortunately, the stone sculpture of the entire region has survived badly, and much of what remains has been removed from its archaeological context, mostly through reuse in later fortification walls and incorporation into other buildings or because of collecting practices of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It is the purpose of this research project to examine Roman sculpture across the provinces extending from the Rhine to the Pyrenees and Britain to understand better both regional similarities and local peculiarities, to contextualize them historically, culturally, and geographically, and to set them within wider patterns across the Empire.

Although some pre-Roman Iron Age stone sculpture, largely religious,7 has been found in northwest Europe, the indigenous populations had little tradition of carving in stone.8 Cunliffe and Green suggest that wood was the preferred material for sculpture, particularly religious sculpture, and that because of wood’s perishable nature most has not survived.9 In contrast, by the time the Roman hegemony became established in the region, a long history of sculpting in stone had existed in the Mediterranean. After the incorporation, first of the continental provinces and later of Britain into the Empire, new artistic and building traditions were introduced and adopted, and the use of stone for sculpture became pervasive. Rarely, however, has stone sculpture from this entire area been studied across the provinces. Instead, sculpture generally appears in studies of Roman art based on modern country or individual province. 10 Yet, even in the pre-Roman period these regions were not discrete, and exchanges of goods and ideas were already being made. Because little tradition of stone sculpture existed

Sculpture from private contexts was, on the whole, limited to high-end, imported works and presents an

1

Fitzpatrick 1989, 31-44. King 1990, 31. 3 For example, Pliny, Historia Naturalis XII.2.5; Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheke V.26; Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae IV. 151. See also Woolf 1998, 177; Carver 2001, 15-16. 4 Caesar, De Bello Gallico II.15. 5 Caesar, De Bello Gallico IV.2. 6 On the distribution of Mediterranean amphorae during the pre-Roman Iron Age in Gaul, see Carver 2001, 17-19; Loughton 2003, 177-207. In Britain, see Peacock 1971, 170-179; Carver 2001, 24-39. 7 For example, at Vienne see Terrer 2003, xvi. 8 Cunliffe 1997, 125-126. 9 Cunliffe 1997, 125; Green 1998, 20. 10 For example, Henig, 1995 or Nerzic, 1989. 2

11

Henig 1995, 76. On the sculpture from Lullingstone, see Meates 1955, 81-89, figs. 18-19 and 23-29; Henig 1995, 69; Wilson 2002, 83. 12 Espérandieu, II.1392. See also Audouin 1902, 43-71; King 1990, 84. On sculpture in domestic contexts from the late antique period, see Stirling 2005, 29-90 and 190195. 13 Espérandieu, I.114. See also Rolland 1969. 14 Philips 1975, 102-105; Huskinson 1994, 23, no. 47. See also Anderson 1984; Hope 2001. 15 Darblade-Audoin 2006, xxxvi. 16 Espérandieu I.246-258, 261, and 263-266. See also Bromwich 1996, 187-188. 17 Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, 114-129. 18 Turcan 1982, 607-644; Fishwick 1989, 111-112. 1

S.L. McGowen homogenous picture of sculptural activity. Funerary monuments are infused with local issues and individual identities, generating a perspective that is too disparate for our purposes. Despite the idiosyncrasies created by the differing goals and desires of their patrons, the choices for sacred and civic monuments were largely context driven. Therefore, they provide a comfortable median between these two poles, yielding a better general picture of sculptural activity in the northwest provinces, in regard to both local proclivities and wider imperial trends. Moreover, the sacred and the civic were inextricably linked in the Roman mind: “For the ancient every facet of his society was permeated by religion, that is by the relationship of the community of worshippers to the divine forces which controlled the life of the commonwealth and its members.”19 Likewise, from Augustus onwards, the Emperor served as princeps, imperator, and pontifex maximus. 20 Because the survival of Roman sculpture in the Northwest is so poor and, as a consequence, evidence is often limited, the interconnectedness of these two groups is particularly beneficial as they reinforce one another. The close connections between these two categories of monuments means they are not entirely discrete, and some overlap between them does occur. Therefore, sacred and civic sculpture provides the foundation for the current investigation, with private and funerary sculpture figuring only in an allusive and comparative way.

on these categories, but typically as two discrete groups. When looked at across the northwest provinces, the aspect of sanctuaries most frequently discussed is architecture, particularly the development of the RomanoCeltic or Gallo-Roman temple.22 In his invaluable work, Derks has gone beyond an architectural examination to include both epigraphic and artistic evidence, but he has largely confined his study to the province of Gallia Belgica.23 When work has been done specifically on images from sanctuaries in the Northwest, it typically aims to understand pre-Roman Iron-Age religious practices, of which very little evidence has survived,24 and in many of these investigations, the sculptures have been removed from their ancient contexts, as discussed by Johns in 2003.25 In some instances the arches themselves have been discussed in comparative groups, most often divided geographically or chronologically. For example, Prieur discussed the monumental arches of the western Alps in a 1982 article, and Küpper-Böhm examined the arches of Gallia Narbonensis in her more recent book.26 Moreover, the iconography on the arches has been analyzed in various ways, for instance, in studies on the representations of Germans27 or the uses of trophies.28 The current study uses the detailed individual analyses in conjunction with the wider province-based investigations to produce a broader picture of how stone sculptures of these two categories were used across the region and why these monuments looked the way they did.

Because of the heavy damage sustained by almost all sculpture from the urban locations in the region and because of the difficult nature of urban archaeology, sculpture from public venues is more limited. For example, of the aforementioned sculptural remains from the forum at Lyon, only two fragmentary sculptures, a togate figure and an armored bust, survive.21 While these limited examples establish that stone sculpture appeared in the forum, they are not substantial enough to generate conclusive statements about its overall use. Unfortunately this situation recurs at many civic venues throughout the entire region. Large stone arches have survived to a sufficient extent for a substantive comparison, and so they are used here to represent sculpted stone monuments from the civic sphere.

Although poorly preserved, the overall quantity of sculpture from the northwest provinces is not small. In the province of Britannia, often lamented as lacking in sculpture, approximately 2,500 entries occur in the volumes of the Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani. Likewise, ten thousand pieces of sculpture from the continental provinces appear in the old Espérandieu series, and it is anticipated that the new series, of which only two volumes have been published, will contain over thirty thousand. Therefore, to allow for a sufficiently detailed level of analysis, some narrowing of the field is needed; thus an extended case study approach is appropriate. Such an approach has the added advantage of letting the monuments tell the story. Instead of formulating arguments and then choosing monuments to support them, the monuments are selected and the arguments are built around them. The choice of monuments has been based partially on the state of preservation, but a set of criteria has also been

The previous literature on sacred and civic stone monuments from the northwest provinces is long and varied. Many have been studied individually and in depth in excavation reports and/or particularized monographs. For example, Cunliffe alone has produced no fewer than ten monographs on Roman Bath, and Amy et al.’s 1962 work on the arch at Orange has become a standard. When these two categories have been studied together, they almost always appear in studies of Roman art from individual provinces, for example, Henig’s The Art of Roman Britain or Nerzic’s La sculpture en Gaule romaine. Some more broad-ranging work has been done

22

On temple architecture in the northwest provinces, see Wilson 1975; Fauduet 1993; Fauduet, et al. 1993; Fauduet, et al. 1994. 23 Derks 1998, 24. 24 For examples of the use of Roman period monuments to identify pre-Roman and Gallo-Roman gods, see Courcelle-Seneuil 1910; Thevenot 1968; Benoit 1969, 77-123; Benoit 1970; Deyts 1992. 25 Johns 2003a, 9-23. 26 Prieur 1982; Küpper-Böhm 1996. 27 Krierer, et al. 2004. 28 Picard 1957.

19

Fears 1981a, 739. Beard, et al. 1998, 252-254. 21 Darblade-Audoin 2006, xxxvi. The togate figure (081, AI.017*, AI.018*) and the armored bust (077). 20

2

Introduction established. One of the main aims of this study is to examine sculpture activity in the large, multi-province region of the Northwest, and as a result, stone monuments from different provinces throughout the region are required. Because a second goal of this study is to investigate change or consistency over time, monuments of wide ranging dates are obligatory. Two final conditions remain: density and context. First, in order to understand how multiple images work together to create a visual ensemble, the sites or monuments must contain several stone sculptures, and in this particular study, density has been defined as more than two images. Second, in order to understand stone monuments in their geographical, locational, and historical circumstances, something must be known about the context of the monuments. In some instances, the precise location where the monument stood in its city or site of origin and where the sculptures stood in reference to the site and each other is known. At minimum, however, this requires that the original location in general is known and that a possible position can be supposed. Considering all these criteria together, sixteen sites, eight sanctuaries and eight arches, have been selected. They provide a wide geographic distribution throughout the northwest provinces, and they range in date from the late first century B.C. to the third century A.D. These sixteen sites serve only as the core, and other monuments, perhaps not meeting all of the criteria or furthering the aims of this study particularly in regard to geographic distribution, are discussed when they provide useful contrasts or comparisons.

arch is the one at Susa, dated epigraphically to 9 or 8 B.C.,29 and the latest is that at Mainz, dated to third century A.D., also based on epigraphic evidence.30 Thus, these eight arches have a geographical and chronological spread comparable to those of the eight sanctuaries. Because these sixteen sites provide the data for later arguments, it is essential to address some of their key issues and problems at the outset. Therefore, the second chapter introduces the sites, describing the main sculptural features and highlighting what each contributes to the discussion. Issues of historical, geographical, and locational context are also discussed, albeit briefly. A more complete descriptive account of the sixteen locations and relevant associated monuments can be found in the Descriptive Catalogue of Main Sites and Monuments following the main text (Cat. I-XVI). In chapter two, the sites are presented in roughly chronological order by date of construction during the Roman period, but for some of the sanctuaries, a more important dating criterion is period of peak sculptural activity, and in these cases, this date has been given preference. The sites have also been divided into three groups by period to allow for some initial discussion of regional and chronological trends as well as change over time. Style, the overall appearance, the execution of the sculpture from the northwest provinces provides the broad topic of the third chapter. Because all of the sculpture from the core sixteen sites was figural, one can safely surmise that a recognizable human or animal form was desired. How well the images actually achieved this varied, and accounting for this divergence is a complicated issue. It involved not only what the patrons wanted, but also what artists could actually achieve as well as the physical properties of the material from which the sculpture was made, and so before addressing the subject of style directly, chapter three examines the issues of agency and material.

As representative of religious sculpture in the region of study, eight temples or sanctuaries have been selected. The sanctuary of Sulis Minerva at Bath (Aquae Sulis) and the temple of Mithras at London (Londinium) have been chosen from the province of Britannia. The religious sites from the Gallic provinces include the sanctuaries at Champlieu, Deneuvre, and Hochscheid in Gallia Belgica and those at Genainville and Montmarte in Gallia Lugdunensis, and the single example from Germania Inferior is located on a hill called Görresburg near Nettersheim. Although some sites have produced evidence for pre-Roman activity, the sanctuaries range in date for initial construction during the Roman period from the middle of the first century A.D. to the mid to late third century.

Fortunately, inscriptions identifying the patrons survive for some of the monuments from the core sixteen sites, and dedicatory inscriptions from other structures and monuments supplement the discussion. From them, we can begin to understand who the people commissioning sacred and civic stone sculptures were and how their divergent backgrounds and life experiences might have influenced the sculpture. Moreover, we attempt to gauge the level of wealth of some patrons to assess what role wealth played in the appearance of stone sculpture. The patrons were not the only agents involved; the makers also had a vital role to play. As with most Roman sculpture throughout the Empire, none of the monuments from the sixteen sites is signed, and so nothing is known about the precise identities of their makers. From other epigraphic evidence, something is known about the role

Eight arches have been chosen to represent civic sculpture. The arch from ancient Londinium, modern-day London, serves as the sole example from Britannia, and likewise the arch from the provincial capital at Durocortorum, modern-day Reims, is the only case from Gallia Belgica. Of the two examples from Germania Superior, one was located in the provincial capital at Mogontiacum (Mainz) and a second in Vesontio (Besançon), a colony from the second century. Three arches come from Gallia Narbonensis: one each from the colonies of Carpentoracte Meminorum (Carpentras) and Arausio (Orange) as well as one from Glanum, near modern day St.-Rémy-de-Provence. The eighth arch is located in what was the colony of Segusio (Susa) in the province of Alpes Cottiae in northwest Italy. The earliest

29

CIL V.7231. On the dating criteria, see Kleiner 1985, 32; Kleiner 1992, 110. 30 CIL XIII.6705. On the dating criteria, see von Elbe 1977, 259; Cüppers 1990, 465. 3

S.L. McGowen of sculptors in the region in general. Since they were essential to the final appearance of the monuments, it is important to address the issue of their creators, their backgrounds, and how these backgrounds may have influenced their works if only in a general way. It also seems useful to examine the degree of choice available to patrons by looking for evidence of itinerancy among sculptors.

and asks why they were appropriate, and it looks for evidence of iconographic programs. Finally, and perhaps most important, it looks at how the monuments from all three categories worked together to reinforce and enhance the meaning of the others. The final chapter places the trends in use and decoration of sacred and public monuments in the northwest provinces within the broader context of the Empire by comparing them with those from two other large multiprovince regions, North Africa and the East. When and where were public and sacred monuments constructed in these regions? Were the people of other provinces making the same decisions in regard to material, form, style, and iconography? Given that the monuments under investigation here span a long time period, do contemporaneous monuments from other provinces reveal the same influences? How and why do the differing historical circumstances, cultural or religious differences, and variations in wealth affect how similar monuments look? By showing that despite certain regional peculiarities, sculpture from the East and North Africa had much in common with that from the northwest provinces, it is hoped that the often maligned and marginalized sacred and civic stone sculpture from the northwest Roman provinces can take its place in the vast and varied body of stone sculpture from the Roman Empire.

The second extrinsic factor related to the final appearance of sculpture is its material and the physical properties of that material. Given that all the works under consideration here are in stone, this section of chapter three looks at the types of stone selected and assesses to what degree local or imported material was used. It also examines what factors may have motivated stone selection. The conclusion of chapter three returns to the question of style specifically, aiming to address the driving factors behind it. As far as can be determined, was style a conscious choice, and how might available resources have affected the final appearance of the works themselves? The fourth chapter relies primarily on the sculpted images as they were presented to the viewer to address two main topics – form and iconography. With regard to form, topics such as size and scale of the monuments and layout and design of the motifs are discussed. It also examines how techniques of layout and design attract attention and make an impact on the viewer. The ability of large-scale monuments to have a powerful impact seems obvious, but do sites consisting of smaller works manage the same? And if so, how? Moreover, on some large monuments, the images themselves are small, and so we also examine how the difference between small and large images on similar size monuments influenced the effect for the viewer.

Part 2: Contexts – Establishing the Sample In order for a case study design to characterize effectively a wider phenomenon, the sample needs to be representative. It is the purpose of this section to confirm that the core sixteen sites, in addition to meeting the criteria outlined herewith, are reasonably representative of sacred and civic sculptural activity in the region. The first half examines regional trends relevant to the production and use of stone sculpture, and the second half briefly introduces the core sixteen sites by considering their locations, how these locations were associated with the general regional trends, and how they may have influenced the type and appearance of the monument or monuments.

The second part of chapter four focuses on iconography. Broadly, it aims to address what iconographic choices were being made and what these choices reveal about the people who made them. It does so in two different ways. First, it examines the subject of iconographic programs, particularly in reference to large-scale sanctuary sites, and aims to understand how and why certain iconographic choices were made in connection with such programs. Then it looks at what motivated the choice of iconography, specifically that related to celebrating victory and the emperor, and how and why these motivations changed over time.

General Regional Trends Following the Roman conquest of the region and the establishment of the provinces, some areas accepted Roman or Mediterranean traditions, including the use of stone sculpture, more than others. Therefore, one should not expect the distribution of such monuments to be even, and in fact, the core sixteen sites are not evenly spread across the region. Of the thirteen from the continental provinces, all are located in the south, central, and east parts of the region. None come from Aquitania or western Lugdunensis (Fig. 1.1). In Britain, the three sites come from only two locations, both of which are in the south. This distribution may be the result of the choice of the monuments or the nature of archaeological exploration in general, but it does mirror other relevant and related regional trends. On the continent, the location of the monuments parallels that of ancient quarries which were,

The last two chapters offer brief comparative excursions aimed at setting in context the sacred and civic sculpture from the northwest provinces. Chapter five examines funerary sculpture, the other main body of sculpted monuments, with respect to the three main themes of this study, style, design, and iconography. It examines their regional distribution, comparing and contrasting it with trends apparent for sacred and civic monuments. It also looks at what the funerary monuments suggest about the issue of style. In regard to iconography, it examines the motifs considered appropriate for funerary monuments 4

Introduction

Figure 1.1. Core sixteen sites with provincial boundaries. (Image: ©S. McGowen)

despite geology, limited in the west and northwest. 1 The distribution of inscriptions also follows this pattern, with the strongest concentrations occurring in the same regions as the sculpture (Fig. 1.2). Moreover, all stone arches or gateways known through archaeology, epigraphy, or literature also fall within these regions, and not a single one appears in the region between Saintes (Mediolanum Santonum), Boulogne (Gesoriacum), and Autun (Augustodunum Aeduorum) (Table 1.1).2 These relatively simple parallels begin to indicate that the sample of monuments is reasonably representative. These are not the only correlations, and it is to some more complex regional phenomena that we now turn to establish that the selected sites are representative of the wider use of sacred and civic stone sculpture in the northwest Roman provinces.

(Massalia), and as early as the seventh century B.C., various aspects of the native culture, including artistic outlets, had already begun to change. 3 From the 70s B.C., the people of southern Gaul were opting to use many typically Mediterranean practices, 4 and by the first century A.D., the region was, according to Pliny the Elder, “Italia verius quam provincia” – more Italy than a province.5 In fact, the only sites with any considerable quantities of pre-Roman anthropomorphic sculpture, Entremont and Roquepertuse, appear here. Thus, the location of the earliest monuments at the core of this study in the south of the region does seem representative of activity in the region. Similarly, the chronological distribution of sculpted stone monuments parallels the rate of use of inscribed votive altars, a phenomenon also unknown to the region prior to incorporation into the Empire. 6 In Germania Inferior,

The earliest monuments, the large stone arches at Susa, Carpentras, Glanum, and Orange, are each located in the south of the region. Much of this area had a long history of interaction with the Greek colonists at Marseilles

3

King 1990, 24. King 1990, 41. 5 Pliny, Naturalis Historiae III.31. 6 Derks 1991, 240-242. 4

1 2

Bedon 1984, 40 and 67. King 1990, 213-215. 5

S.L. McGowen

Figure 1.2. Clusters of Inscriptions. For continental Europe, larger circle = greater number; for Britain, seven largest concentrations. (Image: ©S. McGowen, after Woolf 1998, fig. 4.4)

although the earliest known votive altar was dedicated in the middle of the first century A.D., of the 1,400 known inscriptions of this type, only thirty-two are dated to the first century and a half; it was not until the late second and into the third century that the practice was widely used. An important factor contributing to this chronological unfolding was that it entailed the introduction of an unknown tradition and the rate of its uptake. Soldiers, magistrates, and some members of the local elite introduced the tradition, and over time more began to use it. The same was true for sculpted stone monuments. The southern part of the region, which had greater familiarity with Mediterranean customs, engaged in the practice first, and over time it spread northward.

the only new Roman colonies were established in or very near to Gallia Narbonensis. By the end of the Augustan period, Roman veterans had been settled at Narbonne (Narbo Martius), Arles (Arelate), Béziers (Baeterrae), Orange (Arausio), Fréjus (Forum Julii), most likely Nyon (Noviodunum), Augst (Augusta Raurica), Carpentras (Carpentoracte Meminorum), and Lyon (Lugdunum), and possibly even Valence (Valentia Julia) and Vienne (Vienne). It was not until the middle of the first century A.D. and beyond that colonies were established in the north, with veteran colonies founded at Cologne (Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium) under Claudius, possibly at Avenches (Aventicum Helvetiorum) under Vespasian, and Xanten (Vetera) under Trajan.2 Colonies attracted people, many of whom came from Italy and introduced Mediterranean cultural traditions, and they encouraged economic growth. Correspondingly and perhaps as a result, by the end of the first century A.D. most of the urban centers of the south had acquired many Romanstyle public buildings, while those of the north did not

The distribution of the thirteen continental monuments also seems to reflect the different ways southern and northern Gaul were treated after the incorporation and to indicate the way in which Roman influence spread across the area from the first century B.C. to the first century A.D.1 During the late Republican and Augustan periods, 1

2

Woolf 1998, 51. 6

Woolf 1998, 38; Carroll 2001, 28.

Introduction Province

Location

Date

Gallia Narbonensis

St. Chamas

20-10 B.C.

Gallia Narbonensis

Nîmes (Nemausus)

16-15 B.C.

Alpes Cottiae

Susa (Segusio)

9-8 B.C.

Gallia Narbonensis

Vienne (Viennensium)

late 1st century B.C.

Gallia Narbonensis

Avignon (Avenio)

early 1st century A.D.

Gallia Narbonensis

Cavaillon (Cabellio)

1st decade of 1st century A.D.

Gallia Aquitania

Saintes (Mediolanum Santorum)

A.D. 17 or 19

Gallia Narbonensis

Apt (Apta Julia)

early 1st century A.D. (?)

Gallia Narbonensis

Geneva (Genava)

early 1st century A.D. (?)

Germania Superior

Langres (Lingonum)

early 1st century A.D. (?)

Gallia Narbonensis

Carpentras (Carpentoracte Meminorum)

1st quarter of 1st century A.D.

Gallia Narbonensis

Glanum

1st quarter of 1st century A.D.

Gallia Lugdunensis

Autun (Augustodunum)

Augustan period

Germania

on the Rhine

after A.D. 19

Gallia Narbonensis

Fréjus (Octavanorum Colonia)

before A.D. 27(?)

Gallia Narbonensis

Toulouse

Augustan / Tiberian

Gallia Narbonensis

Orange (Arausio)

c. A.D. 26

Gallia Belgica

Boulogne (Gesoriacum)

c. A.D. 50

Britannia

Colchester (Claudia Victricensis)

c. A.D. 50

Britannia

York (Eburacum)

A.D. 107-8

Gallia Narbonensis

Aix-les-Baines (Aquae)

2nd century(?)

Britannia

Richborough (Rutupiae)

Hadrianic(?)

Germania Superior

Besançon (Vesontio)

possibly Aurelian

Gallia Belgica

Reims (Durocortorum)

late 2nd / early 3rd century A.D.

Britannia

London (Londinium)

late 2nd / early 3rd century A.D.

Germania Superior

Holzhausen

c. A.D. 213

Britannia

St. Albans (Verulamium)

3rd century A.D.

Germania Superior

Mainz (Mogontiacum)

3rd century A.D.

Gallia Narbonensis

Grenoble (Cularo)

late 3rd century A.D.

Gallia Belgica

Trier (Augusta Treverorum)

4th century A.D.

Britannia

Ancaster

unknown

Gallia Narbonensis

Arles (Paterna Arelate)

unknown

Germania Superior

Avenches (Aventicum Helvetiorum)

unknown

Britannia

Cirencester (Corinium)

unknown

Gallia Narbonensis

Die (Vocontiorum)

unknown

Britannia

Nettleham

unknown

Table 1.1. Known arches and gateways, both decorated and undecorated, from the northwest provinces.

until the middle of the second century. 1 That Besançon, Reims, and Mainz did not acquire decorated large stone arches until the second and even early third century reflects wider trends, as does the construction of the large stone temple complexes at Champlieu, Montmarte, and Genainville in the early and middle second century.

Similar trends also appear in Britain. Britain was not formally incorporated into the Empire until the middle of the first century A.D., but Roman goods were reaching the island well before this time, with areas in the east and south having much greater access to such commodities. 2 As in Gaul, the earliest Roman colonies were established 2

1

Cunliffe 1988, 152-153; Millett 1992, 29-34; Cunliffe 1997, 219-220; Creighton 2006, 38-45; Mattingly 2006, 84.

King 1990, 75. 7

S.L. McGowen

Figure 1.3. Major urban centers. (Image: ©S. McGowen, based on Goudineau, 1980, 387-390)

in the south, with the colony at Colchester (Camulodunum) founded in the middle of the first century A.D.1 and those at Gloucester (Glevum)2 and Lincoln (Lindum)3 in the late first century. By contrast, York (Eboracum) was not promoted to a full colony until the early third century.4 Therefore, the relationship between early Mediterranean influence, the location of colonies, and the distribution of the core sites in the south of Britain is consistent with what was taking place on the continent.

colonies, brought an influx of coinage. 5 Because of land grants and retirement pensions, veteran soldiers had money to spend, and thereby created “consumer base[s].”6 The colonists also brought with them new ways of construction, commemoration, and competition, all in more Mediterranean styles. These new cultural traditions, along with the necessary funds, attracted merchants, craftsmen, and stoneworkers, who brought with them not only the tradition of using stone monuments but also the skills to create them.

The simple act of founding colonies was not in itself of primary importance in regard to the use of stone for sacred and civic monuments. Colonies were made up of colonists, and in the Northwest, this often meant soldiers. The military community, including both the active military personnel in the forts and the veterans in the

The south and east of the mainland provinces as well as the south of Britain, the areas where the core sixteen sites are located, were also home to the largest urban centers. Goudineau ranked the cities of the Gallic provinces in A.D. 250 on thirty-five different criteria, including size of territory, number and scale of monumental structures, degree of urban planning, level of industry, legal status,

1

Tacitus, Annales XII.32. CIL VI.3346. 3 CIL XII.6679. 4 RIB 648, 674, and 678. The earliest inscription mentioning York as a colony has been dated to A.D. 237. See Hunter Blair 1963, 100. 2

5 6

8

Millett 1992, 58. Mattingly 2006, 503.

Introduction

Figure 1.4. Road network. (Image: ©S. McGowen, after Drinkwater 1983, maps 7-8 and Mattingly 2006, Figure 11)

etc.1 Using these criteria, he identified the eighteen largest towns and divided them into four groups by importance (Fig. 1.3): first, Lyon (Lugdunum), Narbonne (Narbo Martius), Nîmes (Nemausus), Trier (Augusta Treverorum), and Vienna (Vienne); second, Arles (Arelate), Bordeaux (Burdigala), Autun (Augustodunum Aeduorum), and Reims (Durocortorum Remorum); third, Vaison (Vasio Vocontiorum), Saintes (Mediolanum Santorum), Avenches (Aventicum Helvetiorum), Beziers (Baeterrae), and Orange (Arausio); and finally Fréjus (Forum Julii), Aix-en-Provence (Aquae Sextiae), Metz (Divodurum), and Toulouse (Tolosa). In the two Germanies, Cologne (Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium) developed into the most successful commercial center and was perhaps second only to Lyon in all of continental provinces.2 Unfortunately, no such study has been undertaken in Britain, but it is evident that the island had fewer large urban centers.3 The cities with the greatest number of surviving inscriptions are York

(Eburacum), London (Londinium), Colchester (Camulodunum), Cirencester (Corinium Dobunnorum), Silchester (Calleva Atrebatum), Lincoln (Lindum), Wroxeter (Viroconium Cornoviorum), and Gloucester (Glevum).4 Of these eight cities, five are located in the southern portion of the province, and of the three outliers, two were colonies. In these urban centers outsiders and locals mixed,5 and in these locations outsiders familiar with the use of stone sculpture settled – and started setting up stone monuments. It was here that competitive euergetism took place because here patrons could expect the most viewers of their monuments. It was here members of the indigenous population became familiar with stone monuments before commissioning one for themselves, if they so desired. Therefore, that the core sixteen sites are located in the same regions as the major cities, colonies, and provincial capitals, and that their chronological

1

Goudineau 1980, 387-390. See also King 1990, 87; Woolf 1998, 132-134. 2 Drinkwater 1983, 130. 3 Mattingly 2006, 260-263 and 289.

4

Mattingly 2006, 296. For a similar distribution of nonmilitary inscriptions, see Millett 1992, 81, fig. 26. 5 Woolf 1998, 156. 9

S.L. McGowen from a villa at Llantwit Major.11 Many of these monuments are funerary and, therefore, outside the parameters set for the core sixteen sites. From the number of fragments of copper-alloy statues found at military sites, it seems metal was used for many sacred and civic statuary in these locations. Because of the intrinsic value of its material, metal sculpture does not often survive, but that being said, it too is beyond the scope of this investigation.12

distribution mirrors that of these urban centers, suggests that the sample is representative. In addition to the distribution of urban centers, the location of the main sixteen sites also parallels the construction of the road network (Fig. 1.4). On the continent, the earliest roads were constructed in the south, and in the late second century B.C., an important road from the Rhône to the Pyrenees was constructed.6 Then, during the later first century B.C., roads began to spread northward: from Lyon to the Moselle, then to Cologne and the Atlantic, then from Cologne east-west through Bavay to the Atlantic coast.7 The construction of this network was undoubtedly meant for military purposes, primarily the movement troops and supplies for campaigns in the southwest and the northeast, and therefore early roads were virtually absent elsewhere, i.e. in the west and north-west of Gaul. An important route eventually developed along the west bank of the Rhine to the North Sea, passing through Mainz, which was an important legionary base and also the location of one of the stone arches.8 Similar roads, which undoubtedly began as military supply routes, also crisscrossed Britain: Watling Street extended from London to Chester and points north; the Fosse way ran from Exeter to the colony at Lincoln; and Ermin Street went from the south through London and on to Lincoln and points north. 9

Although the road network was originally intended to serve a military purpose, it came to be used for commercial traffic; eventually these early roads became the most important trade routes. The region along the Rhône, Saône, Moselle, and Rhine valleys became the most important economic corridor in Gaul and Germany.13 Inscriptions set up by merchants and freedmen, who often took part in trade activities, were concentrated along these routes and in the Rhine frontier area; conversely, even though it is an argument ex silentio, they are practically nonexistent in the rest of Gaul.14 Many merchants and tradesmen would have come from places outside the northwest provinces and brought with them the tradition of setting up stone monuments, and many of them, both local and foreign, would have had the capital to invest in stone monuments. That the road network had a direct impact on increasing wealth is evident from the number towns that became important and prosperous because of their placement along it.15 Several towns in both the continental provinces and Britain were moved to accommodate the roads, supporting the notion.16 London, largely because of its function as the node for the overland routes and its location at the navigable end of the Thames, became the provincial capital and the most important city in Britain. 17 The same is true of Lyon, the hub of the major overland routes in Gaul and located on both the Rhône and the Saône, as well as Cologne, situated on the junction of the road from Lyon, the main Rhine route, and the route to Boulogne (and hence the English Channel).18 Finally, most of the civitas centers were located within reach of roads and waterways since an effective administrative center had to be accessible.19 The role of such locations in relation to the main sixteen sites has already been discussed in brief, and it also provides the focus of the last half of this chapter.

Because of the presence of the military, a great deal of money circulated along these main arteries. Supplying the army was an expensive endeavor, and while some supplies were obtained through tribute or other obligatory contributions, some were undoubtedly purchased from local sources, injecting money into the areas. 10 Thus, some people living in these zones, not only the military personnel but also the local population, had the funds needed to construct stone monuments. Despite the army supply routes and the pay for the soldiers providing an influx of money into the region, the frontier regions and heavily garrisoned areas, particularly the Rhineland and the north and west of Britain, do not provide evidence for many large urban centers. Of the thirteen core sites from the continental provinces, those located nearest to the Rhine are among the latest in date, and the three from Britain are found in the southern third of the province and a great distance from the frontier. This is not to imply that the military regions were totally without sculpture as it was commonplace in military areas. For instance, of the ninety-nine items in the corpus of Roman sculpture from Wales, a heavily garrisoned region, sixty-two came from Caerleon, the site of a legionary fortress, sixteen from auxiliary forts or supply depots, fifteen from Caerwent, the civitas center, and four

Thus far the discussion has concentrated on where the main sixteen sites were located and what factors may have determined their distribution. It has been demonstrated that the main sites concentrated around the 11

Brewer 1986. See also Mattingly 2006, 205-206. Henig 1995, 45. 13 King 1990, 115. 14 Woolf 1998, 88-89; Mattingly 2006, 512. 15 King 1990, 73; Millett 1992, 125-126. 16 Drinkwater 1983, 130-135; Millett 1992, 145. 17 Millett 1992, 88-89; Mattingly 2006, 511. 18 Drinkwater 1983, 130. 19 Hunter Blair 1963, 92-93; Carroll 2001, 33 and 42. 12

6

King 1990, 39. Drinkwater 1983, 124; King 1990, 55-56; Carroll 2001, 32. 8 Carroll 2001, 33. 9 Hunter Blair 1963, 92-93; Millett 1992, 51 and 55; Mattingly 2006, 134 and 142-143. 10 Millett 1992, 57-59; Mattingly 2006, 511. 7

10

Introduction transportation network and the urban centers. Conversely, where these elements are lacking, none of the main sites is located. Gallia Aquitania had only two major cities, Saintes and the provincial capital at Bordeaux, but despite important quarrying activity in southern Aquitania, none of the core sixteen sites appears in this region. This is not to suggest that Aquitania had no stone sculpture. An elegant trophy monument, for example, was found at St.Bertrand-des-Comminges (Lugdunum Convenarum),20 but since it was not a large stone arch, it has not been included in this study. Despite such an exception, in general, the features which seem to have encouraged the construction of stone monuments were lacking, and so that none of the core sites was located in these areas largely reflects the situation on the ground.

Altogether, it seems that the main sixteen sites are representative of larger patterns of activity in the northwest provinces. Many were constructed in or near the colonies, provincial capitals, and/or major urban centers, where Mediterranean influence was strongest. That these influences were important to the location of such monuments is particularly demonstrated in the continental provinces where a pattern of development over time progressed from south to north and west as the areas came under increasing Mediterranean influence. Thus, it seems that the core sixteen sites form a good foundation for understanding sacred and civic stone sculpture from the northwest Roman provinces. Type of Site The sites where the sixteen sculpted monuments were located can be roughly divided into two categories. The first category consists of monuments located in major urban centers, which for the purposes of this study, include veteran colonies, cities eventually upgraded to colonial status, provincial capitals, and those ranked highly by Goudineau. Accordingly, all of the arches but only one of the sanctuaries is located in an urban setting. The remaining seven religious sites come from small towns or rural areas. Because it is sometimes unclear to what extent a site is truly rural or if the associated settlement has yet to be discovered, perhaps it is best to consider these locations extra-urban rather than truly rural.

Sculpted stone monuments are also virtually nonexistent in mineral-rich regions, particularly, Cornwall 21 in Britain and Brittany22 in Gaul. Similarly, evidence for large-scale iron workings survives in Nantes in western Gaul and the Weald in southern Britain,23 but no urban centers existed in either area. None of the known large stone arches or gates was located in these areas, and they also seem to lack evidence of a significant epigraphic habit.24 While it is possible that the inhabitants of these regions simply did not feel the need to erect sculpted stone monuments or gateways or to use inscriptions, the population was also less dense of population. With the exception of perhaps Exeter in Britain, no large towns appear in Devon or Cornwall or the Weald, and even the number of small towns or rural settlements was limited. In fact, survey evidence has shown that in parts of Brittany one rural site existed for every 330 hectares, compared to one per twenty hectares around Massiac or one per ninety-two around Béziers.25 Where fewer people reside, fewer monuments were constructed.

Walls and gateways were “symbolic of urbanitas,”28 and, in fact, all the large stone arches at the focus of this study do come from urban locations. That the eight core arches all come from larger towns does not mean that arches were never constructed in rural areas in the northwest provinces. From a building inscription it is known that a stone arch was dedicated to Mars Rigonemetos in a rural sanctuary near Lincoln by Q. Neratius Proxsimus, but unfortunately, if it had any sculptural decoration, none has survived.29

What also unites the regions without sculpted stone monuments, particularly Brittany and Cornwall, is that they were on the fringes of the Roman world and therefore experienced limited Roman influence. 26 In fact, the distance from London to Land’s End was (and is) as great as the distance from the capital to the Scottish border. Likewise, Brittany had been an integrated part of the disjointed but culturally united society of pre-Roman Europe, but during the Roman period no major roads passed through and neither forts nor veteran colonies were built there. Thus, these areas became largely marginalized, and the inhabitants “responded accordingly.”27 While perhaps not reacting in a way that could qualify as actual resistance, they had little reason to adopt Roman culture.

Likewise, the selection of extra-urban religious monuments is not meant to suggest that urban locations were without such structures. Important cult centers existed at both Cologne and Lyon, perhaps the two largest commercial centers in the continental provinces. 30 Instead, it seems to reflect patterns of survival. Many sculpted monuments from urban locations suffered severe damage from circumstances of history as well as building often into the modern period, and so the sculptural evidence does not survive with the context necessary for the current study. Urban General regional trends suggest that a strong association existed between the urban centers of the northwest provinces and the use of sculpted stone sacred and civic

20

May 1986, 106-107; Boube 1996, 36. 21 Mattingly 2006, 509. 22 King 1990, 120. 23 Hunter Blair 1963, 133. 24 Mattingly 2006, 296. See also Woolf 1998, 83-88. 25 King 1998, 106. See also Woolf 1998, 145-147. 26 Woolf 1998, 145-147. 27 Woolf 1998, 147.

28

Mattingly 2006, 332. Henig 1995, 63; Mattingly 2006, 483. 30 King 1990, 148; Woolf 1998, 222-224. 29

11

S.L. McGowen such status grants increased.40 The precise criteria for elevation are unknown but must have included, among other things, loyalty to the imperial order, reputation, or even for achieving a certain level of Roman-ness.41 The number and grandness of stone monuments such as arches would have enhanced the reputation of a city and its inhabitants, and with the right message, proclaimed loyalty to the new order. Elsewhere in the Empire, for example at Leptis Magna,42 large stone arches were also constructed to thank the emperor for the town’s upgrade in status. Unfortunately, of the eight large stone arches at the core of this study, epigraphic evidence has survived on only three – Susa (Cat. I.1b and I.3b), Mainz (Cat. XV.2h), and Orange (Cat. IV.2d) – and none indicates the construction of the arch was specifically related to colonial status. The timing of the construction of the arch at Besançon and the town’s promotion suggests, however, that it may represent such a correlation in the northwest provinces.43

monuments, and it is the aim of this section is to examine why. The most potent display of Roman material culture and lifestyle was to be found in the urban centers because it was there that local elites had the most contact with the symbols of the Roman world and the people who transmitted them.31 It was in the urban centers where “new ideas about status and identity were played out….”32 While certainly not everyone, even in the same town, embraced Roman culture to the same degree, since the practice of setting up sculpted stone monuments was not commonplace among the pre-Roman inhabitants, those who set them up were displaying their desire to participate in the new social framework. The cities offered places where these people could benefit from the new order, and they quickly became arenas for the “manipulation of power.”33 Consequently, towns became focal points for the competitive display of wealth, which frequently manifested itself in the construction of buildings and stone monuments.34

Legal status was not everything. A city or town could be important and prosperous without attaining any particular status. Mainz, the provincial capital of Germania Superior and one of the largest and most important cities in the region, was technically only a vicus and did not become a municipium until the fourth century (Cat. XV).44 Likewise, there is no evidence that London, the provincial capital and undoubtedly the largest and most important city in Britannia, ever became a municipium or a colonia (Cat. XIV and XVI).

In the Roman Empire, towns varied in legal status according to the ways in which their inhabitants enjoyed certain privileges.35 The colonia, chartered towns of Roman citizens, were at the apex of the hierarchy. Often military veterans settled there, but cities could be granted this status without the settlement of veterans. 36 Upon elevation of the town to a colony, its citizens and their descendants became Roman citizens, along with all the rights and privileges of that status.37 Among those privileges, colonies could also be granted tax concessions, and thus, there were strong economic advantages.38 Moreover, the title of colonia was sought for reasons of prestige and sentimentality. In addition to full colonial status, towns and their inhabitants could also be granted partial privileges, thereby attaining the status of municipium. Like colonies, municipia were also chartered towns governed according to Roman law, but in these towns only former magistrates had the right to become full citizens. Some towns, like Glanum, were granted Latin rights, which were also a source of prestige.39 Finally, the civitas centers were of a lower official status than the coloniae and municipia, and below the civitas centers were the small vici and rural settlements.

Many monumental arches, including several of the arches under investigation here, functioned as large-scale and elaborate ways of marking a town’s boundaries as well as publicly announcing loyalty and civic pride. 45 The people of Orange, as retired veterans and their families, as settlers in a foreign land, certainly made a loud and proud public statement of their Roman-ness with their large and elaborate stone arch (Cat. IV). Reims, both a provincial capital and one of the most important cities in the entire region, had four large stone arches, the lone survivor of which is the largest known arch in the entire Roman Empire, clearly a massive display of civic wealth and pride (Cat. XII).46 Cities and towns not only vied for advancements of civic status, they also competed with each other as rivals. In the Historiae, Tacitus recounts the “veterem…

During the imperial period, promotions of cities and towns were almost always granted by the emperor as gifts (beneficia), and over the course of the first and especially into the second centuries, the number of cities requesting

40

Drinkwater 1983, 106; King 1990, 72; Meyer 1990, 79; Woolf 1998, 65. 41 For example, during the reign of Constantine, Orkistos in Turkey petitioned the emperor for an upgrade in status based partially on its monuments (CIL III.7000=352). See also Fagan 1999, 328; Wilson 2001, 235. 42 CIL VIII.10. 43 Drinkwater 1983, 76-77; Walter 1986a, 424-430; Lerat and Walter 1990, 21-22; Carroll 2001, 43; Bromwich 2003, 167. 44 von Elbe 1977; Carroll 2001, 43-44. 45 King 1990, 76. 46 Picard 1974, 60; Bedon, et al. 1988a, 197.

31

Woolf 1998, 156; Carroll 2001, 129. Mattingly 2006, 292. 33 Creighton 2006, 83. 34 Carroll 2001, 60. 35 Meyer 1990, 79; Woolf 1998, 67; Mattingly 2006, 260261. 36 Sherwin-White 1973, 350-352. 37 Sherwin-White 1973, 33. 38 Sherwin-White 1973, 276. 39 Sherwin-White 1973, 337; Woolf 1998, 67. 32

12

Introduction military ones in all the northwest provinces.53 Some small towns grew up on roadsides and may have functioned as market towns. Others were the civitas centers, which served an administrative function and could also hold markets. Still others developed around religious sanctuaries, which may have had market functions as well. Though it seems possible that future excavation may change their nature, as they are presently understood, seven of the core sixteen sites, all sacred, were extra-urban. They were, however, still located in the areas of increased urbanization within their respective regions, in the eastern third of the continental provinces and southern Britain.

discordiam,” the longstanding discord, between the cities of Lyon and Vienne, which led to “aemulatio,” rivalry. 47 It seems possible that construction of large stone arches and gateways in urban centers represented a similar type of competition, and the construction of the three arches at Glanum, Carpentras, and Orange within a thirty-year period may reflect such civic competition. That some monuments, including large stone arches, represent intercity rivalry is also suggested by patronage patterns, as building inscriptions indicate that, while many civic benefactions were made by individuals, some were made by groups.48 In Britannia and Gallia Belgica particularly, it seems that power in the civitates remained in the hands of a small group of individuals, who felt little need to compete with each other on an individual basis. This may also explain why structures were not replaced or replicated. Once a city had an arch, it did not need another one and so none was built. Finally, funerary inscriptions indicate that the inhabitants of the region and their descendants evidently continued to identify themselves along tribal lines well into the Roman period,49 and thus competition between civitates through collective civic benefaction may reflect a continuation, albeit in a new medium, of pre-Roman tribal competition.

In addition, placement of these extra-urban sanctuaries seems directly related to the transportation network: each of the seven was located along or even on roads (Fig. 1.4). The smaller sanctuaries at Nettersheim and Hochscheid were located along important roads, the former headed to Cologne54 and the latter to Mainz (Cat. XIII and Cat. X).55 Also a road ran through the large sanctuary at Champlieu (Cat. VI).56 In this way, although the sanctuaries were not within urban centers, they were nevertheless conspicuous. They were visible to those who traveled in the area, from local farmers going to market towns to the governor on his assize tours to, on rare occasion, the emperor himself, and so they too may have provided an outlet for competition, even away from the urban centers.57 Furthermore, just as the larger towns could compete through the construction of stone monuments in their cities, so could the smaller ones. The building inscription from the Matronae sanctuary at Nettersheim says specifically that the vicani, the inhabitants of the vicus, made the dedication to the goddesses (Cat. XIII.1).58 In this way, they not only demonstrated proper collective reverence to the goddesses, but they displayed their wealth and gained prestige for the vicus as a whole.

The only religious site in this study located in an urban center is the Mithraeum in London (Cat. XVI). While the existence of a fort in or near London remains debated, as provincial capital, soldiers certainly would have been present in the city as part of the governor’s staff, and Mithraism is well attested in military zones across the northwest provinces and the rest of the Empire. 50 Moreover, the inscription on a votive plaque dedicated by a veteran of Legio II Augusta, Ulpius Silvanus, makes the involvement of the military in the Mithraeum at London unambiguous.51 The cult was also popular with merchants, businessmen, and craftsmen, who had ample reason to frequent the thriving commercial center of London. Because Mithraism was a mystery religion and only members were admitted into the temple, it would not be an effective means of competition between cities, but the Mithraeum at London was very large, and its conjectural placement next to a road would have served to display the wealth of its members. 52

It had been suggested some time ago that large rural sanctuaries with their baths and theaters, such as Champlieu, were set up by elites to provide the rural populations with urban conveniences. 59 This functionalist idea has been largely abandoned, and no evidence exists to support the idea of any sort of civic administration taking place at such sites.60 More recent excavations have shown that such sites were often associated with small towns forming the monumental core of them. Although still debated, Bath would seem to provide a prime example (Cat. V). Since no forum or other civic amenities have been found, it seems all activity focused

Extra-Urban While much of the discussion so far has concentrated on urban centers as the prime locations for sculptural display, such activity was not limited to these areas. Small towns existed across the region, and in fact, the rural populations vastly outnumbered the urban and

53

King 1990, 107-108; Woolf 1998, 91-93; Mattingly 2006, 356. 54 Lehner 1918, 318; Grenier 1960, 902. 55 Moitrieux 1986, 226; Bromwich 2003, 276. 56 Woimant 1993, 68; Bromwich 2003, 58. 57 Woolf 1998, 263. 58 CIL XIII.11983. 59 Picard 1970, 66-68. 60 Woolf 1998, 235.

47

Tacitus, Historiae I.65. 48 Frézouls 1984, 27-54; Blagg 1990a, 13-31; Millett 1992, 78-85; Creighton 2006, 85. 49 Woolf 1998, 167-168; Carroll 2001, 115. 50 Henig 1984, 97-109; Turcan 1996, 240-244; Clauss 2000, 34-37. 51 RIB 3. 52 Shepherd 1998, 218 and 220. 13

S.L. McGowen on the sanctuary and its adjacent bath complex. 61 Likewise, some evidence for a settlement has been discovered to the southeast of the sanctuary at Champlieu, once considered a definitive rural sanctuary. Although no sources specifically refer to the practice in the Northwest, rural sanctuaries serving as marketplaces have been identified in the literary sources and in other locations in the Empire.62 Their location along the roads and rivers would have facilitated transport of the goods to the markets, giving the suggestion even more credence. 63 Finally, and perhaps most important, religious piety could have been the sole motivator for the construction of the extra-urban sanctuaries: most people lived and worshipped in the countryside. Evidence from most of the core sites suggests pre-Roman activity. Bath, Genainville, Deneuvre, and Hochscheid focus on springs or have associated water features, which were widely venerated by pre-Roman populations.64 Montmarte is located at the top of a hill, and this too was a favored site for preRoman religious activity (Cat. VII). When new outlets of veneration, such as large-scale temples and sculpted stone monuments, filtered into the area, some patrons may simply have wanted to honor important rural cult locations by monumentalizing them with stone structures and sculpture. Those people who were financing the construction of these rural or extra-urban monuments were likely the same people from the cities who set up stone monuments there. This does not mean, however, that all members of the rural populace participated in such displays, or even approved. In conclusion, it seems that the locations and chronological unfolding of the core sixteen sites mirror many regional trends in the Northwest. For example, they appear in the same areas as the known quarry sites and in the regions where inscribed monuments were more prevalent. They follow the development and placement of urban settlements, colonies, and capitals as well as the major transport system. Moreover, their chronological distribution does seem to reflect the spreading of Roman and Mediterranean influence through the region. The two categories of monuments, sacred and civic, divide fairly neatly into two categories of location: all the large stone arches come from urban locales and most of the sacred sites extra-urban ones. The single exception to this pattern is the Mithraeum at London, and although this may seem problematic at the outset, if one remains mindful of the difference, it can provide a useful point of comparison with the other sites. In sum, the core sixteen sites do provide a representative sample of sacred and civic sculpture from the northwest Roman provinces.

61

Millett 1992, 110; Dark 1993, 254-255; Mattingly 2006, 290. 62 Pausanias X.32.14-16. See also MacMullen 1970, 336337; Mattingly 2006, 290 and 483; Goodman 2007, 113. 63 Mattingly 2006, 497-498. 64 Green 2004, 126-134. 14

The Monuments

Chapter 2: The Monuments There is no question that as the northwest provinces gradually became part of the Roman Empire, the use of stone for building and sculpture increased dramatically. Many of the pre-Roman cultural traditions in both the sacred and civic realms were, however, eminently suitable to the introduction of the practice. It seems that stone sculpture offered the indigenous people of the northwest provinces a new venue for both sacred and civic commemoration as well as for public competition. Therefore, before examining the core sixteen sites and their monuments, it is useful to outline briefly what kind of civic and sacred commemoration was occurring in the northwest provinces prior to the incorporation of the region into the Empire.

seems, however, that like the sacred stone monuments, they introduced into the region a new way of doing something that had been occurring for a long time, celebrating victory and publically broadcasting the prowess of the men who erected them and the communities in which they were built. The sixteen sites under discussion here offer varying responses to the use of stone sculpture for sacred and civic commemoration as they were constructed in different times and place, by different individuals, with different materials and designs. Despite these differences, the monuments also have certain unifying elements that allow us to look for wider trends and changes over time. It is the purpose of this chapter to introduce formally the sculpture from each of the sixteen sites that are the focus of this study. The sites have been divided into three categories by period: the end of the first century B.C. to the end of the first century A.D., the early to mid second century, and the late second and early third century. Within each section, the sites are presented in roughly chronological order, but the dating at many of the sites is uncertain. The arches are presented by date of construction, as far as it can be determined. Most of the sanctuary sites are presented by date of stone monumentalization, but in some cases, where multiple monuments were erected over a long period of time, it is more useful to date them according to the period of peak sculptural activity. The discussion of each site is brief, describing the major sculptural elements and outlining what each site brings to the larger topic of sacred and civic sculpture in the northwest Roman provinces. A more detailed history of the sites as well as a more detailed account of the surviving sculpture can be found in the catalogue.

Our understanding of pre-Roman religious activity in the region of the northwest provinces is murky in some areas. Where these sacred activities took place varied widely, but it would seem that much pre-Roman religious activity was focused on natural features without any specially demarcated area.1 Some structures built for the practice of religion did exist though, and at the southern sanctuaries, such as those at Roquepertuse (Bouches-du-Rhône) and Entremont, some stone was used for both architectural elements and sculptures perhaps dedicated as votive offerings.2 What types of religious ritual took place at these locations is uncertain, but one feature is abundantly clear, the practice of making dedications to deities was both widespread and common in the entire region of what were to become the northwest provinces.3 The primary offerings consisted of animals, grains, or liquid libations, but many high quality items such as weapons and jewelry have been found in apparent votive deposits. Thus, it seems that when the use of stone sculpture was introduced, it offered an outlet for expressions of piety, in some instances replacing, but in most cases enhancing, previously occurring religious activity.

Part 1: End of the First Century B.C. to the Late First Century A.D.

Large stone arches present a somewhat different scenario. In northwest Europe during the Iron Age, warrior display was common. After battles, severed heads were often placed on pikes and positioned in front of battlements, to serve as trophies or to offer divine protection for the area.4 Sometimes a skull or sculpted face was placed inside a circle or oval, even occasionally adorning a postand-lintel frame.5 Such examples are very different, however, from the large stone arches constructed in the region starting at the end of the first century B.C., differing in scale and decoration, just to name two. 6 It

The earliest phase includes five sites, with four of the five being large stone arches located in the south of the region: the arches at Susa, Carpentras, Glanum, and Orange. The sanctuary of Sulis Minerva at Bath, the single exception in both category and location, has commonalities with the large stone arches of southern France and northern Italy despite its categorical and geographical differences. I. Arch of Augustus, Susa (Segusio): 9/8 B.C. We learn from the surviving countersunk letters of the inscription (Cat. I.1b and I.3b) that the arch at Susa was constructed in 9/8 B.C. by the client-king turned Roman citizen and prefect Marcus Julius Cottius in honor of Augustus and on behalf of fourteen of the Alpine tribes

1

Wells 2001, 70; Green 2004, 20, 22-23. Cunliffe 1997, 200-201; Green 2004, 12-13; Harding 2007, 220. 3 Henig 1984, 23; Cunliffe 1997, 192; Green 2004, 10. 4 Webster 1986b, 40. 5 Pobé and Roubier 1961, 13-14, pls. 25-28; Jacobsthal 1969, 1-7 and pls. 3 and 5; Megaw and Megaw 2001, 167-168, figs. 269-271. 6 On the development of decorated stone arches in the Roman world, see Kleiner 1985, 11-19. 2

15

S.L. McGowen

Figure 2.2. Lictors and horn-players from north façade of the arch at Susa (Cat. I.1a). (Image: ©S. McGowen)

Figure 2.1. South façade of the Arch of Cottius at Susa (Cat. I.3). (Image: ©S. McGowen)

under his dominion.7 Although it still stands in its original position, its context within the ancient city of Segusio is uncertain (Cat. I).8 Evidently it was not located at the town boundary, and it has been suggested that it may have stood at an important junction between the sacred and civic parts of the city and was perhaps meant to frame an important sanctuary located on a mountain side in the distance.9 It was a single-bay arch made of local marble, and structurally speaking, it was well made and elegantly proportioned (Fig. 2.1). It had limited sculptural decoration, which consisted primarily of an elaborate sculpted frieze that encircled the entire arch.10

Figure 2.3. Ram with victimarius and a rider from north façade of the arch at Susa (Cat. I.1a). (Image: ©S. McGowen)

The long friezes on the north and south primary façades show religious processions in preparation for a sacrifice (Cat. I.1a and I.3a).11 Both friezes have altars as their focal points. Unfolding symmetrically from this central feature is an array of participants in a religious procession: horn-players (Fig. 2.2), lictors, victimarii (Fig. 2.3), riders and infantrymen (Fig. 2.4), and on the south frieze, the Dioscuri. Intermingled with the human participants are the sacrificial animals: two bulls, a sheep, and a pig on the south side; and a single bull, a sheep, and a pig, the definitive animals of the suovetaurilia, on the north. In addition on both faces, one of the figures at the

Figure 2.4. Cavalry and infantry soldiers from north façade of the arch at Susa (Cat. I.1a). (Image: ©S. McGowen)

7

CIL V.7231. See also Prieur 1982, 454-455; Kleiner 1985, 32; Fogliato 1992, 13-21. 8 Prieur 1982, 453; Kleiner 1985, 32; Fogliato 1992, 2125; Manino 2004, 63-74. 9 Fogliato 1992, 21. 10 Espérandieu, I.16. 11 Prieur 1982, 457; Barpi 2004, 151.

Figure 2.5. Central sacrifice scene from south façade of the arch at Susa (Cat. I.3a). (Image: ©S. McGowen)

16

The Monuments

Figure 2.6. Right half of the frieze on the west façade of the arch at Susa (Cat. I.4). (Image: ©S. McGowen)

Figure 2.7. Central scene of the frieze on the west façade of the arch at Susa (Cat. I.4). (Image: ©S. McGowen)

central altar wears his definitive Roman garment, the toga, in a traditionally Roman way (Fig. 2.5). It is pulled over his head as was the custom during participation in a Roman sacrifice. Even though we have mentioned only two here, many elements of detail in the friezes mark the ceremony as Roman.

inscription. Therefore, it is possible that they are the representatives of fourteen tribes, who are potentially participating in a census or the treaty-signing ceremony by which they were incorporated into the Empire. Irrespective of the precise nature of the event, if, as it seems, Cottius as well as the tribal representatives are depicted in the scene, we have a depiction of members of the indigenous community representing themselves in the quintessentially Roman way, wearing the toga, announcing their new citizenship and their participation in the Roman lifestyle.

The friezes on the east and west, although positioned on the lateral façades, are potentially more important in understanding the purpose of the arch (Cat. I.2 and I.4; Fig. 2.6). The frieze on the east side is badly damaged, but the limited sculptural remains indicate that it was similar to that of the west side.12 The west frieze shows a series of seated and standing men, some wearing togas and others carrying fasces. As with the north and south friezes, the entire scene unfolds with bilateral symmetry from a central structural element, in this case a table (Fig. 2.7). Around this table are three figures; one stands behind the table and two others sit on either side on sellae curules, chairs reserved for official Roman magistrates. These figures have been variously identified, and it has been suggested that two of them may represent Augustus and Cottius. In addition, a cursory count of the other members of the frieze provides an interesting element of detail. Excluding the lictors, the four seated figures, and two of the men from the central scene (potentially Augustus and Cottius), fourteen figures remain, and fourteen is the number of tribes mentioned in the

Much has been made of the style of the frieze, and it is true that it is highly schematic.13 The figures are ill proportioned, there is no unity of scale, and the linearity of the folds of the garments is almost over done, just to name a few of the idiosyncrasies. Thus, while the monument type and even the content of the friezes would have been perfectly at home in Rome, the stylistic features would have been out of place on a similar civic monument. This monument was not, however, in Rome; it was in Segusio, newly crowned provincial capital of the newly established province of Alpes Cottiae. Even so, the town was tucked away, as it is today, on the slopes of the Alps. Thus, it seems that Cottius had priorities for his large stone arch other than the creation of a monument stylistically suitable for Augustan Rome. 13

On the style, see Felletti Maj 1963, 125-127; Prieur 1982, 458; Barpi 2004, 139-160; Cavargna Allemano 2004, 113-138.

12

Espérandieu, I.16. Prieur 1982, 456-457; Kleiner 1985, 32; Kleiner 1992, 110. 17

S.L. McGowen Because it was built mere years after the area was incorporated into the Empire, the Arch of Augustus at Segusio was constructed at a pivotal time in the history of its city, its region, and the people who lived there. Since its date and patron are more or less securely identified, it provides a unique opportunity to assess how one element of the indigenous community, in this instance a clientking, used sculpture to react to changing historical circumstances. II. Arch, Carpentras (Carpentoracte Meminorum): Early First Century A.D. The inscription for the arch at Carpentras has not survived, but stylistic comparisons of both structural and decorative elements suggest that it was constructed in the early years of the first century A.D. (Cat. II)14 Other than the arch, not much has survived of ancient Carpentras. Although it appears that an indigenous community had lived on or very near the site, 15 in the middle of the first century B.C. this population was supplanted by veterans of Caesar’s legions.16 Following the establishment of the military colony, the city came to dominate an important thoroughfare along the Rhône valley. Therefore, Carpentras provides an entirely new set of historical circumstances and cultural experiences than Susa, which potentially influenced the appearance of the large stone arch.

Figure 2.8. The arch at Carpentras (Cat. II.2). (Image: ©M. Lamuà)

As with the arch at Susa, it seems that the arch at Carpentras survives in situ,17 though this is not unanimously accepted (Fig. 2.8).18 Also as at Susa, in its current position, the arch did not stand on the town boundary, and indeed the narrowness of its opening would seem to preclude it from functioning as a major city gate. The arch was made of soft local limestone, and somewhat unusually, its major decorative elements were located on the lateral façades rather than the main faces. Both lateral façades had similar decorative schemes, a pair of male captives chained to a trophy. 19 On the west side, to the right of the trophy, stands a bearded male with 14

Picard 1960, 14; Gros 1979, 83; Turcan 1984, 811; Kleiner 1985, 44; Küpper-Böhm 1996, 37-38; Cleere 2001, 122. 15 On the indigenous settlement, see Bromwich 1996, 161; Cleere 2001, 122. The official name (Colonia Julia Meminorum Carpentoracte) is preserved in an inscription found at Orange (CIL XXII.1239). Pliny the elder (Historia Naturalis III.36) refers to it by its more typical name, Carpentoracte Meminorum. 16 Ptolemy, Geographia II.10.8. Suetonius, Tiberius IV.2. See also Turcan 1984, 815; Bromwich 1996, 161; Küpper-Böhm 1996, 40-41. On the settlement of Caesar’s soldiers in southern Gaul, see Drinkwater 1983, 17-19. 17 Bromwich 1996, 161; Küpper-Böhm 1996, 28. 18 Bedon, et al. 1988a, 178; Cleere 2001, 122. 19 Espérandieu, I.243. Some sources conflict about the east and west sides. For the standard interpretation, see Picard 1960, 14-15. See also, Turcan 1984, 811-812; Kleiner 1985, 44-45; Bedon, et al. 1988a, 179; Bromwich 1996, 161-162; Küpper-Böhm 1996, 39-40; Cleere 2001,

Figure 2.9. West façade of the arch at Carpentras (Cat. II.2). (Image: ©M. Lamuà)

122-123. For a more in depth if somewhat controversial interpretation, see Lamuà 2007. 18

The Monuments

Figure 2.10. East façade of the arch at Carpentras (Cat. II.1). (Image: ©M. Lamuà)

disheveled hair wearing a fur cloak, while to the left appears a second male wearing a conical cap, a fringed cloak, and trousers under a tunic (Cat. II.2; Fig. 2.9). On the east side, the right figure, though badly damaged, wears a tunic, a chlamys, and possibly a diadem, whereas the figure to the left has long hair and is dressed in a tunic and cloak (Cat. II.1; Fig. 2.10). Much of both trophies are lost, but what survives of the western trophy consists of quivers extending to either side of a cuirass placed upon a hairy helmet framed by a two horns. On the east, the elements of the trophy include a tunic and cloak, oval and hexagonal shields, and bundles of spears. Somewhat peculiarly, on both façades, additional elements of decoration have been added at the level of the captives’ legs in what was apparently empty ground space. Those on the west side consist of a curved knife with a bird handle and a double axe, while those on the east façade, though very badly damaged, may represent a helmet and a vessel.

Carpentras may have had something specific in mind, but it seems that the captives were always meant to depict general representations of eastern and western (though not Gallic) captive barbarians. Therefore, the arch at Carpentras, rather than celebrating a single military victory, celebrated all Roman military victories as well as Roman dominion over the entire known world. III. Arch, Glanum: Early First Century A.D. Glanum was not a provincial capital like Segusio, and was not, like Carpentoracte Meminorum, a colony, though it seems that at some point the inhabitants of the town were granted Latin rights (Cat. III).21 More important than official status of the town, archaeological evidence suggests that Glanum had strong connections with the Greeks at Marseilles.22 Although this association does not seem to have generated a pre-Roman sculptural tradition (as it apparently did for architecture), perhaps the inhabitants of Glanum were, in some way, open to a flow of new ideas from outside. This may account, in some part, for the early appearance of stone sculpture, including not just the large stone arch but also the elaborate so-called Mausoleum of the Julii which stood nearby.23

The decorated façades, then, provide plenty of identifying detail, and the overall layout and design of the panels are very simple, making the elements of detail exceedingly visible. It is precisely this detail that has proven to be a fertile breeding ground for theories about the arch. 20 If modern scholars with ready access to myriad sources of visual comparanda and historical information cannot agree on specific identifications or events depicted on the arch, should we believe that the ancient viewers could have or would have resolved such issues? In fact, if such historical knowledge as is sometimes presented were required to understand the monument, it would almost fail as a monument simply because most viewers would not have had the requisite knowledge of such specific historical minutia. The patron or patrons of the arch at

The arch at Glanum (Fig. 2.11) was made of local

21

King 1990, 70. Pliny, Historia Naturalis III.37. Ward-Perkins 1970, 2; MacKendrick 1971, 22; Ebel 1976, 36; King 1990, 68; Bromwich 1996, 203-204; Küpper-Böhm 1996, 80; Hodge 1998, 155 and 157; Woolf 1998, 109; Cleere 2001, 158; Knight 2001, 167. 23 Espérandieu, I.114. The standard work on the Mausoleum of the Julii is Rolland 1969. See also Kleiner 1980, 105-126; Gros 1986a; Bromwich 1996, 217-219; Roth Congès 2004, 21-25. 22

20

For various theories, see Picard 1960, 13-15; Turcan 1984, 811-816; Bedon, et al. 1988a, 178-180; KüpperBöhm 1996, 38-39; Lamuà 2007. 19

S.L. McGowen

Figure 2.11. East façade of the arch at Glanum (Cat. III.2). (Image: © D. Pipet)

Figure 2.12. Captives from north panel of the east façade from the arch at Glanum (Cat. III.2c). (Image: ©C. Jewell)

Figure 2.13. Draped male and captive from north panel of the west façade from the arch at Glanum (Cat. III.3c). (Image: ©C. Jewell)

20

The Monuments limestone,24 and unlike the arches at Susa and Carpentras, it was located at the town boundary. The interior of the arch was decorated with coffers containing floral motifs and a frieze of religious paraphernalia at the impost level (Cat. III.1), but the most important surviving sculptural decoration was on the east and west façades (Cat. III.23).25 For the first time in the northwest provinces, outstretched Victories fill the spandrels, a motif which became commonplace on arches in not only the northwest provinces but also in Italy and the rest of the Empire. On the two façades, they hold different objects. Those on the east side hold vexilla (Cat. III.2b) and those on the west, laurel branches (Cat. III.3b). This similar yet different design continues with the face of the arched opening which is decorated with garlands. On the east side, however, the vegetation is new and the fruit not yet matured, while on the west acorns appear on the oak branches, the mulberry has produced fruit, and seeds are visible on the pinecones.

by a second male of an entirely different nature as he is not enchained and is not a captive at all. He wears barbarian attire, including both a sagum and trousers, and so is clearly not Roman, and he touches his enchained barbarian companion on the arm in almost a gesture of sympathy. Gregory has argued that, at least in Rome, images could “act as a spur to action” in both positive and negative ways.27 Perhaps this man was meant to provide a model of civilized behavior, standing starkly in contrast to his enchained compatriot. Precisely how we are to understand this figure seems inextricably linked to the design of the entire sculptural assemblage.28 The iconography on the east side presents a clear and unassailable message of victory. Although this remains the dominant theme of the west façade, the conjunction of the laurel branches held by the victory and the bountiful fruit of the garlands with this free Gaul introduces the idea of the benefits of Roman peace, which a “civilized barbarian” would enjoy.

The Victories and garlands are motifs important to the overall meaning of the arch, but they are secondary decoration, with Captives chained to trophies comprising the main decorative elements of the east and west façades. Instead of two pairs, as on the arch at Carpentras, the arch at Glanum has four pairs, three of which are male-female couples (Fig. 2.12). The figures are well modeled, the drapery is fully plastic, and the contrapposto stances are well executed. In short, it is high-quality Hellenizing sculpture.

IV. Arch of Tiberius(?), Orange (Arausio): Early First Century A.D. In the later first century B.C., Arausio was founded as a military colony, supplanting, as at Carpentras, a previously existing indigenous habitation (Cat. IV).29 Carpentras, Glanum, and Orange are separated from each other by less than 50km, and it seems that some sort of intercity rivalry may have led to the construction of the arches in such rapid succession. If this is the case, the massive triple-bay arch at Orange, with its double attic and elaborate decorative program, would easily have trounced the competition.

The sculpted pairs on the east side, each made up of one male and one female, are fairly standard representations of captives, and their attire. Particularly, the fringed edges of the garments suggests that they may represent Gauls (Cat. III.2c-d; Fig. 2.12). The pairs on the west façade, one consisting of a male-female pair as on the east and one consisting of two males, are, however, more complicated (Cat.III.3). On the left side appears a nude male chained to a trophy and a female seated on a heap of spoils (Cat. III.3d). Some have identified the female as Roma, who is often admittedly depicted in this pose, but in Roman art especially of this period Roma generally appears alone and does not interact with other figures. 26 Therefore, the Glanum female is probably, similar to those on the other façade, a captive, a war prize, like the heap of weapons on which she sits. The right side poses even more problems due in some part to its damaged condition (Cat. III.3c; Fig. 2.13). One of the figures is a standard representation of an enchained barbarian similar to those found in the other panels. He is joined, however,

The dating of the arch at Orange is problematic. The arch did have an inscription, placed somewhat enigmatically on the fasciae of the architrave (Cat. IV.2d).30 Unfortunately, the letters were not countersunk (as at Susa), and so a restoration is only possible from the clamp holes. The restoration is debated, but the generally accepted version indicates that it was dedicated to Tiberius in A.D. 26/27. Despite some reservations, the decorative program is eminently suitable for a Tiberian dating, and so it has been accepted here. As at Glanum, the arch at Orange stood at the boundary of the town, and with its massive size, it would have been visible for some distance, announcing the wealth of the 27

Gregory 1994, 92. Clavel-Lévêque and Lévêque 1982, 683-698; KüpperBöhm 1996, 77-85. 29 Strabo, Geographica IV.1.12. See also Gros 1986b, 193-194; Bedon, et al. 1988b, 189-191; King 1990, 69; Bellet 1991, 12-14 and 17-19; Bromwich 1996, 181; Cleere 2001, 149-159. 30 CIL XII.1230-1231=AE 1962.400. See also Amy, et al. 1962, 143-153; MacKendrick 1971, 101; Gros 1979, 82; Kleiner 1985, 47; Anderson 1987, 164-166; Bedon, et al. 1988a, 184 and 192; Nerzic 1989, 37; Bellet 1991, 58-60; Kleiner 1992, 154; Bromwich 1996, 186; Küpper-Böhm 1996, 90-91; Cleere 2001, 150. 28

24

Rolland 1977, 13; Bedon, et al. 1988a, 181; Nerzic 1989, 37. On the stone and quarries near Glanum, see Bedon 1984, 25; Bedon, et al. 1988a, 67; Bessac and Lambert 1989, 8-12. 25 Espérandieu, I.111. See also MacKendrick 1971, 28; Rolland 1977, 21-24; Gros 1979, 55-83; Clavel-Lévêque and Lévêque 1982, 695-696; Bedon, et al. 1988a, 180181; Nerzic 1989, 35-36; Bromwich 1996, 216; KüpperBöhm 1996, 81-84; Cleere 2001, 159; Knight 2001, 167. 26 Pfanner 1983, 67-68. 21

S.L. McGowen colonists. Also as at Glanum, the interior of the arched entranceways had some sculptural decoration (Cat. IV.1), particularly in the form of coffers containing flowers and oak garlands (recalling the corona civica) on the archivolts, but the major decorative elements were on the exterior.31 Relief sculpture adorns almost every available space on all four sides of the exterior (Fig. 2.14; Cat. IV.4). The north and south sides appear to have had the same decorative scheme, although that of the south is poorly preserved.32 Clamp holes in the spandrels indicate they contained bronze Victories comparable to those at Glanum, and it seems that the pediments over the central arches were also once adorned with bronze decoration. The spaces over the small arches up to architrave are filled with Gallic spoils intricately sculpted with minute details (Cat. IV.2c and IV.4c; Fig. 2.15). For example, many of the shields are inscribed with names, including Sacrovir, most likely referring to an Aeduan chief who led a revolt put down by Tiberius. Above these landbased spolia on the first attic storey are panels adorned with naval spolia, such as ramming prows and boarding gangplanks (Cat. IV.2e and IV.4f; Fig. 2.15). On the south façade, dividing these panels of weapons, runs a frieze of Roman soldiers successfully battling nude, hairy Gauls (Cat. IV.4e; Fig. 2.16). On the second attic storey is a series of statue bases, no doubt intended to support bronze statuary which once topped the arch, and these bases are also decorated with sculpture. The large, central bases are decorated with cavalry engagements (Cat. IV.2g and IV.4h). Of the four small bases, sculpture remains on only two. Sacrificial implements adorn one (Cat. IV.2f), while the other shows a female figure surrounded by a billowing mantle, probably a personification of a breeze (Cat. IV.4g).

Figure 2.14. South façade of the arch at Orange (Cat. IV.4). (Image: ©C. Jewell)

In addition to this elaborate decorative program from the north and south main façades, the east and west lateral façades are also decorated from bottom to top with relief decoration. The west side is badly damaged, but just as with the north and south façades, it seems that the two lateral façades were essentially identical (Cat. IV.3a and IV.5a).33 In the lower zones appear the by-now familiar motif of captives chained to trophies, only at Orange, the motif is amplified with not one, not two, but three pairs per side (Fig. 2.17). The captives are too badly damaged to assist in their identification, but the hexagonal shields of the trophies in conjunction with the Gallic wild boar standards rising behind them, suggest that they are Gauls. Above the architrave appears the same frieze as on the

Figure 2.15. Weapons panels from the north façade of the arch at Orange (Cat.IV.2c and 2e). (Image: ©C. Jewell)

31

Espérandieu, I.260. On the north and south facades, see Amy, et al. 1962, 77-141; MacKendrick 1971, 100-102; Kleiner 1985, 4748; Anderson 1987, 176-189; Bedon, et al. 1988a, 186192; Nerzic 1989, 37-39; Bellet 1991, 55-58; Kleiner 1992, 154; Bromwich 1996, 183; Cleere 2001, 150. 33 On the east and west facades, see Amy, et al. 1962, 7980 and 140; MacKendrick 1971, 102; Kleiner 1985, 48; Nerzic 1989, 37-39; Bellet 1991, 53-54; Kleiner 1992, 154; Bromwich 1996, 185; Cleere 2001, 150. 32

Figure 2.16. Romans battling Gauls from the frieze of the arch at Orange. (Image: ©S. McGowen)

22

The Monuments south side, showing Romans battling Gauls (Cat. IV.3b and IV.5b), and above this frieze but extant only on the east façade is a pediment decorated with a head wearing a radiate crown, presumably Sol, and a pair of cornucopias (Cat. IV.3c). Above this pediment, continuing the naval theme from the north and south façades, are Tritons holding pieces of ships (Fig. 2.18). As with the arch at Carpentras, several theories have been posited for the event that inspired the construction of the arch at Orange,34 but as was suggested for the Carpentras arch, this does not seem necessary. Instead, it is possible that the arch was constructed at the colony as a sign of the power of the Roman army, of the Roman emperor, and of Rome in general. Arausio was, after all, a military colony, and certainly no Roman veteran would fail to recognize the symbols of military might: the spolia, the combat scenes, the trophies, the enchained captives, and the oak branches. The arch at Orange also introduces into the iconographic repertoire of large stone arches certain mythological and religious elements. These two types of iconography worked together to clarify and strengthen the message of the arch: the Roman army and the emperor are dominant on land and sea, and this domination in conjunction with proper piety, brings abundance. V. Sanctuary of Sulis Minerva, Bath (Aquae Sulis): c. A.D. 65-75 The final case from this earliest group of monuments presents, on its face, an entirely different situation. In actuality it has much in common with these four arches and provides useful comparanda for first century sculptural trends beyond the limited region of the arches of Susa, Carpentras, Glanum, and Orange.

Figure 2.17. One pair of captives from the east façade of the arch at Orange (Cat. IV.3a). (Image: ©S. McGowen)

The Sanctuary of Sulis Minerva at Aquae Sulis was constructed only some twenty to thirty years after the southern part of the island had been incorporated into the Empire, becoming the province Britannia (Cat. V). It was located in the southern, civilian zone of the province and along an important thoroughfare, but it seems that the town never gained prominence for anything other than the spring sanctuary with its magnificent bathing complex.35 This is not a case of Roman veterans or colonists constructing a Roman-style monument; instead, it is the monumentalization of a place of local religious importance in the style of the new hegemony. 36 Figure 2.18. Detail of a ship fragment held by a triton from the east façade of the arch at Orange (Cat. IV.3c). (Image: ©S. McGowen)

The sanctuary at Aquae Sulis was dedicated to a syncretized Romano-Celtic deity, Sulis Minerva. Minerva 34

For Tiberius after his victory over Sacrovir, see Amy, et al. 1962, 156-158. For Germanicus and only later Tiberius, see Gros 1986b, 191-201. For Septimius Severus’ victory over Britain, see Anderson 1987, 189191. 35 Webster 1980, 161; Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, 4-8; Cunliffe 1986a, 2-3; de la Bédoyère 2002, 70. 36 Prehistoric Bath is presented in Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, 8-9; Cunliffe 1986a, 7-15. On the initial Roman settlement at Bath, see Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, 910; Cunliffe 1986a, 16-19. 23

S.L. McGowen

Figure 2.19. Pediment from late first century temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath (Cat. V.1a). (Image: ©Institute of Archaeology, Oxford)

appeared as the patron deity of springs and as a goddess of healing in not only Britain but also Gaul and Italy.37 In fact, she was sometimes given the epithet Medica.38 Thus, it seems that some healing powers were ascribed to Minerva, and as a result she was a fitting deity to preside over a sacred spring that may have had some healing properties. The Celtic deity Sulis is enigmatic, but because of the importance of sacred spring to cult activity, it seems possible that Sulis was a water deity. 39 It has also been suggested, however, that Sulis was a sun deity.40

pincers extending from his head. The snakes and wings have taken the place of the pincers in a suitable conflation of the main Roman water god with the gorgon, the symbol of Minerva, who was the primary goddess of the place.44 Also depicted on the pediment are two Victories standing on globes, below which are helmets, one shaped like a dolphin and one topped by an owl. Finally, a small fragment of a Triton is visible on the right edge of the far right block located on the bottom row, and so it seems that each corner was filled with a Triton.45 Although uncertain, it seems that a large limestone platform on axis with the temple and the entrance to the sacred spring served as the platform for the main altar of the sanctuary and that this altar was decorated with four sculpted corners (Cat. V.2).46 On each of the three surviving corners were carved two figures, totaling six deities. On one corner, Bacchus offers a panther a drink from a cup (Cat. V.2a; Fig. 2.20), while on the other side appears a goddess holding a cornucopia and an overturned vessel (Cat. V.2a; Fig. 2.21).47 At spring sanctuaries in both Gaul and Germany, female deities with overturned vessels appear in the stone sculptures, and so it seems most likely that this figure represents a spring goddess.48 On the second corner appears Hercules, nude except for the lion skin tied around his shoulders, holding a vessel and resting his arm on his club (Cat.

The first monumentalization of the spring occurred around A.D. 65-75,41 when a the temple complex with an adjacent set of baths linked by the sacred spring was constructed. The sanctuary in its first incarnation consisted of a large colonnaded precinct, surrounding a pseudo-peripteral prostyle Corinthian temple and an altar on axis with the entrances to both the temple and the spring.42 The pediment of the temple was adorned by a circular shield bordered by an imitation metallic oak wreath, in the middle of which appeared the head of a male, mustached figure with wings and snaky hair (Cat. V.1a; 2.19).43 The wings and snaky hair suggest that the figure is a gorgon, but gorgons are generally female. It seems instead that the figure represents Neptune/Oceanus, who is often depicted in mosaics with 37

Sauer 1999, 63-93. Girard 1981b, 211. 39 Cunliffe 1986a, 71; Green 1995, 96. 40 Henig 2000, 125. 41 Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, 24-25 and 178. On the baths, see Cunliffe 2000, 82-105. 42 CSIR I.2.32-37. On the temple, see Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, 25-35 and 115; Cunliffe 2000, 40-46. 43 Cunliffe and Fulford 1982, 11 and plate 10; Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, 29; Henig 2000, 124. LIMC II.447 and IV.163. 38

44

Henig 2000, 125. Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, 115. 46 Cunliffe and Fulford 1982, 9-10 and plates 18-19; Cunliffe 2000, 46-49; de la Bédoyère 2002, 74; McGowen 2007, 82-83. 47 CSIR I.2.29. For similar images of Bacchus, compare LIMC III.430-434. 48 For example at Deneuvre, see Moitrieux 1992, 235, pl. XIV and 246, pl. XXV. 45

24

The Monuments

Figure 2.20. Bacchus from the altar at Bath (Cat. V.2a). (Image: ©Institute of Archaeology, Oxford)

Figure 2.22. Hercules from the altar at Bath (Cat. V.2c). (Image: ©Institute of Archaeology, Oxford)

Figure 2.21. Spring Goddess from the altar at Bath (Cat. V.2a). (Image: ©Institute of Archaeology, Oxford)

Figure 2.23. Jupiter from the altar at Bath (Cat. V.2c). (Image: ©Institute of Archaeology, Oxford)

25

S.L. McGowen V.2c; Fig. 2.22).49 On the same corner is Jupiter, shown in a typical Greco-Roman representation, holding a staff with an eagle at his feet (Cat. V.2c; Fig. 2.23).50 On the third surviving corner is depicted a male figure holding a lyre, almost certainly Apollo (Cat. V.2b).51 The figure from the panel adjacent to Apollo is badly worn, making the identification of the figure difficult, with nothing entirely certain except that the figure was nude (Cat. V.2b).52 It seems, however, that the figure holds a dolphin and so is probably Neptune but may also be Venus.53

which a certain Claudius Ligur was a member. 59 Three blocks of a small stone pediment, which may belong with the screen, have also been recovered. In the middle of the pediment is a roundel containing the head and torso of a

During the second or early third century, the sacred spring was enclosed by a wall and roofed with a massive vault.54 Over time, the surrounding wall apparently began to give way, and buttresses were needed to support it. The central buttress, which took the form of a quadrifrons and became a monumental entrance to the reservoir enclosure, had a sculpted pediment (Cat. V.3; Fig. 2.24). Despite the survival of only a few blocks, its general decorative scheme is discernable: two draped females, presumably water nymphs, hold a roundel decorated with rays of the sun or the head of Sol the sun god, over a rock from which water gushes.55

Figure 2.24. Quadrifrons in front of the sacred spring at Bath (Cat. V.3). (Image: ©Institute of Archaeology, Oxford)

Although its precise location within the sanctuary remains uncertain, a large sculpted screen, the so-called Façade of the Four Seasons, also adorned the sanctuary (Cat. V.4).56 The screen seems to have consisted of four sculpted panels and a central door divided by Tuscan pilasters. The four panels were all decorated in the same general manner with a large female figure seated underneath a shell canopy below a small niche containing a cupid.57 The four female figures are badly damaged, making their precise identification uncertain, yet it is clear that each of the cupids holds a symbol of one of the four seasons (Fig. 2.25). The spring cupid holds a bouquet of flowers; the summer one clutches ears of corn; the fall cupid holds an assortment of fruit; and the winter carries a billhook used to cut firewood. Thus, they give the screen ties to growth, abundance, and the harvest. Two Latin inscriptions also appear on the screen. The first indicates that it was, in fact, dedicated to Sulis Minerva,58 and the second reveals its patron, a guild of

Figure 2.25. Cupid as one of the seasons from the sculpted screen at Bath (Cat. V.4). (Image: ©Institute of Archaeology, Oxford)

49

CSIR I.2.30. Compare LIMC IV.754-860. CSIR I.2.30. 51 CSIR I.2.31. 52 CSIR I.2.31 53 For Neptune, compare CSIR II.3.48. For Venus, see Beeson 2002, 10-13. 54 Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, 43-45 and 49-52; Cunliffe 1986a, 36; Cunliffe 1986b, 3-4; Cunliffe 2000, 55-58. 55 CSIR I.2.52-53. Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, 120; Cunliffe 1986b, 9 and 180; Cunliffe 2000, 59; de la Bédoyère 2001, 173. 56 CSIR I.2.52-53. 57 Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, 123-124 and 126; Cunliffe 2000, 66. 58 CIL VII.39c=RIB 141d. 50

Figure 2.26. Small pediment decorated with a bust of Luna (Cat. V.5). (Image: ©Institute of Archaeology, Oxford)

59

26

CIL VII.39d-e=RIB 141a-c.

The Monuments draped female who holds a riding crop (Cat. V.5; Fig. 2.26).60 Behind her head is a crescent moon in low relief, and thus she has been identified as a moon goddess, likely Luna. If the entire structure were positioned north of the altar, it would have provided an elegant counterbalance, both structurally and thematically, to the quadrifrons.61

originated in southern Gaul64). Thus, there does not seem to be any relationship between discrete time period and quality or style of execution. It seems worthy of note, however, that the sculptures of the highest quality and greatest naturalism were located in the region with Greek influence and Mediterranean contact and also with the greatest number of military colonists.

The sanctuary at Bath undoubtedly contained other works of sculpture as evidenced by the inscribed statue base set up by the haruspex L. Marcius Memor (Cat. V.9).62 Such monuments in conjunction with the sculpted pediment, altar, quadrifrons, and screen made the sanctuary one of the most elaborate in the province of Britannia, perhaps only rivaled by the Temple of the Divine Claudius at the colony of Camulodunum (Colchester), whose decoration does not survive. Given the fact that Aquae Sulis was not a Roman colony, a major city, or even near a major city, its early stone monumentalization is somewhat peculiar. The presence of the hot springs no doubt encouraged veneration, but certain circumstantial factors may have facilitated its construction. First and foremost, Bath is located very near a source of high-quality limestone, which seems to have been recognized at a relatively early period. In addition, its location on both a major road and river not only facilitated the transport of stone but also encouraged human traffic through the area, potentially increasing the prominence of the site despite its remoteness. Furthermore, the association of the sanctuary with a set of baths, one of the features of Roman life introduced into the area after the conquest and one of the first to make regular use of stone for building, likely hastened the use of stone for the sanctuary. 63 None of these factors negates, however, the role of the patron, who may have had a particular fondness for or religious devotion to this sacred spring site.

Despite the stylistic divergences, certain elements of the decorative programs do seem to unite the sculpture from these five sites. First, and perhaps most obviously, triumphal and victory iconography abounds. It is found not only on the arches of Gallia Narbonensis, but also in the pediment from Bath, with its corona civica, alighting Victories, and Tritons. In fact, iconographically, the arches of Carpentras, Glanum, and Orange have more in common with the pediment at Bath than they do the arch at Susa. The reasons for and patterns of iconographic selection are discussed in a later chapter, but the similarities between these geographically diverse monuments are striking (which may further bolster the assumption that the sculptor of the first phase at Bath did come from Gaul). At each site it is also clear that the iconographic selections were the result of coordinated iconographic programs. Thus, even in the earliest phase, someone, either the patron or the maker or both, was carefully selecting iconography, and what is more, they were, almost without fail, relying on Greco-Roman iconography. Sometimes a provincial location may have allowed for an unusual usage of such iconography, for example, the gorgon-Oceanus/Neptune conflation from Bath, but even in this instance, the abnormality is based within the world of Greco-Roman myth. With the later additions of the quadrifrons, sculpted screen, and small pediment, Bath also presents us with the advantage of seeing the choice of iconography unfold into the second and even the third centuries, which provide the focus of the next two sections of this chapter.

What can these five monuments tell us about the first phase of sacred and civic sculpture in the northwest Roman provinces? The quality or style of the monuments is highly variable, with the frieze from the arch at Susa being very schematic, the panels from arch at Glanum being very naturalistic, and the pediment and altar from Bath falling somewhere in between (it has even been proposed that the sculptor behind this work may have

Part 2: Early to Middle Second Century A.D. In contrast to the first phase, the monuments from the second, dating to the early and middle second century, rest squarely within the sacred realm, coming from the sanctuaries at Champlieu, Montmarte, Genainville, Deneuvre, and Hochscheid. These sites are not as tightly clustered geographically as the early group (with the exception of Bath), but they are each located in the north central part of the region of study, particularly limited to eastern Gallia Lugdunensis and Gallia Belgica.

60

CSIR I.2.21-23. Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, 6, 9, and 126-127; Cunliffe 2000, 67-68; de la Bédoyère 2001, 173. 61 Henig, as reported in Cunliffe and Davenport (1985, 183), interprets the structure as the front of dormitory where the afflicted could stay while awaiting a cure. 62 AE 1966.220. See also Cunliffe 1986b, 36; Cunliffe 2000, 49; de la Bédoyère 2001, 173. A bronze-gilt head of Minerva, purportedly the head of the cult statue, has been recovered but is beyond the scope of this study as it is bronze. On this fragment, see Toynbee 1962, 79-80; Lindgren 1980, 95; Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, 114; de la Bédoyère 1989, 139; Green 1995, 94; Cunliffe 2000, 24-25; de la Bédoyère 2002, 72. See also LIMC II.87. 63 Pearson 2006, 14 and 17.

VI. Sanctuary of an Unknown Deity, Champlieu: c. A.D. 110 The temple in its stone manifestation was likely constructed in the early second century A.D., but it, like the stone temple at Bath, merely monumentalized a longvenerated sacred site (Cat. VI). In a fashion similar to the sanctuary at Bath, it was not a solitary structure but was instead a part of a grand building complex including not 64

27

Henig 1995, 39-40; Henig 2000, 127.

S.L. McGowen only baths but also a theater.65 Although it is generally considered a rural site (a designation accepted here), some evidence suggests that a settlement may have been located to the southeast of the complex. Very little is known about this area, and future excavations may change the general assessment of the site; even if something more substantial materializes, it seems the site was, like Bath, of primary importance for the religious complex. The remains discovered at Champlieu are substantial, and so the general structure of the temple is understood. The temple sat within a large polygonal enclosure and was approached via a central staircase broken by an altar. 66 Around the temple ran a peristyle punctuated by niches divided from each other by Corinthian pilasters exuberantly decorated with geometric, vegetal, and even figural (Cat. VI.4-5) motifs.67 The peristyle was also decorated with sculpted frieze consisting of a marine procession of Nereids, Erotes, and sea monsters (Cat. VI.2).68

Figure 2.27. Sculpted panels from Champlieu: Thetis with the infant Achilles (L) and Apollo wearing a laurel wreath (R) (Cat. VI.1b). (Image: Espérandieu, V.3803)

In addition to these decorative elements of the peristyle, the pronaos of the temple was decorated with panels (Cat. VI.1).69 Their state of preservation is varied; some are virtually intact, while others survive only in fragments. The design of these decorative elements is very similar to the corner stones from the altar at Bath as the figural panels appear on two adjacent faces. Unlike the corners from Bath, however, the Champlieu panels were made of multiple blocks and were meant to be superimposed. In this way they created an entranceway for the temple which was adorned with figural decoration on both its front and interior. As far as can be determined, all of the panels from the pronaos contained scenes from Greco-Roman mythology. On one panel of the first pair, a woman holds a naked child upside down by his foot, and thus the scene has been identified as Thetis attempting to immortalize the infant Achilles (Cat. VI.1b; Fig. 2.27).70 In the adjacent panel appears Apollo wearing a laurel wreath, resting his right arm on an altar (Cat. VI.1b; Fig. 2.27). The first side on the second pair contains a figure wearing trousers and a billowing cloak (Cat. VI.1a; Fig. 2.28).71 The figure has been identified as Mithras, but this seems unlikely given that Mithras worship generally took place in secret.72 Although Mithras does appear alone in sculpture, most depictions of the god generally show him in the act of killing the bull, which this panel does not. Other mythological figures, such as Ganymede and Attis, wear the same attire, and so no real reason exists to

Figure 2.28. Sculpted panels from Champlieu: Figure wearing a Persian costume (L) and Apollo (R) (Cat. VI.1a). (Image: Espérandieu, V.3806.)

65

Nerzic 1989, 158-159. Woimant 1993, 71 and 133-135; Bromwich 2003, 60. 67 Espérandieu, V.3839. See also Nerzic 1989, 158-159. 68 Espérandieu, V.3814-3833. 69 Espérandieu 1907-1966, 94; Nerzic 1989, 159; Woimant 1993, 135. 70 Espérandieu, V. 3903. See also LIMC I.5. 71 Espérandieu, V. 3806. 72 Espérandieu 1907-1966, 101; Woimant 1993, 134. 66

Figure 2.29. Two blocks of a sculpted panel from Champlieu showing a collapsed, nude female, possibly a Niobid (Cat. VI.1c). (Image: Espérandieu, V.3812)

28

The Monuments identify the figure as Mithras. The precise identification remains, however, uncertain. In the opposing panel appears a nude male, most likely Apollo, who wears a billowing cloak and draws back his bow (Cat. VI.1a;

Fig. 2.28). In the lower right side of lowest part of this (unfortunately now-lost) panel evidently appeared the head of a figure wearing a cap, who is sometimes identified as Coronis, the mother of Asclepius.73 The third pair of panels shows a helmeted, beardless figure, likely youthful Mars (Cat. VI.1c) and a nude female, most likely a Niobid, collapsed on the lap of a seated and draped figure (Cat. VI.1c; Fig. 2.29).74 The fourth is decorated with a more secure representation of Ganymede on one face (Cat. VI.1e; Fig. 2.30) and Prometheus enchained on the other (Cat. VI.1e; Fig. 2.31).75 On one face of the fifth appears Leda and the swan (Cat. VI.1f; Fig. 2.32), and on the other face only a disc or oscillum survives.76 Finally, the sixth pair shows a nude male carrying an infant, most likely Mercury with baby Bacchus, on one face and an enigmatic, possibly horned figure on the other (Cat. VI.1d; Fig. 2.33).

Figure 2.30. Wing of an eagle likely carrying Ganymede (Cat. VI.1e). (Image: ©Bases NEsp et RBR)

Two inscriptions were found in the early excavations and subsequently lost, but neither revealed anything about the deity to whom the temple complex was dedicated or its patron or patrons.77 It would seem from the content of the panels that either the patron or the maker, or both, had familiarity with Greco-Roman mythology. Moreover, as far as can be determined from the poor state of preservation, the sculptural execution is high. Many of the scenes, for example, the panels of Thetis with the infant Achilles as well as the dead Niobid, are complicated assemblages of overlapping figures and flowing drapery. Although the precise identity of the patron is unknown, the scale of the complex and the abundance of decoration of the second-century temple suggests someone very wealthy and well versed in Mediterranean mythological traditions.

Figure 2.31. Torso and head of an enchained male, likely Prometheus (Cat. VI.1e). (Image: ©Bases NEsp et RBR)

VII. Sanctuary of Mars(?), Montmarte: Early Second Century A.D. The early second century also saw the construction of a large-scale, rural sanctuary in Gallia Lugdunensis (Cat. VII).78 This sanctuary was situated on hillside next to a pair of springs, making it the second of the main eight sanctuary sites to be associated with water features. The temple itself was fairly standard for the northwest provinces, but two features make it particularly outstanding. The first is the massive terracing project, which would have required a great deal of expertise, money, and man-power to carry out;79 and the second is the series of high-quality freestanding sculptures, many made of marble, which adorned the sanctuary. 80

Figure 2.32. Leda and the swan from Champlieu (Cat. VI.1f). (Image: ©Bases NEsp et RBR)

73

Woimant 1993, 134. Espérandieu, V.3812. 75 Espérandieu, V.3804. 76 Espérandieu, V.3805. 77 CIL XIII.3466; Espérandieu, V.3835. See also Woimant 1993, 132. 78 On the coinage evidence, see Delor 2002, 749. 79 Rolley 1978, 169; Olivier and Baudot 1989, 180; Delor 2002, 749-750. 80 On these sculptures, see Rolley 1978, 169-174; Nerzic 1989, 155-157; Olivier and Baudot 1989, 180-181; Bromwich 2003, 160; Rolley 2004, 159-163. 74

Figure 2.33. Right block: Torso of a male with an infant below foliage (Cat. VI.1d). (Image: ©Bases NEsp et RBR)

29

S.L. McGowen

Figure 2.34. Limestone Mars from Montmarte (Cat. VII.3). (Image: ©S. McGowen)

Figure 2.36. Vanquished giant from Montmarte (Cat. VII.11). (Image: ©S. McGowen)

Figure 2.35. Composite of several marble statues of Mars from Montmarte (Cat. VII.5). (Image: ©S. McGowen)

Figure 2.37. Limestone Genius from Montmarte (Cat. VII.2). (Image: ©S. McGowen)

30

The Monuments Although the total number of sculptures is only speculative because of the condition of some of the pieces, it seems that at least eight but possibly as many as twenty freestanding sculptures, both marble and limestone, decorated the sanctuary at Montmarte. At least six complete or fragmentary works seem to be of the same type, representing a nude, beardless, helmeted male with a strap across his chest, almost certainly a youthful Mars (Cat. VII.3, VII.5-9, VII.12, and VII.14; Figs. 2.34-2.35).81 A slightly less than life-size head of a bearded man writhing in agony seems to represent a vanquished giant (Cat. VII.11; Fig. 2.36).82 Indeed, the motif of a nude, youthful Mars dispatching a giant was a popular theme on gems dating back to the first century B.C., and it seems possible that this head may have been part of a statue group with one of the limestone statues of Mars.83 Other sculptures include a draped male with his head covered, holding a patera, who seems to represent a Genius (Cat. VII.2; Fig. 2.37),84 as well as fragments of an over life-size sculpture, potentially the cult statue (Cat. VII.4).

This inscription does not reveal anything about the patron or patrons of the temple at Montmarte. The terracing and the number of freestanding sculptures would seem to indicate a person or persons of great wealth. Because the sculptures were freestanding, they could easily have been commissioned by different individuals at different times, and that the same type appears in two materials, limestone and marble, supports the notion. Precisely why some patrons used marble and others limestone is unclear, especially since we do not know over what extent of time the statues were dedicated or even which were dedicated first. It seems the marble came from quarries located about 40km from the site. 86 Perhaps the limestone source was closer and, therefore, less expensive. If true that the statues were funded by multiple benefactors, it suggests that many (but not all) patrons desired the same type of statue (same size, same iconography, etc.), and, this sort of repetition is a practice that recurs at other sanctuaries in the northwest provinces and in the rest of the Empire. VIII. Sanctuary of Mercury and Rosmerta(?), Genainville: Early to Mid Second Century A.D. Gallia Lugdunensis was home to a second large-scale sanctuary site with elaborate sculptural decoration located near the modern town of Genainville (Cat. VIII).87 This temple has much in common with some of the sacred sites already discussed. In the first place, the period associated with the major sculptural decoration is the early to mid second century, 88 but this construction seems only to be a monumentalization of an already hallowed site. In fact, an earlier Augustan incarnation of the sanctuary seems to have had some limited sculpture associated with it, particularly a few enigmatic squatting figures.89 The temple was only one part of a much larger complex of buildings, including baths and a theater,90 though it appears to have been rural. Moreover, it was associated with a water feature, in this case, a series of pools. Unusually, however, the temple at Genainville had a double cella, and it seems possible that this atypical feature may be related to the deities to whom the temple may have been dedicated.91 Although very tenuous, a few bronze fragments (Cat. VIII.12-13), statuettes, and other votive offerings suggest that Mercury and his frequent consort in the Northwest, Rosmerta, may have been the patron deities, and much in the way of some capitolia, each was given his or her own cella.92

Only a single fragmentary inscription, possibly belonging to a statue base, has been found at Montmarte. 85 It indicates that a dedication was made to an unknown deity, of which part of the name “N[.]RC…” has been preserved (Cat. VII.22; Fig. 2.38). The name is, unfortunately, otherwise unattested, but the prevalence of statues identified as youthful Mars suggests that the sanctuary was once dedicated to a youthful Mars who had been syncretized with this deity. Without further epigraphic evidence this may never be determined.

Figure 2.38. Inscription from Montmarte, with the name of the unknown deity NVRC appearing in the first line (Cat. VII.22). (Image: ©S. McGowen)

86

Rolley 2004, 161. Mitard 1985, 8; Nerzic 1989, 180; Mitard 1994, 415. 88 On the dating, see Benoit 1969, 98; Mitard 1994, 211213, 327-332, and 415. 89 Mitard 1985, 7; Nerzic 1989, 65; Mitard 1994, 43-46, 312, and 415; Bromwich 2003, 66. 90 Mitard 1985, 4-6; Mitard 1994, 49-58. 91 Mitard 1985, 6-10; Jolly 1987, 286; Nerzic 1989, 180; Fauduet, et al. 1993, 44; Mitard 1994, 71, 216-217, and 415. Other double-cella temples existed at Essarois and Champigny-les-Langres and a triple-cella at Viel Evreux. 92 Mitard 1994, 311-312 and 364-366, figs. 316, 317, and 314-317. 87

81

Espérandieu, III.2235, 2236, 2238 and Rolley 1978, 171, fig. 177; Marcadé 1982, 40, fig. 49. On youthful Mars, see LIMC II.51-85; Neugebauer 1942, 228-236; Boucher 1976, 86-89. 82 Espérandieu, III.2237. 83 LIMC II.416 and 416a. 84 Espérandieu, III.2329. 85 CIL XIII.2889. 31

S.L. McGowen

Figure 2.39. Cyclopes from Genainville (Cat. VIII.6). (Image: ©S. McGowen)

Figure 2.40. Leg of a male, Pelias (L); arm and lower legs of a female, Medea; cauldron and body of a ram (R) (Cat. VIII.3). (Image: ©S. McGowen)

Numerous fragments of architectural decoration have survived at Genainville, but because of their poor condition of preservation, their precise arrangement is uncertain. Fragments of some sixty stone human heads have been recovered around the sanctuary; most of them are female, and of the eight that are indisputably male, three are Cyclopes (Cat. VIII.6; Fig. 2.39).93 Most are also life-size, but some are larger and seem to have belonged to a hypothetical central pediment. Other architectural decoration included a frieze decorated with a marine theme (Cat. VIII.4), similar to the one at Champlieu, and modillions shaped like leafy masks (Cat. VIII.5).94 Figure 2.41. Medallion from the reverse of the sculpted façade at Genainville. (Image: ©S. McGowen)

93

Mitard 1994, 194-199. 94 Nerzic 1989, 183. 32

The Monuments

Figure 2.42. Pair of goddesses from a small pediment at Genainville (Cat. VIII.7a). (Image: ©S. McGowen)

Figure 2.43. Reclining goddess from a small pediment at Genainville (Cat. VIII.7b). (Image: ©S. McGowen)

In addition to these decorative elements, the cellae were encircled by an ambulatory of vaulted corridors, whose walls were sculpted on both faces. Only one scene has survived, but its iconographic scheme is evident, depicting the resurrection of the ram by Medea in front of Pelias (Cat. VII.3; Fig. 2.40). Similar figural panels also appeared on the temple façades, and these were also sculpted on both faces (Cat. VIII.1-2). On one panel appears Cupid with two fragmentary figures, likely Venus and Adonis (Cat. VIII.1c).95 On a second panel appears the helmeted head of a female, perhaps Minerva (Cat. VIII.1d). Other images from this side of the façade include an array of weapons as well as a female figure very tenuously identified as Pandora (Cat. VIII.1e). The

reverse of this façade was decorated with medallions surrounding busts of female figures (Fig. 2.41) as well as weapons displays. While most of the surviving fragments come from the east side, those of the west side suggest that it had an analogous decorative scheme, but none of the mythological panels are intelligible. A statue group of three females also seems to have decorated the façade of the temple, conjecturally filling a small half-pediment over one of the ambulatories (Cat. VIII.7).96 One of the figures, who holds a patera towards small child, is seated on a throne while the second, nude from the waist up, stands upright leaning on an overturned vessel (Cat. VIII.7a; Fig. 2.42). The third, nude with exception of drapery wrapped around her

95

For Greek representations of Adonis with Eros and Aphrodite, see LIMC I.8-15. For Etruscan, see LIMC I.16-21. For Roman, see LIMC I.22-26 and 31-32.

96

Mitard 1972, 26; Mitard 1985, 10-11; Nerzic 1989, 181-183; Mitard 1994, 185-194; Derks 1998, 138. 33

S.L. McGowen

Figure 2.44. Hercules at rest from Deneuvre (Cat IX.7). (S. McGowen)

Figure 2.45. Hercules combatant from Deneuvre (Cat IX.8). (S. McGowen)

thighs, reclines on her left arm and a small child appears from behind her outstretched legs (Cat. VIII.7b; Fig. 2.43). As for the identity of the figures, the two partially draped females seem to belong quite well among other Greco-Roman representations of nymphs, but because the temple was associated with a spring, it is possible that they represent spring goddesses. As for the other figure, the diadem, throne, and patera, seem to suggest either Ceres or Juno, but neither goddess is typically depicted with a bare shoulder. In Roman Gaul, however, this type of patera appears with other divinities, sometimes Abundance but most often the Mother Goddesses. 97 The presence of the child would support this identification, as would the widespread veneration of the Mother Goddesses in Gaul, often in connection with springs.

Figure 2.46. Hercules with his club resting on his shoulder from Deneuvre (Cat IX.46). (S. McGowen)

reject outright the identification of this figure as a Mother Goddess on stylistic grounds. Perhaps, she is a Mother Goddess who is well executed in keeping with the grandiosity of the sanctuary site at Genainville. IX. Sanctuary of Hercules, Deneuvre: Middle of the Second Century A.D. If the other second-century sanctuaries discussed here present one picture – that of monumental temples, often single components of grand building complexes adorned with fine sculptural decoration – then the sanctuary at modern-day Deneuvre represents the opposite end of the spectrum as it had no imposing edifices. In fact, it had no structures at all. What it did have was a series of pools, either open to the air or covered by simple shelters, and it had more than fifty reliefs and freestanding sculptures of Hercules.99

Some question the identification of this figure as a Mother Goddess because of the high-quality Hellenizing style of the figure.98 The topic of style is one to which we shall return in a later chapter, but it seems that much of what is often viewed as intentional stylistic schematization was more often the result of lack of technical skill on the part of craftsmen. Because of the grand size and scale of the temple as well as its elaborate sculptural adornment, it does not seem that funds were an issue for its patron or patrons, and thus we should not

Although it seems that the locality may have had some economic importance, like so many of the other sanctuaries here, its major significance was for religious activity (Cat. IX).100 The surviving epigraphic evidence does not indicate that the site attracted worshippers of any particular prominence. Among the dedicants, none seems to have held an imperial or local magistracy, and only a 99

Moitrieux 1981, 79-82; Moitrieux 1992, 210; FleuryAlcaraz 1997, 52-54; Bromwich 2003, 276. 100 Moitrieux 1981, 67 and 85; Moitrieux 1986, 210 and 226; Moitrieux 1992, 146; Bromwich 2003, 276.

97

Thevenot 1968, 167-170; Deyts 1992, 61-64; Green 2004, 82. 98 Mitard 1994, 193. 34

The Monuments addition to the fifty largely intact monuments, more than two hundred other fragments of statuary thought to belong to reliefs or statues of Hercules have also been recovered. Other than perhaps their sheer number, at first glance what is most striking about the statues and reliefs is their similarity (Figs. 2.44-2.46). All were made of local sandstone, and despite some variations in size (with most measuring about 2m in height and 0.5m in width) and execution, in iconography and design, they are virtually identical: the hero, alone, stands frontally holding his lion-skin and club. Their only differences amount to positioning of the club and skin. The number of ways to depict Hercules in the Roman period was vast (in fact, on the arch at Besançon, which is discussed in the next section, three alternatives appear), but on the stelai from Deneuvre the same iconographic motif appears time and again. In addition to the representations of Hercules, images of several other deities were found in the sanctuary. Mercury and an unidentified goddess appear on opposite sides of one altar (Cat. IX.31),104 and the god also appears on a second altar showing a nude male holding a moneybag over an altar (Cat. IX.55).105 Six representations of goddesses were also discovered (Cat. IX.4, IX.15, IX.29, IX.42, IX.44, and IX.57).106 Two hold vases from which water pours, and thus it seems they represent spring goddesses, which is likely the case for the other four as well (Cat. IX.4 and IX.29; Fig. 2.47).107 One of the stelai was found in front of one of the basins, and so it seems they may have been set up near the springs and functioned as cult statues.

Figure 2.47. Spring Goddess from Deneuvre (Cat. IX.4). (S. McGowen) few were potential Roman citizens (Cat. IX.2 and IX.25).101 While some spring sanctuaries in the Northwest had pre-Roman origins, no clear evidence of pre-Roman religious activity has been found in the area of the Deneuvre sanctuary, and in fact, all the archaeological evidence suggests that cult activity did not take place at the site before the Antonine period. 102 Given the rural nature of this site, even in the Roman period, any activity pre-dating the Antonine period may simply have left no tangible traces. Numismatic evidence suggests that activity took place at the site, with apparently varying frequency, until the fourth century. Some attempts have been made to date and group the sculpture stylistically (and this information is reported in the catalogue) in accordance with the peaks and valleys represented in the coinage, but there is no reason to assume that the erection of the sculptures took place over the entire course of the sanctuary’s life. 103 Instead, it seems equally if not more plausible that all or most of the sculptures were dedicated within a short period of time.

The religious activity at Deneuvre undoubtedly focused on the series of pools, and from their positioning upon discovery, it appears that thirty-six of the stelai and altars lined a path through the sanctuary to these pools. 108 Thus, the stelai and altars were not just religious dedications made by devoted worshipers; they gave structure to the sanctuary in a similar way as the walls, porticoes, and screens from the larger and grander sanctuaries. Moreover, although it is not clear at what point the number of dedications would have reached critical mass, certainly the sight of fifty or even more representations of the greatest hero of Greco-Roman mythology dotting the landscape would have been impressive. X. Sanctuary of Apollo and Sirona, Hochscheid: Middle to Late Second Century A.D. Though the sanctuary at modern-day Hochscheid did eventually have a stone-built temple, in size and apparent status, it was more like the sanctuary at Deneuvre than those at Champlieu, Montmarte, and Genainville: it was a

The stelai and sculptures found at Deneuvre account for some thirty percent of the known sculptural representations of Hercules in the northwest provinces. In

104

Moitrieux 1992, 68-69 and 231. Moitrieux 1992, 69, 116, 151 and 239. 106 Moitrieux 1992, 69-72, 151-152, 234, 235, 237, and 246. 107 Moitrieux 1986, 228-229; Moitrieux 1992, 70-71 and 209. 108 Moitrieux 1992, 209. 105

101

Moitrieux 1992, 81-85. Moitrieux 1992, 85 and 193-207; Fleury-Alcaraz 1997, 52. 103 Moitrieux 1992, 180-182. 102

35

S.L. McGowen which the temple itself was built. Hochscheid did not, however, receive the same degree of sculptural attention, and in fact, only three stone sculptures survive. The temple at Hochscheid with its square cella and surrounding portico was of the typical Gallo-Roman design, and it seems that the stone building replaced an earlier, primarily wooden structure.109 Other structures of unknown function are known in the vicinity of the temple, but as far as has been determined, no settlement existed in the area. Dating of the temple has proven difficult given the lack of coinage and other votive deposits, but the limited evidence suggests that, although activity likely took place as early as the first century B.C., it peaked in the second and third centuries A.D. 110 Stylistic criteria suggest that the earliest sculptures date to the middle of the Antonine period.111 The epigraphic evidence makes clear that this sanctuary was dedicated to Apollo (Cat. X.4-6) and a Gallo-Roman consort, Sirona (Cat. X.6).112 Some have suggested that at Hochscheid, Apollo was syncretized with the Celtic god Grannus, who was prominent in the Moselle and upper Rhine valleys.113 No evidence has survived at Hochscheid, however, to support the syncretization with Grannus, particularly since the inscriptions use only the Roman name. Furthermore, the iconography of the sculptures is entirely Greco-Roman. The reason for the conflation may be the pairing of the god with a Celtic goddess, Sirona, but wholly Greco-Roman Mercury is often found with a Celtic consort, usually Rosmerta. Therefore, Sirona’s presence does not seem grounds enough to substantiate the syncretization.

Figure 2.48. Small Apollo from Hochscheid (Cat. X.3). (Image: ©S. McGowen)

Two representations of Apollo, one in relief and one freestanding, have survived at Hochscheid. The slightly smaller of the two, the freestanding piece, unquestionably represents Apollo depicted as a nude youth wearing a laurel wreath and holding a lyre, which rests on the head of a griffin (Cat. X.3; Fig. 2.48).114 The somewhat larger relief is very poorly preserved, but enough fragments, including a laurel wreath, the arm and clamping bar of a lyre, and the forelegs and beaked head of a griffin, indicate that it too represented Apollo (Cat. X.1; Fig. 2.49).115 Thus, in both instances, Apollo is represented in a traditionally Mediterranean fashion. 109

Thevenot 1968, 108; Weisgerber 1975, 13-14 and 19; Nerzic 1989, 162; Green 1995, 102. 110 On the coinage, see Weisgerber 1975, 66-67. 111 Weisgerber 1975, 63. 112 AE 1978.516; AE 1941.88; AE 1941.89. Binsfeld 1975, 55; Green 2004, 148-149. 113 Woolf 2003b, 141. According to Green (2004, 161) Apollo Grannus had major cult centers at Grand and at Aix-la-Chapelle, which was known as Aquae Granni. 114 Espérandieu, XI.8433=CSIR IV.3.13. See also Thevenot 1968, 108; Polaschek 1975, 58; Nerzic 1989, 162. 115 Espérandieu, XI.8434=CSIR IV.3.12. Polaschek 1975, 57-58; Woolf 2003b, 146.

Figure 2.49. Large Apollo from Hochscheid (Cat. X.1). (Image: ©S. McGowen)

small, rural roadside sanctuary (Cat. X). As at Deneuvre, ritual activity focused on a water feature, a pool around 36

The Monuments The third sculpture from Hochscheid, also carved in relief and of comparable size, material, and execution as the large Apollo, represents the goddess Sirona (Cat. X.2; Fig. 2.50).116 Because of the similarities between this piece and the fragments of the large Apollo, it seems that they were a pair and served as the cult images of the sanctuary. The Sirona has been stylistically dated to the mid-Antonine period.117 She wears a long tunic belted across the chest, a cloak, and a diadem. In her left hand, she holds a dish containing three round objects, almost certainly eggs, which are being eaten by a snake. 118 She has assumed the traditional iconography of Greco-Roman goddess Hygeia, the personification of health and also the granddaughter of Apollo, but the inscription makes the identification of Sirona certain.119 Thus, it would seem that Sirona was a healing and fertility deity. At Hochscheid, there is no indication that Sirona was officially syncretized with Hygeia, as seems to have been the case at Bath with Sulis and Minerva. The only inscription refers to Sirona alone, but at Bath, although the sanctuary was definitely dedicated to the syncretized Sulis Minerva, on some inscriptions, the name Sulis is used alone while Minerva never is. (A gilt bronze head, which may have belonged to the cult statue, presents a traditional Greco-Roman representation of Minerva.) Since the pre-Roman deities in the Northwest did not have anthropomorphic representations, or at least none has survived, when determining how to represent the deities of the Gallo-Roman pantheon, someone had to decide upon appropriate iconography. At a general level the goddess Sirona could have been depicted in any of the different guises of Greco-Roman goddesses with attributes such as a cornucopia, a baby, a water vessel, etc., but she does not. Instead, she takes on the very specific iconography of Hygeia, and it is apparent that she has assumed this iconography because of her pairing with Apollo. We do not know who dedicated this statue, or any of the statues, but it appears that the three surviving inscriptions were all set up by Roman citizens. Because of the specificity of Sirona’s iconography and the detailed knowledge required to select it, it is evident that whoever chose it was well versed in Greco-Roman mythology.

Figure 2.50. Sirona from Hochscheid (Cat. X.2). (Image: ©S. McGowen)

Though conceding the sample is limited, this tentatively suggests that as the practice of the use of stone sculpture filtered into the north, priority was given to religious monumentalization. Moreover, some of this emphasis on religious sites may be due to decreased level and slower progress of urbanization in the northern part of the continental provinces. As far as is known presently, all these sites were rural, and even if that picture changes after further excavations, it seems unlikely that any of these locations will reach the level of urbanization of a Glanum or a Carpentras. What is also clear from the iconography at the sites just presented is a heavy reliance on Greco-Roman mythology. This is particularly clear at Champlieu and Genainville where multiple myths are represented. Moreover, some of these representations, though depicting well-known myths, are rare in the corpus of Roman sculpture. For example, dying Niobids are known on Roman sarcophagi, but they appear rarely (if ever) at other Roman-period sacred sites. Even in the case of a Celtic deity, Sirona takes her depiction from her associations with Apollo, more specifically from the mythological associations Apollo had with Hygeia. Altogether such choices would seem to suggest that the sector of the population buying and/or making stone sculpture in the second century was very knowledgeable of Greco-Roman mythological traditions.

Where do these five sites take us in our analysis of sacred and civic sculpture from the northwest provinces? A geographical shift of activity into the north of the continental provinces is evident as is a focus on religion. 116

Espérandieu, XI.8435=CSIR IV.3.317. Thevenot 1968, 109; Polaschek 1975, 56; Nerzic 1989, 162; Woolf 2003b, 146. 117 Weisgerber 1975, 59. According to Weisgerber (1975, 61) the head is similar to female head from Nijmegen, which is dated by hairstyle to the time of Faustina the younger. 118 Polaschek 1975, 57; Woolf 2003b, 146; Green 2004, 162. 119 Thevenot 1968, 103-104; Green 1995, 103; Woolf 2003b, 147; Green 2004, 153. Similar images of Sirona/Thirona have been found at Cologne and Malain.

Part 3: Late Second to Early Third Century A.D. The final collection of monuments under investigation here is a mix of arches and sanctuaries: four of the former 37

S.L. McGowen and two of the latter. As a group, they provide us with the opportunity to monitor the trends seen in the first two phases in regards to both types of monuments and to see how the changing historical circumstances of this latest period affected the construction and decoration of sacred and civic monuments in the northwest Roman provinces. XI. Arch, Besançon (Vesontio): Late Second Century A.D. The specific date of the arch at Besançon (Cat. XI; Fig. 2.51) is unknown because its dedicatory inscription does not survive, yet it seems that by the time of its construction more than a century had elapsed since the time of its nearest surviving predecessor, the arch at Orange.120 Without the inscription, we are unable to determine for whom or what the arch was dedicated. Historical sources indicate that around A.D. 172, some trouble stirred in the area.121 Although the precise nature of the problem is uncertain, Marcus Aurelius intervened to settle the matter, and therefore, it is possible that the arch may have been constructed in honor of the emperor for his assistance. It may also have been at this time that the town was granted colonial status, which would have been at the discretion of Marcus Aurelius, and that the construction of the arch coincided with the elevation of the town to the status of a colonia.122 Since Marcus Aurelius was ostensibly responsible for both, it seems possible that the arch was constructed in honor of the emperor for both reasons.

Figure 2.51. North façade of the arch at Besançon (Cat. XI.2). (Image: ©Bildarchiv Foto Marburg)

The single-bay arch, made of local limestone, stood at the south end of the town’s cardo maximus.123 Some of the earlier arches, specifically those at Glanum and Orange, had decoration on the interiors of the arched entranceways, but the primary and most important venue for decoration was the exterior. At Besançon, however, both the interior and the exterior had elaborate decorative programs.124 Figure 2.52. The emperor with captives from the east side of the bay (Cat. XI.2). (Image: ©Bildarchiv Foto Marburg)

The interior of the arch was decorated with scenes typical of Roman imperial victory monuments of the same genre that appeared on the exterior of the arches at Carpentras, Glanum, and Orange (Cat. XI.1). The vault, which was decorated with a series of octagons and squares filled with putti, some holding weapons, has been heavily restored (Cat. XI.1a).125 The walls are decorated with superimposed panels containing scenes from imperial

120

Walter 1986a, 316-339; Lerat and Walter 1990, 53. Historia Augusta, Marcus Aurelius XXII.10. See also Lerat 1960, 20-21; Walter 1986a, 366-373; Lerat and Walter 1990, 21-24. 122 Drinkwater 1983, 76-77; Walter 1986a, 424-430; Lerat and Walter 1990, 21-22; Carroll 2001, 43; Bromwich 2003, 167. 123 Lerat 1960, 24; Walter 1986a, 11, 23, and fig. 15; Bedon, et al. 1988a, 202; Lerat and Walter 1990, 40; Bromwich 2003, 164. 124 Espérandieu, VII.5270. 125 Walter 1986a, 167-171; Bedon, et al. 1988a, 203; Lerat and Walter 1990, 46-47. 121

Figure 2.53. Diademed figure from the west side of the bay (Cat. XI.2). (Image: ©Bildarchiv Foto Marburg)

38

The Monuments

Figure 2.54. Detail of the face of the arch – snake-legged giant (Cat.XI.2b). (Image: ©S. McGowen)

campaigns, including cavalry and infantry engagements as well as the surrender of captives to the emperor (Cat. XI.1b-c; Fig. 2.52).126 More specifically, the middle panel of the west side shows a diademed figure looking down from city walls and a soldier wearing an Asian costume (Fig. 2.53). The attire of these two figures suggests they are eastern barbarians, likely Parthians. The figures on the opposite side may represent western barbarians, suggesting that the emperor is victorious in the east and in the west.127 Thematically, the arch at Besançon is much in keeping with the earlier arches at the core of this study. Other than the standard Victories filling the spandrels (Cat. XI.2a), 128 the decoration on the exterior of the arch at Besançon is entirely different, as it is elaborately decorated with scenes from Greco-Roman mythology (Cat. XI.2). On the north façade, instead of garlands, the face of the arched opening is decorated with anguiform Giants being struck down by the thunderbolts of Jupiter (Cat. XI.2b; Fig. 2.54). On the pilasters of the arch, the vegetal motifs of the earlier arches have been replaced with scenes from mythology contained in six superimposed panels. Only those from the east side survive, and they depict, in ascending order (Cat. XI.2c; Fig. 2.55): a figure wearing an exomis, possibly Vulcan; Mercury; Bacchus; a woodland deity; Apollo; and Hercules battling the Hydra.129 Mythological figures also decorate the piers, but only fragments of the east survive. 126

Walter 1986a, 143-166; Nerzic 1989, 176; Lerat and Walter 1990, 46; Bromwich 2003, 167. 127 Walter 1986a, 432-433 and 445; Lerat and Walter 1990, 46. 128 Walter 1984, 863-867. 129 Walter 1986a, 94-107; Lerat and Walter 1990, 45.

Figure 2.55. East pier of the north façade of the arch at Besançon (Cat. XI.2). (Image: ©Bildarchiv Foto Marburg)

39

S.L. McGowen The piers are divided into two levels by an entablature, and at each level a pair of columns frames figures carved in high relief. The upper left column is decorated with four panels containing either Erotes, Bacchantes, or Atlases (Cat. XI.2f), and the right with laurel leaves. In between the two columns, below a pediment decorated with a gorgoneion, stands a male, nude except for some drapery thrown over his left shoulder, who seems to represent one of the Dioscuri (Cat. XI.2g). From the surviving fragments of the west side it appears that the corresponding panel contained an identical figure, which would support the identification.130 On the lower level, only fragments of ribbons survive on the left column, while the right is decorated with five mythological panels, in ascending order (Cat. XI.2d): Andromeda or perhaps Hesione with a sea monster; Hercules; Theseus slaying the Minotaur; Ajax killing the sheep; and Daedalus and Icarus.131 In between the columns, are two superimposed groups of figures, each consisting of a large central figure and several smaller figures (Cat. XI.2e; Fig. 2.55). The upper male figure is flanked by a pair of armed figures and so likely represents Mars, and if so the lower female figure may possibly be Venus. The heavily damaged south façade seems to have had a similar decorative scheme as the north (Cat. XI.4; Fig. 2.56).132 Of the east pier, the left column and some of the intercolumnar decoration survive. The left column, like the corresponding one from the north side, consists of six panels, including, from bottom to top (Cat. XI.4a): Minerva fighting a Giant; Bacchus with two Maenads; Ajax and a female, likely the personification of madness; Silenus being lifted by two Satyrs; Bacchus with a panther, a Maenad, and a Satyr; and Hercules battling Nessus for Deianira.133 The space between the columns seems also to have had two superimposed groups of figures, but only the lower part survives. In the panel appears a woman accompanied by an eagle, most likely Hebe, below whom is a female holding a cornucopia (Cat. XI.4b).134 Nothing more is known about the sculpture from the south façade.

Figure 2.56. East pier of the south façade of the arch at Besançon (Cat. XI.4). (Image: ©Bildarchiv Foto Marburg)

Farnese pose (Cat. IX.3b). The panels on the left, from top to bottom, consisted of: Atlas; a nude female, perhaps Diana at the bath; Prometheus; and Hercules vanquishing an Amazon.136 In the lower zone, the intercolumnar panel contains an image of Ganymede feeding the eagle of Jupiter (Cat. XI.3a), and this panel is adjacent to Hebe, the other servant of the gods. That the two are placed so near does not seem accidental, and in fact, suggests that the placement and choice of the decoration was not, as MacKendrick once stated, “taken at random from a pattern-book.”137

Because the arch was built into modern buildings, only the sculpture from the east narrow side is known and only from eighteenth-century drawings (Cat. XI.3).135 Like the north and south façades, the east is divided into two levels by an entablature. The upper level consists of a vertical panel filled with acanthus plants, flanked by four superimposed mythological panels. Only one panel from the right pilaster can be identified – Hercules, in the

Despite the apparent change in iconography, the arch at Vesontio clearly celebrated the victories of the emperor and Roman army and the pervasive nature of Roman power across the Empire. The historical triumphal representations have been moved to the interior of the

130

Walter 1986a, 81-84; Lerat and Walter 1990, 43. Walter 1986a, 39-52; Lerat and Walter 1990, 44. 132 Walter 1986a, 173-216; Nerzic 1989, 476; Lerat and Walter 1990, 47-50. 133 Walter 1986a, 177-192; Lerat and Walter 1990, 49-50. 134 Walter 1986a, 197-200; Lerat and Walter 1990, 50. 135 Lerat 1972, 435-439; Walter 1986a, 221-241; Lerat and Walter 1990, 51. 131

136 137

40

Lerat and Walter 1990, 51. MacKendrick 1971, 123.

The Monuments

Figure 2.57. South façade of the arch at Reims (Cat. XII.6). (Image: ©Ad Meskens)

arch, and the mythological panels from the exterior augmented this message of Roman victory and power, perhaps even advancing it and turning it into a cosmic one.138 The gigantomachy had long served as an allegory for the victory of civilization over barbarism, and in its position on the archivolt it acts as a transition between the world of myth and the world of history, between the worlds of cosmic and historical victory. Furthermore, many of the mythological panels represent victorious heroes dispatching monsters, suggesting victory of civilization over barbarism, while others show the punishment of impious individuals, reminding one of the dangers if evil is not vanquished. Most of the remaining panels, particularly the representations of Bacchus, refer to growth and abundance, something that came with the victory of civilization, of good, and of Rome. The overall message remains the same as that of the earlier arches; only the means are different. The arch at Besançon uses an elegant combination of history, myth, and allegory to convey its message. Some of this change is to be accounted for by the amount of time that elapsed between the building of the arch at Besançon and the earlier arches. During this time the people of the northwest provinces had no doubt become more familiar with Greco-Roman mythology, making myth and allegory a more effective means of visual communication.

later arches at London and Mainz. Therefore, we have tentatively placed it with the other late second century monuments. Despite its poor state of preservation, including an extensive nineteenth-century renovation of its northwest end, the decorative scheme of the large stone arch at Reims continued the trend of combining history, myth, and allegory seen at Besançon. 141 Despite the damage and weathering it has sustained through the centuries, it is apparent that the all the piers, the eight on the long sides and the two on the narrow sides, had the same decorative scheme (Cat. XII.1-4).142 Each consists of a niche topped by a pediment, above which are putti holding a clipeus decorated with a head (Fig. 2.58). Above the clipei are two crossed caducei

XII. Arch, Reims (Durocortorum): Late Second Century A.D. The arch at Reims, the largest surviving honorific arch in the Roman Empire, was one of four located at each the four main entrances to Durocortorum, an important urban center and provincial capital (Cat. XII; Fig. 2.57).139 It has proven difficult to date, given its poor state of preservation and the loss of its dedicatory inscription. Structurally, it seems that it was no earlier than Hadrianic,140 and thematically, it has much in common, not only with the arch at Besançon but also with the other

Figure 2.58. Clipeus, caducei, and putti with curtains from the arch at Reims (Cat. XII.4b). (Image: ©S. McGowen)

138

On what follows, see Walter 1986a, 424-437; Bedon, et al. 1988a, 203. 139 Lefèvre 1974, 78-79; Picard 1974, 61-62. 140 Picard 1974, 68-69.

141

Espérandieu, V.3681. Lefèvre 1974, 150-152; Picard 1974, 63; Bedon, et al. 1988a, 197-198; Bromwich 2003, 317-319. 142

41

S.L. McGowen

Figure 2.59. Diagram of the proposed decorative scheme of the arch at Reims. (Image: ©S. McGowen)

topped by a second pair of putti holding the ends of a curtain. Some of the niches still contain traces of relief sculpture, much of which is unintelligible. Using eighteenth-century drawings and photogrammetric photography, some attempts have been made to identify the figures (Fig. 2.59).143 On the north façade, in the easternmost niche evidently appeared Mars and Rhea Silvia (Cat. XII.4b), and in the niche west of the central passage were apparently Aeneas, Ascanius, and Anchises (Cat. XII.4a). On the south façade, the westernmost niche contained, it seems, Venus assuming the squatting pose of the Greek Aphrodite (Cat. XII.6b), while apparently Roma appeared the easternmost niche (Cat. XII.6a). Finally, in the niche on the east side was Dionysus with a Satyr (Cat. XII.5). The uprights framing this niche were decorated with figures, with some showing men carrying large vessels and others possibly dancers.144 Thus, as at Besançon, the decoration of the exterior of the arch at Reims consists entirely of mythological scenes. Figure 2.60. Lupercal from the eastern vault of the arch at Reims (Cat. XII.2). (Image: ©Espérandieu, V.3681)

Sculptural decoration was not limited to the exterior. Although only traces survive today, on either side of the central passage were relief panels, which in the eighteenth century were described as consisting of an emperor being crowned by a victory. 145 If this is the case, the placement of the historical scenes in the interior of the entranceway mirrors what was seen at Besançon. Historical panels were not, however, the only decoration on the interior. In the center at the top of each vault is a square panel containing a mythological scene surrounded by a frieze.146 The eastern vault contains a depiction the Lupercal (Cat. XII.2; Fig. 2.60), and the western vault, an image of Leda and the swan (Cat. XII.3; Fig. 2.61). Around these two panels are weapons friezes and Victories inscribing shields. In the central passage, the panel contains a seated male figure holding a cornucopia, likely Annus, the personification of the year, or Aion, the god of eternity, who is surrounded by four putti,

Figure 2.61. Leda and the Swan from the western vault of the arch at Reims (Cat. XII.3). (Image: ©Espérandieu, V.3681)

143

Lefèvre 1974, 150; Picard 1974, 64-66; Bedon, et al. 1988a, 200; Nerzic 1989, 277. 144 Lefèvre 1987, 150-152. 145 Lefèvre 1987, 154. 146 Picard 1974, 70-72; Lefèvre 1987, 154; Bedon, et al. 1988a, 200; Nerzic 1989, 277; Bromwich 2003, 319-320. 42

The Monuments

Figure 2.62. Aion or Annus with the Four Season surrounded by an agricultural calendar from the central vault of the arch at Reims (Cat. XII.2). (Image: ©Espérandieu, V.3681)

representatives of the Four Seasons (Cat. XII.1; Fig. 2.62).147 The peripheral frieze is a calendar showing scenes of events associated with the last seven months of the year:148 June – breeding of horses; July – haymaking; August – gathering of apples and reaping with a Gallic reaper; 149 September – hunting and plowing; October – harvesting and pressing of grapes; November – slaughtering of pigs; and December – possibly hitching of an ox to a wagon.

settlement was situated this small, rural sanctuary. The sanctuary also overlooked a second, larger village, whose ancient name is unknown but today is called Nettersheim.150 Despite the relative wealth of evidence from epigraphy, coinage, and pottery, the date for the establishment of the sanctuary has proven difficult to establish.151 The earliest surviving coin dates to 7 B.C., but all of the inscribed monuments containing names of consuls fall between A.D. 196 and 227 (Cat. XIII.3, 610, 13), suggesting a peak of sculptural activity at the sanctuary in the late second and early third century.

The arch at Reims, just as much as the arch at Besançon, employs historical, mythological, and allegorical motifs to send the same message: Roman victory and the abundance brought about because of it. At Reims, with the addition of mythological and allegorical scenes to the vaults, the emphasis seems to be shifting even more towards this type of iconography and away from the historical. Assuming that the other three arches at Reims were as large and as elaborately decorated as this one, their presence at all of the main entrances to the city would have made a grand pronouncement about the power and wealth, not only of Rome, but of the inhabitants of the provincial capital.

The sanctuary near Nettersheim was dedicated to the Matronae Aufaniae, mother goddesses, who had associations with growth and fertility. 152 In the Rhine region, they seem to have had no particular connection with human reproduction but instead had an overall protective function. The cult of the Matronae Aufaniae, and Matronae cults in general, were local.153 In many cases, as at Nettersheim, the title Matronae (or occasionally Matres) was paired with an epithet sometimes tied to a region or local geographical feature but most often to a name related to an indigenous community, both of which reinforce the local nature of these goddesses.154

XIII. Sanctuary of the Matronae Aufaniae, Nettersheim: Late Second to Early Third Century A.D. The sanctuary of the Matronae Aufaniae takes us out of the city and back into the countryside and the world of the sacred (Cat. XIII). In the province of Germania Superior, on a hill near a stream north of a small

As is typical of most Matronae sanctuaries, the sanctuary near Nettersheim had no imposing stone edifices. 155

150

Grenier 1960, 902. Lehner 1910, 317; Grenier 1960, 906; FollmannSchulz 1986, 753; von Elbe 1995, 103. 152 Horn 1987, 54; Green 1995, 109. 153 Woolf 2003a, 137. 154 Lehner 1910, 319-320; Derks 1998, 120 and 123. 155 Derks 1998, 122.

147

151

Picard 1974, 71; Bedon, et al. 1988a, 200. Lefèvre (1987, 154) identifies the figure as Tellus. 148 Stern 1962, 1441-1446; Picard 1974, 71; Bedon, et al. 1988a, 200-201. 149 Burnand 1974, 85-92; Nerzic 1989, 278; Bromwich 2003, 320-321. 43

S.L. McGowen

Figure 2.63. Dedication to the Matronae Aufaniae (Cat. III.5). (Image: ©Landesmuseum Bonn)

2.64. Dedication to the Matronae Aufaniae (Cat. III.2). (Image: ©Landesmuseum Bonn)

the display these monuments.160

Instead the sanctuary consisted of a small, traditionally Gallo-Roman, square temple and two smaller buildings, all of which were surrounded by a low temenos wall.156 A fragmentary inscription was discovered very near the square temple, and its shape and state of finish indicate that it was the temple’s dedicatory inscription (Cat. XIII.1).157 The dedication was made by the vicani, the inhabitants of a vicus, whose name has unfortunately been lost, but was very possibly the one to the south of the sanctuary.

Most of the sculpted altars have the same layout typical of Matronae monuments in general (Fig. 2.63-2.64).161 An inscription appears on the lower portion of the monument,162 and above the inscription is a niche in which the three goddesses sit together on a bench. 163 The central female wears her hair long, and the two flanking women wear large, round bonnets, a feature peculiar to the Matronae Aufaniae. Because of their hairstyles, it has been suggested that the figure in the middle represents a younger, possibly unmarried, woman, while the two flanking figures represent older, married women. All three wear long garments, closed at the chest with fibulae, over ankle-length underdresses. In at least two instances, the women wear neck torques (Cat.XIII.2-3), a piece of jewelry particularly associated with the pre-Roman inhabitants of the region. Also as is standard, they hold various objects, such as boxes, fruit, and fruit baskets on their laps. On the narrow sides appear cornucopias, pinecones, fruit, garlands, birds, acanthus plants, and trees. Overall the decoration on the altars from

As many as forty stone dedications, both with and without figural decoration, were discovered in the sanctuary.158 Several of the sculptures were found in and around the ambulatory of the large temple. Because of their relatively good state of preservation, it seems possible that they were placed either on the surrounding wall or directly against the cella wall and thus protected from the elements.159 The structurally useless wall in front of the temple may also have been used for 156

Lehner 1910, 301-303 and 306; Grenier 1960, 902; Follmann-Schulz 1986, 750; von Elbe 1995, 103; Bechert 2003, 332. 157 CIL XIII.11983; Lehner 1910, 311 and 317; Grenier 1960, 906; Follmann-Schulz 1986, 753; von Elbe 1995, 103. 158 von Elbe 1995, 103. 159 Lehner 1910, 306; Follmann-Schulz 1986, 752; Derks 1998, 209.

160

Lehner 1910, 306; Follmann-Schulz 1986, 752. Woolf 2003a, 131. 162 CIL XIII.7826 and 11983-12003; Lehner 1918, 130142. On inscriptions to the Matronae Aufaniae in the Rhineland, see Rüger 1987, 22-24. 163 On the range of representations of the Matronae, see Horn 1987, 31-54; Green 1995, 107-111. 161

44

The Monuments Nettersheim corresponds quite closely to that of other dedications to the Matronae in the Rhineland area and elsewhere in the region. Despite the local nature of the cult, the Matronae monuments still conformed to typical Roman religious practices and were inscribed with traditional Latin epigraphy. Moreover, participation in the cult was not limited to local individuals, as potentially is the case at Deneuvre. Instead, many of the dedications were made by beneficiarii consularis (Cat. XIII.2-3, 5-7, 9-10), soldiers who were part of the gubernatorial staff and therefore would not have been indigenous members of the local community.164 The sanctuary of the Matronae Aufaniae near Nettersheim provides us with an opportunity not only to examine how local deities are represented in stone sculpture but also how and why outsiders chose to participate in such a cult.

Figure 2.65. Reconstruction of the arch at London (Cat. XIV.2-3). (Image: ©Museum of London)

XIV. Arch, London (Londinium): Late Second to Early Third Century A.D. Despite a downturn in its fortunes in the third century, Londinium, the capital of the province of Britannia, provides us with two of the three latest of the core sixteen sites, and the earlier of the two was a large stone arch (Cat. XIV). Unfortunately, the arch was not found in situ, but instead its blocks were discovered reused in a wall along the river Thames, constructed in the late third or early fourth century, providing the primary means of dating the arch.165 From the location of the blocks in this wall, it seems that the arch once stood in the southwest part of the city.166 Its limited size suggests that it did not span a major thoroughfare, and from the other pieces discovered with those of the arch it seems that it may have served as the entrance to a religious precinct. 167 If this is the case, the arch at London functioned, in a way, as both a sacred and civic monument: it was the public face of the world of the sacred.

Figure 2.66. Apollo from the narrow end of the arch at London (Cat. XIV.3b). (Image: ©Museum of London)

The narrow sides are divided into two sculptural panels (Cat. XIV.3 and XIV.5). The lower panels are decorated with acanthus vines growing out of kantharoi, above which were figural panels, only one of which survives (Cat. XIV.3a and XIV.5a).170 The extant panel contains the bust of a male with long hair, wearing a cloak pinned over his right shoulder; a curved object, likely a quiver, appears behind him, and so it seems likely the figure represents Apollo (Cat. XIV.3b; Fig. 2.66).171 The figure from the other side does not survive but could perhaps have been Diana or Luna.

The remains include twenty-nine blocks of Lincolnshire limestone from the upper part of the arch. 168 Despite the fragmentary nature of the arch, because some blocks have survived from all four sides, it is possible to discern its decorative program. Although some decoration does survive inside the arch, including voussoirs decorated with acanthus and coffers containing rosettes, the primary decoration was on its exterior (Cat. XIV.1; Fig. 2.65).169

The main façades also have sculptural decoration at two levels. Instead of the now familiar Victories, the spandrels contain roundels decorated with busts (Cat. XIV.4c). On the lone survivor of the four appears a head whose hair is adorned with vine leaves, fruits, grapes, and corn.172 The figure possibly represents a Season, perhaps Autumn, since grapes and fruit are attributes of this personification, but as corn is normally associated with Summer, perhaps the figure represents a composite season or Abundantia, the goddess of abundance. 173

164

von Elbe 1995, 103. On the beficiarii, see also NelisClément 2000. 165 Marsden 1980, 119; Milne 1993, 12; Milne 1995, 7778; Wilson 2002, 609; Mattingly 2006, 275. On the Roman riverside wall, see Perring 1991, 106-107; de la Bédoyère 2001, 118-119. On the dendrochronoligcal testing of the wall piles, see Sheldon and Tyers 1983, 358-360; Hillam and Morgan 1986. 166 Marsden 1980, 133-134; Merrifield 1983, 169-170; Perring 1991, 93-95. 167 Blagg 1980b, 178-179. 168 Blagg 1980b, 156-157. 169 Schofield and Dyson 1980, 21; Blagg 1980b, 153 and 128-133.

170

Blagg 1980b, 126 and 148-151. CSIR I.10.154-155. 172 Blagg 1980b, 136. 173 Schofield and Dyson 1980, 21. 171

45

S.L. McGowen

Figure 2.67. Block from the frieze of the arch at London with Mars (L) and the moneybag and shoulder of Mercury (R) (Cat. XIV.4d). (Image: ©Museum of London)

Figure 2.68. Block from the frieze of the arch at London with the head of a diademed female, likely Venus (Cat. XIV.4d). (Image: ©Museum of London)

Further, it seems that the spaces below the roundels were decorated with sea creatures, perhaps dolphins, though only two blocks survive (Cat. XIV.2a).174 Beyond the spandrels on either side of vault are niches containing standing frontal figures, four in total. One of the niches contains a draped, female figure wearing a helmet and holding a staff, almost certainly Minerva (Cat. XIV.4a).175 The second panel contains an image of Hercules (Cat. XIV.2b).176 All that remains of the third panel is a fragment of a staff (Cat. XIV.2c), and unfortunately no blocks of the fourth panel with figural decoration were recovered.177

has been recovered, and it shows a winged Cupid, outstretched and holding a torch (Cat. XIV. 2d).179 It seems most likely that this Cupid was one of a pair who held the now-missing inscription.180 On the other side at the level of the frieze occurs a row of busts of deities (Cat. XIV.4d). One figure definitely belongs to the right end and shows the top of the head of a diademed female, most likely Venus.181 A second block contains fragments of two figures: a nude, beardless male with a strap across his chest, almost certainly Mars, and to his right a moneybag adjacent to the left shoulder of a figure wearing a cloak, undoubtedly Mercury (Fig. 2.67; Cat. XIV.4d). The final block from this frieze is much more damaged and shows only the top portion of the head of a

The arch at London also had decorated friezes on both sides of the main façades.178 Of one side, only one block 174

Blagg 1980b, 129. CSIR I.10.142-143. 176 CSIR I.10.144-147. 177 Blagg 1980b, 141 and 154. 178 Blagg 1980b, 145-152. 175

179

CSIR I.10.156. Blagg 1980b, 155. On the motif on sarcophagi from Gaul, see Nerzic 1989, 304. 181 CSIR I.10.154-155; Blagg 1980b, 145 and 155. 180

46

The Monuments

Figure 2.69. Façade of the arch of Dativius Victor from Mainz (Cat. XV.2). (Image: ©LVR-Landesmuseum Mainz)

40km northwest of Mainz (Cat. XV.2h).184 The inscription also states that he funded the construction of a portico as well, and from the size of the arch and the fact that it was only decorated on one side, it may have served as the entrance to this portico.185 The arch, then, could have had a civic function. It was, however, dedicated to Jupiter Conservator and so was actually a votive offering. In this way, the arch at Mainz was, like the arch at London, both sacred and civic at the same time.

diademed female (Fig. 2.68). Although the spacing for these figures is uncertain, the measurements of the arch and the figures suggest that the frieze would have been suitable for seven figures.182 Because of the juxtaposition of Mars and Mercury and because the final figure is likely Venus, it has been suggested that the figures represent the seven days of the week. Several other examples of this motif with the same arrangement are known in the western provinces, appearing, for example, on reliefs now in Wiesbaden and Frankfurt.183

The decoration of the arch at Mainz is largely religious in nature, and as at London, it had no triumphal iconography (Fig. 2.69).186 In the upper zone appear scenes of religious ritual (Cat. XV.2g).187 On the left side, a camillus holding a sacrificial pitcher stands beside a togatus and an altar. On the right side, a sacrificial attendant holding apparently an acerra stands beside another togatus positioned next to a fire altar and what appears to be a cow. In between these two scenes of sacrifice are four badly damaged figures who may represent four additional participants in the religious ceremony. These scenes of sacrifice are undoubtedly associated with Dativius Victor’s role as sacerdos, as mentioned in the inscription.188 Because the two togate sacrificants are more prominent than the other figures, it is possible that that they represent Dativius Victor’s sons, who, according to the inscription, actually carried out the construction of the arch.

Although the arch at Londinium was, like the arches at Vesontio and Durocortorum, decorated with mythological figures, it had no scenes of triumphal iconography. Even so, it did share a theme common to many of the arches at the core of this study, growth and abundance. Furthermore, like the arch at Durocortorum, the arch at Londinium is decorated with a calendar, and in both instances, this device may have been meant to suggest the notion of felicitas temporum. In this way, even if the arch at London had no true victory iconography, it still celebrated the eternal fruits of victory. XV. Arch of Dativius Victor, Mainz (Mogontiacum): Early Third Century A.D. The stone arch from Mainz was, like the arch at London, constructed in the provincial capital, in this case, the capital of the province of Germania Superior, Mogontiacum (Cat. XV). Unfortunately, it too was found in a secondary context. Its blocks had been reused in the Medieval city wall. The inscription indicates that it was dedicated by Dativius Victor, a sacerdos and decurio of civitas Taunensium, which had its capital at Nida some

182 183

184

CIL XIII.6705. See also von Gall 1968, 98; von Elbe 1977, 259; Bauchhenss 1984, 80 and 83; Cüppers 1990, 465; King 1990, 138; Wamser, et al. 2000, 251. 185 von Gall 1968, 98; Bauchhenss 1984, 79; Selzer, et al. 1988, 92; Cüppers 1990, 465. 186 Espérandieu, VII.5726=CSIR II.3.94. 187 von Gall 1968, 99-101; von Elbe 1977, 259; Bauchhenss 1984, 80-81; Selzer, et al. 1988, 92. 188 Bauchhenss 1984, 81.

Blagg 1980b, 155. Espérandieu, Germanie 98-99. 47

S.L. McGowen Below these scenes, in the spaces between the archivolt and the outer pilasters, appear putti, perhaps representing the Seasons (Cat. XV.2f). The left figure carries a basket over his shoulder, perhaps Autumn, and so despite the missing attribute of the corresponding figure, Spring seems a viable option. The identification of these figures as Seasons is somewhat problematic because Seasons usually appear in fours. Rather, it seems possible that the two putti holding the inscription at the top of the arch are meant to represent the other two, or that those two represent a truncated cycle of the Seasons.189

at London. The Mithraeum at Londinium was constructed in the third century A.D. on the west bank of a stream in the south central part of the city (Cat. XVI). The precise nature of the area around the temple may never been determined because of the modern city, but it seems likely that the temple was built in a pre-existing religious precinct or as part of a private building. 194 The original excavations revealed evidence of a road running parallel to the east side of the temple.195 If true, such a location would be unusual for a Mithraeum, as they were not generally located in such conspicuous places. 196 It seems most probable that the location was chosen out of

The final decorative zone on the arch at Mainz is the face of the arched entranceway.190 Jupiter and Juno enthroned, a favorite motif in the Germanic provinces, appear on the keystone (Cat. XV.2e). Flanking the keystone, adorning the rest of the arched entranceway are small panels, each containing a sign of the zodiac (Cat. XV.2d). Those surviving include Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Virgo, Scorpio, and Sagittarius. Some associate these panels with Mithraism,191 and the zodiac was often associated with Mithras worship. In fact, a strikingly similar motif appears on a late second or early third-century relief of Mithras from Dativius Victor’s hometown, Nida, in fact, forming an arch over the central image of Mithras slaying the bull.192 Mithraism was a mystery religion, and pronouncement of it in such a public venue as on an arch would be unusual. Instead, it seems more likely that the motif appears at Mainz for the same reason that the calendars appear on the arches at both Durocortorum and Londinium, which is to celebrate the notion of felicitas temporum. On coinage from as early as the Antonine period, the zodiac in conjunction with the Seasons had stood for felicitas temporum, and the putti as Seasons confirm the notion. 193 Although we cannot be sure how precisely the motif came to appear on the arch, it is possible that the patron may have requested this favorite local motif or that the sculptors, when pressed to create something suitable for the field and thematically appropriate, relied on an established repertoire. More importantly, when understood as an expression of felicitas temporum, the zodiacal calendar makes much more sense in regard to the rest of the arch’s iconography. When considered together, the entire ensemble suggests that continual and proper veneration of the gods yielded eternal felicitas temporum. Figure 2.70. Marble head of Mithras from the London Mithraeum (Cat. XVI.5). (Image: ©Museum of London)

XVI. Temple of Mithras, London (Londinium): Middle of the Third Century A.D. Although Mithraism was perhaps not the inspiration for the decoration of the arch of Dativius Victor, it certainly was for the latest of the core sites, the Temple of Mithras 189

Bauchhenss 1984, 81. von Gall 1968, 99-101; von Elbe 1977, 259; Bauchhenss 1984, 79-80; Selzer, et al. 1988, 92; Cüppers 1990, 465. 191 von Gall 1968, 98-119. 192 Meier-Arendt 1983, 76-77. 193 Bauchhenss 1984, 81. 190

194

Shepherd 1998, 221. Grimes and Sorrell, as cited in Shepherd 1998, 220221 and fig. 246. 196 Turcan 1996, 216. 195

48

The Monuments

Figure 2.71. Marble plaque of Mithras from the London Mithraeum (Cat. XVI.3). (Image: ©Museum of London)

convenience as it was close to a source of water, an essential element of the cult ritual.197 The layout of the temple corresponded in large part to the plans of other known Mithraea throughout the Empire.198 The temple had, however, two features which made it particularly noteworthy. The first was its size. It was unusually large, measuring 18.3m by 7.6m, while the more typical Mithraeum at Carrawburgh measured 7.9m by 5.5m. 199 Second, it was outfitted with numerous works of stone sculpture, eight made of imported marble and predating the construction of the temple by more than a century; they were antiques by the time of the temple’s construction.200

Mithras or are related directly to his worship. One such piece, and one of the marble imports, is a head of Mithras, which almost certainly belonged to a sculpture representing the god’s most famous deed, the killing of the bull (Cat. XVI.5; Fig. 2.70). 201 A second example a small marble plaque showing Mithras as Tauroctonos within a roundel surrounded by the signs of the zodiac (Cat. XVI.3; Fig. 2.71).202 Squeezed into four undecorated spaces outside the roundel was an inscription, indicating that the relief was dedicated by Ulpius Silvanus, a veteran of Legio II Augusta.203 Both pieces were made of fine-grained marble, likely Italian, but stylistically and technically, they are worlds apart. The Mithras head is well modeled and naturalistic, a high-quality Hellenizing sculpture at its best. By contrast, although ambitious in design, the plaque is very schematic and poorly executed. Not all of the specifically Mithraic sculptures were made of marble. One piece was made of limestone, British limestone from the Cotswold region. The relief, represents Cautopates and so was presumably matched by one of Cautes (Cat. XVI.1; Fig. 2.72).204 Since it is made of provincial limestone, it was almost certainly sculpted in Britain. Even so, it is a highquality piece, with the complicated pose of the torch-

Five of the sculptures discovered in the temple represent 197

Turcan 1996, 219. On the use of water in Mithraic rites, see Clauss 2000, 71-73. 198 Shepherd 1998, 25-97, 222 and 225. On the plan of Mithraea in general, see Turcan 1996, 218-221; Clauss 2000, 43-48. 199 Henig 1989, 108; Wilson 2002, 618. 200 A roundel depicting the Danubian Great Goddess, a fragmentary statuette of Bacchus, and a small statue group of Bacchus found during the excavations seem to come from a later phase of the temple and very likely were not associated with the temple as a Mithraeum. See Toynbee 1986, 56; Henig 1995, 156; Shepherd 1998, 107-110, 184, 188-191, and 227-229; Wilson 2002, 618; Stirling 2005, 193-195. In addition, a Dioscurus relief was also found during the excavations but outside the temple proper, and so it does not belong to the Mithraeum. See Toynbee 1986, 34-36; Shepherd 1998, 108 and 183.

201

CSIR I.10.13. See also Toynbee 1986, 5-10; Shepherd 1998, 165. On the importance of the Tauroctonos, see Henig 1984, 102; Turcan 1996, 223; Clauss 2000, 78-84. 202 CSIR I.10.15. See also Toynbee 1986, 29-31; Shepherd 1998, 172-174. 203 RIB 3. 204 CSIR I.10.69. See also Toynbee 1986, 32; Shepherd 1998, 182. 49

S.L. McGowen

Figure 2.72. Cautopates from the London Mithraeum (Cat. XVI.1). (Image: ©Museum of London)

bearer very naturalistically rendered. Despite the differences in material and execution, all three were evidently considered appropriate for display in the same sacred space.205

Fig. 2.73. Marble head of Serapis from the London Mithraeum (Cat. XVI.4). (Image: ©Museum of London)

As occurred in Mithraea throughout the Roman world, the specifically Mithraic sculptures were surrounded by sculptures of other deities. They include heads of Minerva (Cat. XVI.9) and Serapis (Cat. XVI.4; Fig. 2.73), a statue group of Mercury (Cat. XVI.8), the upper half of a water deity (Cat. XVI.6), and a figure of a Genius missing its head (Cat. XVI.2).206 All of these sculptures are made of marble, and from the style and craftsmanship, it appears as though they were made in Italy and imported. In addition, since all the sculptures date stylistically to various points in the second century, they all predate the London Mithraeum.

Precisely how all these sculptures would have been arranged within the temple is uncertain. The marble head of Mithras likely formed part of the cult statue, which stood on the dais in the apse. As is typical of Mithraea, the Cautopates relief would have been positioned on the left side of the nave, almost certainly balanced by a similar relief of Cautes on the left. 207 As for the other sculptures, perhaps they created, as Toynbee has suggested, a sort of statue gallery, within which the Mithraic ritual meals and secret rites would have taken place.208

205

The two other Mithraic sculpture are a marble hand of Mithras (CSIR I.10.14) and a limestone arm and hand of Mithras (CSIR I.10.71). 206 On the Minerva, see CSIR I.10.6; Toynbee 1986, 1013; Shepherd 1998, 166-167. On the Serapis, see CSIR I.10.16; Toynbee 1986, 14-18; Shepherd 1998, 167-169. On the Mercury, see CSIR I.10.5; Toynbee 1986, 18-21; Shepherd 1998, 169-170. On the water deity, see CSIR I.10.7; Toynbee 1986, 25-27; Shepherd 1998, 171-172. On the Genius, see CSIR I.10.4; Toynbee 1986, 27-29; Shepherd 1998, 172.

These latest six sites reveal some trends of this final phase. This collection of monuments is our most diverse, consisting of four arches and two sanctuary sites. The geographic distribution is greatly expanded, and elements such as size and execution, even at the same site, are much more varied. Perhaps this diversity is reflective of the wider range of people using sacred and civic stone 207 208

50

Turcan 1996, 219; Shepherd 1998, 182. Thevenot 1968, 60.

The Monuments monuments, by this period, a tradition which had existed in the region for almost two centuries. A marked reduction in scale of the later monuments is also readily apparent, almost certainly related to the troubles occurring in the region in the third century. Even though the collection of monuments is selective, it is no coincidence that the sequence ends in the middle of the third century because the use of sacred and civic sculpture virtually ceases in the region of study at this time.

51

52

The Interplay of Agency, Material, and Style

Chapter 3: The Interplay of Agency, Material, and Style Most of the sculptural decoration from the monuments at the core sixteen sites was figural, but how closely the representations actually mirrored life varied widely, not just at the core sixteen sites or in the northwest provinces but throughout the Empire and even in Rome. This chapter focuses on how the images are represented, their final appearance, or their style and why they may have been represented in this way. Among other variables such as date and place of production, style was largely a product of three complicated and interlocking factors: what the buyer desired; what the artist envisioned in conjunction with his abilities; and the material used for the work.1 Therefore, before turning to the complicated issue of style itself, we discuss these three topics with consideration to how they may have influenced the final appearance of sacred and civic stone sculpture from the northwest provinces.

This section intends to examine the nature of different patrons, and to do so, it is useful to consider them according to certain categories. Blagg, and Frézouls before him, catalogued euergetistic benefactions in most of the northwest provinces, and their system of categorization is followed here.5 A large percentage of patrons fall into one of four groups: the emperor and other imperial representatives; local elites (client kings, local magistrates, and priests); members of the military community (soldiers, veterans, military members of the governor‘s retinue); and collective bodies (guilds, town councils, etc.). Many patrons cannot be fitted into this scheme, and clearly many more divergent identities existed in the northwest provinces than it allows for. Nevertheless, these divisions provide a useful way to categorize some of the patrons because, very broadly speaking, the members within each group generally had similar cultural backgrounds, which influenced both their goals and their choices with regard to stone monuments.

Part 1: Agency – Patrons and Makers

The first group comprises the emperor and his representatives, particularly members of the imperial family as well as the governor and other imperial officials. The actual number of people within this group was very small, but the capital to which they had access was vast. These individuals were, in almost all instances, outsiders who brought cultural traditions and expectations from Rome into the Roman provinces.

Patrons The existence of any sacred or civic stone sculpture was due, in the first place, to the will and means of the patron, but it is difficult to know how much input a patron had over the final appearance. In the Satyricon, Trimalchio gives precise instructions for his tomb to the artisan Habinnas. He specifies everything, including the size, subject matter, design, inscription, and setting.2 The only feature he does not specify is the execution, though Trimalchio boasts earlier in the piece that Habinnas is known to make the best monuments. 3 Although this is a comic depiction of an exaggerated figure, it would not succeed as a piece of satire if there were not some truth in it. Moreover, the second-century will of a provincial elite from Andemantunnum in eastern France presents a similar picture, with the patron stipulating many of the same elements for his actual tomb as Trimalchio did for his fictional tomb, even specifying the use particularly of Luna.4 These two examples, although relating to funerary monuments, illustrate how involved patrons could hypothetically be in designing their monuments.

Imperial benefactions are known in the northwest provinces, and among them are both large stone arches and sacred monuments. For example, at Nîmes Augustus funded the construction of the city wall and associated arches, which are largely undecorated,6 while Agrippa famously sponsored the construction of the temple now known as the Maison Carrée.7 Despite such examples, this group made few benefactions in the northwest provinces,8 and not a single example appears at any of the core sixteen sites. A similar pattern emerges from Drogula‘s recent catalogue of dedications made by provincial governors.9 These are rare in the northwest provinces, comprising only 7.5% of all such activity from across the Empire, and governors or members of their staff were more likely to dedicate baths and other water equipment (9)10 and roads and milestones (7)11 than temples (4)12 and city gates (2).13

1

Johns 2003a, 14-15. Petronius, Satyricon LXXII. 3 Petronius, Satyricon LXV.5. 4 CIL XIII.5708. The most pertinent part of the text reads: cellam quam a]edificavi memoriae perfici volo ad exemplar quod dedi ita ut exe/[d]ra sit eo [loco] in qua statua sedens ponatur marmorea ex lapide / quam optumo(!) transmarino ubi aenea ex aere tabulari quam optumo(!) / alt[a] ne minus p(edes) V le[c]tica fiat sub exedra et II subsellia ad / duo latera ex lapide transmarino stratui ibi sit quod sternatur / per eos dies quibus cella memoriae aperietur et II lodices et cervi/calia duo par(ia) cenator(ia) et aboll[ae] II [et] tunica araq(ue) ponatur ante / id aedific(ium) ex lapide Lunensi quam optimo sculpta quam optume(!) / in qua ossa mea reponantur cl(a)udaturq(ue) id aedifi(cium) lapide Lu/nensi ita ut facile aperiri et denuo cl(a)udi possit. See also Bedon 1980, 15; Stewart 2008, 34-35. 2

5

Frézouls 1984, 27-54; Blagg 1990a, 13-31. CIL XII.3151. 7 AE 1920.43. 8 Frézouls 1984, 32; Blagg 1990a, 21, table 24. See also Millett 1992, 83, table 84.82. 9 Drogula 2005, 475-492. 10 Tacitus, Annales XI.20.2; AE 1912.122, 1952.12, 1986.523, 1995.1165; CIL XIII.11757; RIB 730, 1049, and 1060. 11 AE 1967.260; RIB 977, 1149, 1279, 1281, and 2299; Ness-Lieb 74. 12 RIB 587 and 1137; CIL XIII.8201; AE 1976.363a. 13 RIB 1706; AE 2000.1023. 6

53

S.L. McGowen The implications of this paucity of benefactions by the imperial group are manifold. First, when evidence for the patron is absent, it is untenable to assume imperial involvement. Second, these were the individuals most inclined to have expectations in regard to sculpture more in line with the high-quality Hellenizing monuments of Rome. Because their absolute numbers were so limited and because their benefactions so few, they could not fuel the sort of artistic competition needed to elevate artistic standards to the levels seen in Rome. The majority of the population had neither these experiences nor this cultural background within which to set their monuments.

Patrons associated with the military community also dedicated some of the altars from the sanctuary of the Matronae Aufaniae near Nettersheim. Beneficiarii consularis, soldiers who were part of the governor‘s staff, dedicated at least eight of the pieces (Cat. XIII.2-3, 5-7, 9-10).16 These men did not originate from the northwest provinces, so why did they set up altars for local goddesses at this small roadside sanctuary? Moreover, beneficiarii generally made dedications to Jupiter Optimus Maximus, so why here did they not here? As higher ranking members of the military community, they would have been relatively wealthy, and perhaps the monuments were benefactions to the local community. That most of the monuments were set up within a short time span of 20 to 60 years may even reflect a certain degree of competition among them.

A second source of patrons, who at least in the early stages of the imperial period in the Northwest came from outside regions, is members of the military community, both active and retired. According to Frézouls and Blagg, military sources funded 21.9% of public benefactions, but these were located almost exclusively at military sites. 14 Although some of the core sixteen sites had military connections (Mainz, Orange, and possibly London), none of the eight large stone arches was definitely known to have been dedicated by members of the military community. It is possible, however, that the arch Orange was such a benefaction, given its location in a military colony and its date of construction (Cat. IV). Its size and ornate decoration indicate its substantial cost. Only a very wealthy individual could have funded it, and only someone in the highest echelons of the military would have had the necessary capital. Such individuals did not generally reside in military colonies, but if one did, he was almost certainly a member of the local elite and his benefaction was likely made in this capacity. It also seems possible that the funds could have come from the town council, which in the Tiberian period would have consisted of, in large part if not in entirety, veterans.

Although not much is known about other patrons at Nettersheim, the building inscription suggests that the local community did participate in religious activity there. Therefore, the beneficiarii, as strangers in a strange land, may have made the dedications to integrate into their new community, and the fact that they made their dedications to the local goddesses rather than the typical Jupiter Optimus Maximus supports the notion.17 What is more, although worshippers of Matronae in their various incarnations came from the lower end of the social spectrum, the community of worshippers at the sanctuary of Matronae Aufaniae at Bonn, located only fifty miles away from Nettersheim, contained several members from the highest. They included centurions and their relations, equites, magistrates and priests from the nearby colony at Cologne, and even some senators.18 Perhaps, then, the beneficiarii, stationed as they were in rural Germania Inferior, wished to associate themselves with these individuals of status.

Two of the eight main religious sites have monuments funded by members of the military community. At the Mithraeum in London, a veteran of Legio II Augusta, Ulpius Silvanus dedicated a plaque, which, unusually for Britain, was made of Italian marble (Cat. XVI.3; Fig. 2.71).15 It seems possible that, as at Langres, Ulpius wanted fine imported Italian marble for his religious dedication. The quality of the carving is not high, but it is certainly in keeping with that of Mithraic sculpture in the northwest provinces in its degree of naturalism. Herein lies the difficulty of discerning intention versus execution. The potential reasons for the apparent discrepancy are myriad. Perhaps he desired something more accomplished but could only procure a less capable artist, even one working in an unfamiliar material, or perhaps it was purchased pre-made. In any case, it seems that Ulpius was satisfied or even proud of his commission as he had his name and military career inscribed on it and set it up in the large Mithraeum at London alongside some of the highest quality sculptures in all of Britain and much of the Northwest.

The discussion so far has focused on two categories of individuals who, in most instances, originated from elsewhere in the Empire and brought with them outside cultural experiences. These outside elements were, however, in the minority, and most patrons, as indigenes and their descendants or settlers and their progeny, lived and died in the region. Some of these individuals may have traveled to Italy or Rome or elsewhere in the Empire and experienced the cultural atmosphere of the Mediterranean, but most would not have. Some may have been aware of high-quality Hellenizing sculpture made of marble, but for most, their primary visual experience was what they saw around them every day, sculpture made of stone from the Northwest, by sculptors from the Northwest, and for patrons from the Northwest. Perhaps the most significant category of such patronage consisted of the local elites, and a subcategory of particular importance especially in the early stages of incorporation were the client kings. These local chieftains had proven themselves loyal to the Roman establishment 16

CIL XIII.11984-11991. See also Blagg 1990a, 20. Woolf 2003a, 137-138. 18 Rüger 1987, 22-24; Woolf 2003a, 137.

14

17

Blagg 1990a, 20. 15 RIB 3. 54

The Interplay of Agency, Material, and Style during the incorporation of their regions, and because of their loyalty, they retained regional dominion. Thus, they had a vested interest in maintaining and reinforcing that loyalty, and one means to this end was public displays of Roman culture. They may also have traveled and become familiar with outside cultural influences. These individuals were the wealthiest in the provinces, and so we can assume that cost cannot have been a factor in the choices they made, including how much they chose to spend on the monuments.

immigrants, and the descendants of both – rose to power, assuming local magistracies and priesthoods; they were the local elites. Moreover, they reinforced their positions, while at the same time advertising their loyalty and wealth, by constructing stone monuments. Here, elites are defined specifically as those holding civic magistracies or priesthoods, though it must be conceded that this may well omit many men of local importance. Known magistrates and priests account for 16% of the patrons enumerated by Frézouls and Blagg. The number of such benefactions varied greatly from province to province, with Gallia Aquitania having the most and Germania Inferior and Britannia the least. From the core sixteen sites, the arch of Dativius Victor at Mainz is such a benefaction (Cat. XV.2h). Dativius Victor was both a magistrate and priest, but he held these positions in the town of Nida, about 40km from Mainz. 22 We cannot know precisely why Dativius Victor requested the construction of his arch at Mainz. One possibility is that he was a prominent individual in both Nida and Mainz and wanted his arch constructed in a place of greater importance; Mainz was a provincial capital and one of the most prominent cities in the northwest provinces. At Mainz his arch would have greater visibility and would have advertised his wealth and importance to a wider and even more influential audience. We can also imagine that similar notable individuals may have funded the construction of the large sanctuary sites such as those at Genainville and Champlieu as well as the large stone arches at Besançon and Reims.

Two examples of patronage of local client kings, one certain and one conjectural, occur among the core sixteen sites. The earlier Arch of Augustus at Susa was, according to the inscription, funded by the client king Cottius, who was by that time a Roman citizen and prefect (Cat. I.1b and I.3b).19 Cottius was typical of the newly-minted Roman citizen setting up a Roman-style monument, inscribing it in the Roman way, using the Roman language, and decorating it with Roman iconography. All indicated his desire to participate in the Roman lifestyle, even in the early years after incorporation. The second example is less clear, and the evidence is circumstantial. It seems possible that the first phase of the temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath was funded by the clientking Togidubnus.20 Togidubnus is thought to have held dominion over the region in which Bath is located, though it would have been on the edge of his conjectural territory. Moreover, he is known to have constructed a temple to Minerva and Neptune at Cirencester (60km away from Bath),21 and it is the connection between these two deities that provides the strongest evidence for his involvement at Bath. Although the sanctuary at Bath is dedicated to Sulis Minerva, Neptune was, in addition to his other roles, patron god of inland springs. The sculptural decoration of the first phase does seem to connect the two deities (Cat. V.1a; Fig. 2.19): the corners of the pediments were filled with Tritons blowing conch shells; of the two helmets below the Victories, one is topped by an owl and one is shaped like a dolphin; and the peculiar male gorgon would seem to be a depiction of Oceanus/Neptune with the gorgon of Minerva‘s aegis. The visual evidence for Togidubnus‘ involvement is compelling if not entirely convincing. Only a wealthy and powerful individual could have commanded the resources for the initial phase of construction of the temple-springbath complex. Considering the rarity of imperial and gubernatorial benefactions in conjunction with Bath‘s distance from a military site, it is probable that the construction of the complex was funded by Togidubnus or someone with similar influence and resources.

Single individuals did not, however, always have the financial wherewithal to fund construction of stone monuments, especially large ones, and a prevalent means of benefaction, particularly in Gallia Belgica and Britannia, was through groups and corporations,23 and two examples appear among the core sixteen sites. One comes from the sanctuary of the Matronae Aufaniae near Nettersheim and states that the vicani collectively dedicated something, likely the main temple (Cat. XIII.1).24 The second, inscribed on the sculpted screen from Bath, indicates that a collegium restored some unknown structure, but almost certainly one located within the temple precinct (Cat. V.4).25 Such communal dedications could potentially give persons, such as Claudius Ligur, who is named in the Bath inscription, the opportunity to make dedications for which they might not have otherwise had the means. Such benefactions undoubtedly demonstrated the wealth, and in both of these instances, the piety of all the members of the group. It also allowed figures such as Claudius Ligur to mark himself out as important, much in the same way Dativius Victor did.

After the demise of the client kings in the Northwest, it seems that their territories became civitates, since no later mentions of them survive. Other men – natives,

22

CIL XIII.6705. See also von Gall 1968, 98; von Elbe 1977, 259; Bauchhenss 1984, 80 and 83; Cüppers 1990, 465; King 1990, 138; Wamser, et al. 2000, 251. 23 Frézouls 1984, 33-34; Blagg 1990a, 21. 24 CIL XIII.11983; Lehner 1910, 311; Follmann-Schulz 1986, 753. 25 CIL VII.39d-e=RIB 141a-c; Cunliffe 2000, 67.

19

CIL V.7231. Henig 1989, 221; Henig 1995, 111; Henig 2002, 48; Henig 2003, 125. 21 RIB 91. 20

55

S.L. McGowen Although we have categorized some of the patrons from the northwest provinces, from the calculations of Frézouls and Blagg, they account for only 48% of benefactions. Most were ordinary people who lived, worked, worshipped, and died in the northwest provinces. They were of mixed origins and identities, an amalgamation of Roman citizens and noncitizens, free and slave, most with life experiences focused within the northwest provinces. Many dedications, including both arches and votive dedications, were made by ordinary Roman citizens,26 freedmen,27 and foreigners.28 This is not to imply that these individuals could not attain wealth; that they could dedicate stone monuments suggests otherwise.

Italy. They would have desired a sculpture suitable for the sanctuary of Hercules at Deneuvre. Makers Sculptors played an equally if not more important role in the final appearance of stone sculpture, since no matter what the patron may have wished, the final appearance was ultimately left up to his competence. No monuments from any of the core sixteen sites are inscribed with the names of their makers. Two sites, Bath and Genainville, have produced evidence that attests to the presence of sculptors but none pertaining to creators of the surviving stone monuments. Information from beyond the sixteen core sites, primarily in the form of inscriptions, is used here to examine three main issues: the types and status of men involved in stoneworking in the region; given the geographical expanse of the region of study, the evidence for itinerancy; and, while conceding that the data is limited, the existence of general regional trends in the location and presence of the different types of stoneworkers. By understanding the identity of the figures and how they functioned in the region, we can begin to understand the part these individuals played in the appearance of sacred and civic stone sculpture.

At the sanctuary of Hercules at Deneuvre, not a single example of a magistrate, priest, soldier, or corporate body is known among the dedicators. Moreover, though naming patterns were not static, not a single example of a full tria nomina survives. Certainly many of the dedicants had Roman names, but several others had Celtic ones. Two of the names, one Roman, Alpinius Verus (Cat. IX.2),29 and one Celtic, Caratula (Cat. IX.47),30 were particularly prominent in the eastern part of Gaul. This, together with the absence of dedications by definable elites or members of the military, suggests that the small roadside sanctuary had only local and no more than regional prominence.

Before addressing such questions, it is pertinent to touch briefly on some sources of information that, although ostensibly useful, are actually unhelpful. The first is the representation of the tools of stoneworkers, such as squares, punches, mallets, and plummets, on grave-stelai. Such tools appear, for example, on nine tombstones from Britain.31 Although such reliefs provide information about the tools used by stoneworkers, it seems they were actually intended to protect the monuments rather than indicate anything about the occupation of the deceased. While tools do appear on some Italian grave markers where the deceased was certainly involved with stoneworking, they also appear on tombstones of women and children who were obviously not. 32 In addition, in the northwest provinces and elsewhere throughout the Empire, representations of tools often appeared in conjunction with the dedication sub ascia, as they do on a grave-stele from Chester.33 It seems that this inscription was intended to prevent the monument from being defiled, rather than making any reference to stoneworking. Thus, it would seem that even when the tools appear alone, they represent sub ascia type dedications rather than indicating the trade of the deceased. Therefore, they are of little assistance in understanding stoneworkers.

What is most remarkable about the sanctuary at Deneuvre is the striking similarity of the more than fifty stelai and freestanding sculptures, particularly in material, design, and iconography. This similarity does not extend to style or execution. Some are highly naturalistic, while others are decidedly schematic. Although some of this similarity may be accounted for by availability of craftsmen and materials in this rural location, it is almost unimaginable that none of the patrons could have acquired something (or someone) different if they desired. Because this sanctuary was evidently of local importance, most people who patronized it likely lived in the vicinity and probably did not have Mediterranean-influenced cultural backgrounds. Therefore, most would not have wanted a sculpture suitable for a sanctuary in Rome or even in 26

At Hochscheid, Sextus Similius Severus set up a socle (Cat. X.5). No sculpture survives. 27 At Hochscheid, a freedman set up a votive altar (Cat. X.4). No sculpture survives. 28 At Bath, two dedications were set up by foreigners. One is the dedication by the lapidarius Priscus, who identifies himself as a member of the Carnutes from around Chartes (Cat. V.12) and the other is Peregrinus, whose name interestingly means ―foreigner‖ who came from Trier (Augusta Treverorum) (Cat. V.10). 29 AE 1980.649. See also Moitrieux 1992, 245, pl. XIV, S.E. 286. For other examples of Alpinus, see CIL XIII.3198, 5130, 5233, 7741, and 8150. 30 Burnand 1984, 361, n. 343; Moitrieux 1992, 255, pl. XXXIV, I.346. For instances of the name, usually spelled with two l‘s, see also CIL XIII.4385, 4470, 4584, 5731, 5732, and 6369 and ILTG 442.

A substantial number of reliefs from the northwest provinces show workmen holding tools. For example, on the grave-stele of Sabinianus from Autun (Augustodunum), the central figure, presumably Sabinianus himself, holds a mallet, and so was perhaps a 31

RIB 204 and 258; Henig, et al. 2004, nos. 33, 39, 63, 65, and 92. 32 Blagg 1976, 153. 33 RIB 491. See also Henig, et al. 2004, 13. 56

The Interplay of Agency, Material, and Style

Figure 3.1. Map of the inscriptions realted to stoneworkers. (Image: ©S. McGowen)

stoneworker or sculptor.34 Such tools could be used by many different kinds of craftsmen. Thus, in almost all cases, without an inscription one cannot know that such images actually represent stoneworkers. Some representations of craftsmen who are definitely stoneworkers have survived. One example of a quarryman at work was inscribed on the rock face at Kruft in Germany.35 A second example appears on a fragmentary stele found in the northern part of the sanctuary at Genainville.36 Without inscriptions, however, such images tell us little about sculptors or stoneworkers.

distinguish precisely what type of stoneworking they performed. In addition to these inscriptions, a few works from the northwest provinces are actually signed using the name of the artist together with a verb, either a form of sculpere or facere. The relevance of facere is less clear because it was, in most instances, a verb of dedication. 37 Therefore, only when its subject is discernibly other than the patron – typically by inclusion of a second subject of a second verb such as curavit or donavit – has it been included. Taken together, at present count, twenty such inscriptions appear in the region from the Rhine to the Pyrenees as well as Britain (Fig. 3.1). Although the sample is small, particularly when compared to the thousands of inscriptions known from the northwest provinces, such inscriptions are relatively infrequent, even in Italy, and so a sample of twenty is considerable. In the sample, all of the northwest provinces are represented, and so despite the small number they do present a good geographical distribution. In addition, they range in date from middle of the first to the early third century A.D., with most

In the northwest provinces, however, a small number of inscriptions referring to stoneworkers and sculptors have survived. Three different terms, sculptor/scultor, marmorarius, and lapidarius, are used to refer to stoneworkers who may also have been sculptors. In most cases, outside of context of discovery, it is not possible to 34

Espérandieu, III.1878. Bedon 1984, plate 29. 36 Musée Archéologique Départemental du Val d‘Oise, inventory no. 1991. 35

37

57

Sandys and Campbell 1927, 85-86 and 109.

S.L. McGowen dating to the second century, representing all three categories of stoneworkers. Thus, it seems these inscriptions can provide a good, if limited, picture of stoneworkers in the northwest provinces. The first category of stoneworkers, sculptor, appears in three inscriptions from the region of study, one from Gallia Aquitania38 and two from Britannia. 39 The term could apply to craftsmen who worked not only in stone but also metal, precious stones, wood, or ivory. 40 In Britain, the term appeared on a statue base from Bath (Aquae Sulis), set up by a certain Sulinus, son of Brucetus (Cat. V.11; Fig. 3.2).41 From the connection between his name and the patron deity of the spring sanctuary, Sulis Minerva, it seems likely that Sulinus originated from Bath.42 Because Britain had relatively little tradition of sculpting or building in stone before incorporation into the Empire, the earliest stoneworkers must have been immigrants. Although the earliest stone carvers came to Britain with the army, it seems that a separate civilian industry developed in the southern part of the region. Immigrant stoneworkers, primarily from Gaul, trained locals, and over time a local industry developed, supporting local stoneworkers, whose existence Sulinus would attest. In addition to the sculptors needed for the decoration of the sanctuary, the large number of surviving grave-stelai and other decorated monuments from Bath would have been enough to support a local sculptor. Sulinus is also known

Figure 3.3. Grave-stele of the sculptor Amabilis from Bordeaux. (Image: ©D. Cingal)

to have set up a second dedication at Cirencester, located some 60km from Bath.43 Despite the local industry at Bath, Sulinus may have traveled to Cirencester for work. Cirencester was one of the largest cities in Britain, second only to the provincial capital at London, which would undoubtedly have meant more and greater commissions.44 The single example of the term sculptor from the continental provinces comes from Bordeaux (Burdigala) in Gallia Aquitania (Fig. 3.3).45 On his grave marker set up by his brother, Marcus Se(---) Amabalis is identified as a sculptor by the letters SCV following his name. But unlike the votive altar from Britain, the stele is adorned with figural decoration – a seated figure wearing a pointed cap and a long, sleeveless garment, holds in his left hand a chisel and a mallet in his right. In what is perhaps a visual pun, the figure holds the chisel up to the

Figure 3.2. Altar from Bath dedicated by Sulinus, a sculptor (Cat. V.11). (Image: ©Institute of Archaeology, Oxford) 38

CIL XIII.643=AE 1962.331a. RIB 105 and 151. 40 Calabi Limentani 1958-1966b, 144. 41 RIB 151. 42 Henig 1995, 111; Henig 1996, 98. 39

43

RIB 105 and 151. Henig 1996, 98. 45 CIL XIII.643; Espérandieu, II.1111. 44

58

The Interplay of Agency, Material, and Style Corinthian capital at the top of the niche in which he sits, as if he were carving it himself, which would seem to confirm that Amabilis was a stone sculptor. From his tria nomina, it is also clear that Amabilis was a Roman citizen.

lapidarii, since T. Flavius Hermes is listed as the supervisor of work in both areas.57 The term referred specifically to those who worked in marble, from quarrymen to actual sculptors to engravers of inscriptions to large workshop owners and even to mosaic-layers.58 Eight inscriptions from the northwest provinces refer to marmorarii; and all were found in the southern part of the Gallic provinces,59 almost certainly reflecting the presence of important and widely used marble quarries on the slopes of the Pyrenees. 60 In fact, two of the eight marmorarius inscriptions were found at modern-day St.Beat, the site of the ancient marble quarry. 61 Although some marble sculptures have been found in Britain – for example, the sculpted heads from the Mithraeum at London or the sculptures from Lullingstone villa – they were made from imported marble and were almost certainly brought to Britain already carved. Therefore, even though it is an argument ex silentio, the absence of inscriptions identifying marmorarii in Britain (where both lapidarii and sculptores are identified) may perhaps reflect the lack of this type of stone worker on the island.

The second term used to describe stoneworkers, who could be either sculptors or general stonemasons, is lapidarius. Five inscriptions referring to lapidarii survive in the region of study: one from Britannia,46 one from Germania Inferior,47 two from Germania Superior,48 and one from Gallia Aquitania.49 The title itself indicates that lapidarii worked in stone. More specifically, a case in the Digest indicates that a lapidarius was responsible for dressing stones for construction.50 Alternatively, in the Satyricon of Petronius, a lapidarius is lauded for his abilities in regard to the making of funerary monuments.51 These two examples indicate the varied meaning of the term, which seems to have applied to participants at any level of production from individual sculptors to large workshops owners and dealers. Two of the inscriptions referring to lapidarii consist of votive dedications made by individual lapidarii, one from Avenches (Aventicum) in Germania Superior52 and one from Bath (Aquae Sulis) in Britannia (Cat. V.12).53 From the name of his tribe mentioned in the inscription, the lapidarius from Bath, Priscus, seems to have come from the area around Chartres, a further indication of the mobile nature of stoneworkers in the region.54 A third votive altar, found in Dijon (Divio) in Germania Superior, was dedicated by a group of lapidarii, clients of a Gallic patron called Titus Flavius Veteris. 55 The inscription indicates that the lapidarii originally came from near Langres (Andomatuno), which is about 80km from Dijon, and so we have further indication that, like Priscus (and Sulinus the sculptor), lapidarii could travel some distance perhaps in search of work. Finally, a certain Desideratus, the patron of a sarcophagus from Cologne (Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium), is called a negotiator artis lapidariae, a merchant of stonework, illustrating the commercial nature of stoneworking. 56

From the marmorarii inscriptions, one can understand something about these men and their social status. An inscription from Arles (Arelate) identifies a marmorarius called Philiscus, whose name suggests he was of Greek origin, and Greek marmorarii certainly appear in other provinces.62 Unfortunately, because the date of this inscription is unknown, it is unclear when or in what capacity Philiscus was active in the region. The absence of the tria nomina suggests that Philiscus did not have Roman citizenship. A votive relief from ClermontFerrand, dedicated by the marmorarius Lucius Julius Cadgatus indicates, however, that they could have citizenship.63 Further on the exemption from municipal munera granted to them by Constantine indicates that they were considered to be some of the highest skilled laborers.64 Two other marmorarii inscriptions come from the quarries near modern-day St.-Beat, and so were almost certainly dedicated by quarrymen. One was dedicated by Severus, son of Sennetarus. From the absence of the tria nomina, it seems that Severus was not a Roman citizen, although the name is Roman. Esmonde-Cleary has suggested that Severus was a freedman.65 It is unclear how he has reached this conclusion from the inscription

The third group of stoneworkers represented in the inscriptions are the marmorarii. An inscription from Nîmes indicates that marmorarii were different from 46

RIB 149. AE 1904.23; Espérandieu, VIII.6437. 48 AE 1946.238; CIL XIII.5475. 49 CIL XIII.1034. 50 Digesta XIII.6.5.7. See also Maxey 1938, 88. 51 Petronius, Satyricon 65.5. 52 AE 1946.238. 53 RIB 149. 54 Toynbee 1951, 26; Henig 1995, 111; Henig 1996, 98. 55 CIL XIII.5475. See also Toynbee 1951, 26, n. 26. 56 AE 1904.23; Espérandieu, VIII.6437. A negotiator (CIL XIII.257) is also known in Saint-Bertrand, but the commodity is not specified. It seems possible that he was a negotiator marmorarius, and one is known from Rome (CIL VI.9436). See also Esmonde-Cleary 2008, 104. 47

57

CIL XII.3070. Calabi Limentani 1958-1966a, 870. 59 AE 1925.64; AE 1949.116, 1951.233; AE 1990.718; AE 1997.1124; CIL XIII.915; CIL XIII.1466; CIL XII.3070. 60 Bedon 1984, 35-36, 64-66, and 86; Esmonde-Cleary 2008, 102-103. 61 AE 1951.233; AE 1949.116. 62 For example, in Leptis Magna a votive altar was set up by a marmorarius named Aesclepiades, who came from Nicomedia. See AE 1948.101 and Toynbee 1951, 26. 63 Rémy 1996, 75; Esmonde-Cleary 2008, 104. 64 Codex Iustinianus X. See also Calabi Limentani 19581966a, 870. 65 Esmonde-Cleary 2008, 104. 58

59

S.L. McGowen alone, and the presence of his father‘s name would seem to argue against it. A second altar from the quarry was dedicated by omnes marmorarii and so is of no assistance in regards to individual stoneworkers. It shows, however, marmorarii uniting, perhaps as part of a collegium, to make a dedication, which is not surprising given its location at the quarry.

Britain, the column capitals from military locations are markedly different from those from civilian sites. 73 Similar to the use of sculpere, some inscriptions containing a form of the verb facere may also refer to the sculptor of the piece. The use of facere, however, obfuscates matters since it could also indicate the patron. In some instances two verbs appear, one denoting patronage and the other craftsmanship. Though only fragments of the sculpture survive, two inscriptions appear on a relief from Uley in Britannia, one indicating the maker using the verb fecit and the other indentifying the patron using the verb donavit.74 It would seem that the maker, Searigillus, was of local origin (both he and his father having Celtic names) as was the patron, Lovernius, with a Gallic or British name.75

The final group of inscriptions referring to stoneworking include use a verb, typically a form of the verb sculpere, with the name of the sculptor: these are the signed works. Two such inscriptions have survived in the northwest provinces.66 The first appears in an inscription on the edge of the cornice of the great Jupiter column from Mainz (Mogontiacum).67 Here the two sculptors, Samus, with a Greek name, and Severus, with a Roman one, are the sons of Venicarius, a man with a Gallic name. Thus, Samus and Severus were presumably local sculptors originating in the Northwest. Their presence is noteworthy given that the column was erected only about sixty years after the legionary fort was established at Mainz. Despite their provincial origins, all of the nearly thirty deities on the column are easily recognized as coming from the Roman pantheon, the poses and drapery are derived from Roman models, and the carving is well executed. Thus, even in the middle of the first century, deftly skilled, provincial artisans were productive in the region.

In a second example from Britain, again neither patron nor maker has a Roman name. The patron Gulioepius has a name certainly of Celtic origin, and the maker, Iuventinus, is most likely a local.76 This relief presents an apparent contradiction between the figure depicted and the deity to whom it was dedicated. From his attire and weaponry, the warrior appears to represent Mars, but the inscription indicates that the relief is dedicated to Romulus. Why there is such an incongruity is unclear. Perhaps a representation of his father was thought suitable for Romulus, or the inscription was added later, or perhaps a misinterpretation occurred on the part of the patron or the maker or even both.

A second inscription provides an example of a group otherwise unattested in the epigraphic record in relation to stoneworking but certainly involved in it, the military. A fragmentary inscription from a second-century sarcophagus was discovered in Mainz. 68 If the restoration of the S in the final line as sculpsit is correct, it would indicate that Aurelius Servatus, a centurion of Legio XXII Primigenia Pia Fidelis, sculpted the sarcophagus of his friend, Caecilius Septiminus. Dedications set up by other members of Legio XII Primigenia have been found at the quarry sites near Mainz,69 and names of soldiers and officers were inscribed on the rock face in quarries to the rear of Hadrian‘s wall.70 From certain stylistic similarities and because it was made of limestone from Norroy, it seems that the well-known tombstone of Facilis found at Colchester, a veteran colony, was produced by a soldier.71 There is no way to confirm whether or not the sculptor or sculptors of this relief served in the army, but the inscription on the sarcophagus from Mainz confirms the existence of soldier sculptors in the Northwest. It does not seem, however, that military craftsmen produced works for civilian projects.72 In

Albeit limited, the evidence for stoneworkers in the northwest provinces supports a few cautious conclusions. In the northwest provinces different types of stoneworkers existed, although the distribution of inscriptions representing them was not even across the region; particularly marmorarii inscriptions appear exclusively in the south part of the Gallic provinces, due in large part to the importance of marble quarries there. Stoneworkers could and did travel, and there is no reason to suspect that marmorarii did not work outside this area. Moreover, they had a wide variety of backgrounds: locals, foreigners, noncitizens, citizens, and even soldiers. This would also seem to indicate that patrons had some degree of choice, within the bounds of availability and desired economic expenditure. Combined with the apparent mobile nature of some stoneworkers, it seems that, although many used local craftsmen, other patrons could and did bring in outside workers for their projects. Finally, the inscribing of their names on their works and the indication of their professions on their dedications and grave markers indicates that these individuals took pride in their work and their occupations as stoneworkers.

66

AE 1909.134; AE 1980.655 (B). AE 1980.655. On the column, see Espérandieu, VII.5887=CSIR II.2; Toynbee 1951, 27; Bauchhenss and Noelke 1981, 162-163; Selzer, et al. 1988, 90-91 and 246; Kleiner 1992, 157-158. 68 AE 1909.134. 69 Russell 2009. 70 Wacher 1998, 202. 71 Henig 1996, 97; Haywood 2006, 359-363. 72 Millett 1992, 72. 67

73

Blagg 1980a, 27-42. Henig 1993, 96. 75 Green 1998, 24. 76 RIB 132=CSIR I.7.60. See also Toynbee (1951, 26), although she misidentifies the name of the patron as Vettinus. 74

60

The Interplay of Agency, Material, and Style XIV). The limestone for the Mithraeum sculptures came from the Cotswolds, approximately 170km away, 84 and the marble came from Carrara in Italy and possibly even from Docimaeum in western Asia Minor (Cat. XVI).85 In the northwest Roman provinces, although some stone could and did travel great distances, on the whole the proximity of the source was a key factor in determining the material. It was, however, a choice, perhaps an important economic choice, but a choice nonetheless, and not a necessity.

Part 2: Material The final appearance of stone sculpture was also influenced by the properties of stone from which it was made, tensile strength, size of grain, level of polish, just to name three. This section examines the types of stone used for the monuments from the core sixteen sites, as well as where and how it was procured. In addition, it considers how much stone was needed for some monuments and how such quantities may have been transported. It also addresses briefly the role of imported materials and sculptures. By carefully analyzing the material, we can begin to address what motives may have driven its use.

Quantity The amount of stone required naturally varied from project to project and from place to place, and here we approximate the amount required for the monuments of the core sixteen sites. The fragmentary nature of some sculptures necessitates estimations of original dimensions in many instances, and at many sites even this is impossible. Because the weight of stone varies depending on its precise makeup (with marble being the least variable and limestone the most) and because in most instances the precise weight of the stone for each monument is unknown, an average weight for each material has been used: 2.3 tonnes for sandstone; 2.4 tonnes for limestone; and 2.7 tonnes for marble. 86 Therefore, all figures are only estimations, but they nevertheless provide a meaningful indication of the scale of the projects.

Type and Source The geological composition of the continental provinces made them highly advantageous for the quarrying of stone. Layers of soft or semi-hard stone, often easily exploitable, were found across the region.77 In Gaul prior to the Roman conquest, however, limited quarrying occurred, primarily to provide stone for structures such as ramparts.78 Softer stones, mostly shelly limestones, were standard, and harder stones were exploited only to avoid the transport of large blocks from further afield. 79 The majority of the known pre-conquest quarries were located along the slopes of the Alps, the north side of the Pyrenees, the Mediterranean coast, and the areas just west of the Rhine.80 During the Roman period, the quarrying centers continued to be clustered in the south, along the left bank of the Rhine, and in an area along the valleys of the Rhône and the Moselle.81

For the large stone arches, one can relatively easily estimate the stone requirement. All of the arches were made of cut blocks, and as far as can be determined, none had a rubble core. The attic stories at Besançon, London, and Mainz were solid, while those at Orange and Susa, and most likely Carpentras, Glanum, and Reims were not. Certainly the size of the blocks would have influenced the effort required for construction, but at the current state of research, the size of the blocks is unavailable, and therefore only the total weight of stone is considered. The two largest arches by weight are those at Reims and Orange. Orange‘s arch would have required approximately 3,340 tonnes of limestone (Cat. IV). The use of so much stone for such a structure is atypical at this early date. In contrast, at their restored heights, the arch at Carpentras (Cat. II) required only 431 tonnes and the arch at Glanum (Cat. III) only 859. The date of the arch at Orange remains a point of contention, but it was located in the south of the region, which had a long history of Roman involvement by the time of its construction. Orange was also a veteran colony, whose inhabitants, as formers soldiers, would have had the skills necessary to manage, move, and manipulate such a large amount of stone. The arch at Reims, built in the second century, heyday of building and sculpting in stone, required even more (Cat. XII). At its restored height, it

Little evidence of either pre-conquest or Roman-period quarrying has survived in Britain. Although limited stone construction did occur, prior to the first century A.D. a tradition of quarrying was effectively nonexistent.82 Thus, after the Roman conquest, those who wished to build stone structures and monuments had to seek out sources of stone, a task not often necessary in other Roman provinces. Although some of the sculpted monuments under investigation here are made of sandstone or marble, limestone predominates, almost certainly because of its availability. For the eleven sites where the stone‘s origin is known or strongly suspected, it came from local or nearby quarries. Proximity of source to the site was the rule. Some exceptions did, however, occur. For example, London, whose environs lacked a source of quality stone, relied on imported materials. The limestone for the arch came from Lincolnshire,83 some 145km away (Cat. 77

Bedon 1984, 195. Bedon 1984, 21-25; Bessac 1988, 57-59. 79 Bessac 1988, 57-59. 80 Bedon 1984, 21. 81 Bedon 1984, 195. 82 Blagg 1990b, 33-34; Pearson 2006, 9. 83 Blagg 1980b, 157. 78

84

Shepherd 1998, 182. Shepherd 1998, 108-110. 86 Middleton 1905, 28, 30, and 32; Geddes and Williams 1996, 873; Merritt and Ricketts 2001, Table 4.11. 85

61

S.L. McGowen would have necessitated approximately 4,570 tonnes. 87 The two smallest arches, those at London and Mainz, are diminutive in comparison. Although only the upper part of the arch at London survives, at an estimated height of 8m, it would have necessitated only approximately 160 tonnes of limestone (Cat. XIV), while the arch at Mainz required less than thirty (Cat. XV). Since it appears that neither served as a main city gate, their functions did not necessitate massive size. Moreover, these arches were not only the smallest but also the latest, with both, it seems, constructed in the very late second or early third century. During the third century, stone building on a grand scale had largely ceased, with the exception of fortification walls, many of which were built out of reused stone, including blocks of large stone arches.88

tonnes of stone.91 The sanctuary was also surrounded by a precinct wall and colonnade, but not enough is known about either for estimates of stone requirements to be made. Altogether in its first phase, the sanctuary at Bath would have required more than 900 tonnes of stone, a substantial amount for first century A.D. Britain. The ready availability of good building material in the form of the local oolitic limestone must have lessened the burden of such a project by decreasing the required transport of materials, a subject discussed in the next section. The other category of sacred sculpture presented stone masons and sculptors with a different set of problems. While these sanctuaries contained less stone on the whole, most pieces required monolithic blocks, which individually could have weighed more than the individual blocks in the large-scale sanctuaries. Fortunately, many of these sculptures are better preserved, facilitating the estimations. For each, whether freestanding or relief, the maximum dimensions of the sculpture have served as the estimated dimensions, yielding the minimum size block required for the work. Over fifty stelai and sculptures were recovered at Deneuvre, and it is beyond this investigation to account for them all. The largest sculpture, however, would have weighed 1.2 tonnes (Cat. IX.2), the smallest about 340kg (Cat. IX.30), with the average being about 800kg. Similarly, at Nettersheim, the largest intact monument (Cat. XIII.2; Fig. 2.64) weighed approximately half a tonne at the least and the smallest (Cat. XIII.5; Fig. 2.63) about a quarter of a tonne. At Hochscheid, the large Apollo is too fragmentary to account for, but the Sirona relief (Cat. X.2; Fig. 2.50) at its restored height of 1.67m would have weighed about 400kg, and the small Apollo (Cat. X.3; Fig. 2.48), including its plinth, also approximately 400kg.

For the sanctuaries, the calculations of stone volumes are more complicated. The fragmentary state of several of the sites, particularly Genainville and Champlieu, has made even rough estimates impossible, and therefore we consider them only comparatively. Moreover, the sculpture itself generally falls into one of two categories, architectural decoration as part of large stone temple or freestanding stelai or statues placed within smaller temenē. The sanctuaries in the first category are more like large stone arches as regards their building material, and the stone for the major construction phases would have been expected to arrive in a relatively short span of time. Freestanding sculpture or stelai, however, could be dedicated by different individuals over an extended period of time. When considering sculpture as part of large stone temples, the quantity used for sculptural decoration was only a fraction of that needed for the overall building projects. Unfortunately, at perhaps the best preserved sanctuary, Bath, most of the sculptures were thinned after their eighteenth-century excavation making their precise size and weight impossible to determine (Cat. V).89 The surviving blocks of the pediment are now 0.43m in depth, and it has been supposed that they were originally 0.6m. The sculpted features of the sanctuary‘s first phase, the pediment and the altar, would have required about 20 tonnes (16 tonnes for the pediment and 1 tonne each for the corners) of limestone. These were not the only features of the first phase as the pediment was part of a prostyle, tetrastyle temple with a high podium, and the altar sat on a paved courtyard. Considering the casing of the podium, which had a rubble core, and the entire structure of the temple, it seems that some 660 tonnes of stone would have been required for it.90 In front of the temple and to the north of the sacred spring, was an area paved with slabs of limestone, requiring an additional 250

The Mithraeum at London presents something entirely different, and the implications, particularly in terms of imports, are discussed later. The heaviest of the imported marble heads, that of Serapis (Cat. XVI.4; Fig. 2.73), weighed approximately 40kg, and the largest of the figurines, the broken water deity, at its current size, about 33kg (Cat. XVI.6). The smallest of the imported sculptures is the figurine of Mercury weighing approximately 14kg (Cat. XVI.8). The estimated total of the imported pieces at their current sizes is 288kg. Of the sculptures made from British material, the only one of appreciable size is the broken relief of Cautopates (Cat. XVI.1; Fig. 2.72), which at roughly 370kg weighed more than the imported sculptures combined. While the evidence for the sacred sculptures is less complete than for the large stone arches, some general conclusions can be inferred. Although Bath is early for the scale of stone involved, particularly in Britain, the other sanctuaries with large stone-built structures, Genainville and Champlieu, were constructed in the second century, by which time use of stone for both architecture and sculpture had existed in the region for more than a century. If the degree of preservation is not misleading, the sanctuary at Montmarte was a major

87

Bedon 1984, 43; Woolf 1998, 123; Mattingly 2006, 277; Pearson 2006, 28. 88 Bedon 1984, 69; Carroll 2001, 132-142; Mattingly 2006, 326-333; Pearson 2006, 30-31. 89 Cunliffe and Fulford 1982, 6 and 11. 90 For dimensions of the temple and platform, see Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, 24-35 and 102-105.

91

62

Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, 45-48.

The Interplay of Agency, Material, and Style architectural undertaking, even though it did not have the same scale of architectural sculpture as Bath, Champlieu, and Genainville. At the other sanctuaries, however, such large-scale use of stone did not occur. Instead, multiple pieces, which could have been brought to the site over an extended period of time were used, and in most cases each piece could have been transported to the site by wagon. The London Mithraeum, the latest of the eight core sanctuaries, was constructed at a time when use of stone for sculpture was generally decreasing. Although well apportioned with fine marble sculptures, it had very little in the way of new sculpture. The elegant marbles were much older than the temple itself, and, unless they were purchased from a previous owner, required only the cost of transport. Because of their small size, even this would have been minimal.

Travel by road was not the most efficient means of transport, but it was the most reliable. Unlike travel by water, it did not depend on currents, tides, winds, or good weather, and in the case of a mishap goods were generally recoverable, which was not always the case with water transport. Perhaps, then, it is not surprising that all of the sites with elaborate sculpted monuments under investigation here were located on or near a roadway (Fig. 1.4). When traveling over land, one had choice of several modes of transport.95 For short distances, workmen could simply carry the loads, particularly those up to 50kg, requiring minimal time for loading or unloading. One could also load the materials onto pack animals, which could travel as fast as men, approximately 5kph. Carts or wagons were undoubtedly used, but judging from the nineteenth and early twentieth century sources, these were only efficient for transport exceeding 100 yards, or about 91m. 96

Distance and Transport According to Vitruvius, the most important feature to consider when selecting stone was proximity to building site:

One of several vehicles used for transport of goods was the post-wagon, a large vehicle with four wheels drawn by six to eight oxen, which could travel about 3.2kph.97 According to the Codex Theodosianus, the primary concern for cargo limits was preservation of road surfaces, and thus post-wagon loads were limited to 490kg.98 Evidence from Hadrian‘s Wall, however, indicates that carts could in reality have carried anywhere from 0.12 to 0.85 tonnes, and in Renaissance Italy wagons pulled by twelve to eighteen pairs of oxen carried loads upwards of eighteen tonnes. 99 For purposes of this study, considering the weight limit of 490kg from the Codex Theodosianus as a minimum load, a figure 75% higher than this limit will establish a cart load of 850kg. DeLaine has estimated a 220-day work year for on-site construction in the city of Rome, and it seems possible a similar situation occurred in the southern Gallic provinces. Because most of the sites at the core of this study come from colder climates with limited daylight hours, here the work year has been estimated at 200 days and the work day at eight hours.100 Finally, distance from extraction to construction site for stone with a provenance known only as ―local‖ will be estimated at 5km.

De ipso autem muro e qua materia struatur aut perficiatur, ideo non est praefiniendum quod in omnibus locis quas optamus copias, eas non possumus habere. Sed ubi sunt saxa quadrata sive silex seu caementum aut coctus later sive crudus, his erit utendum. 92 About a wall itself, however, from which material it should be constructed or completed, I do not need to advise because in all places the supplies which we desire, we are not able to have. But where there are squared rocks or flint or rubble or brick, burnt or unburnt, these must be used. Although Vitruvius‘ comment pertains to building stone, the use of local material was evidently the rule for all work in stone, including architectural elements but also sculpture, in the northwest provinces. As has been demonstrated, some sacred and civic sculpted monuments required large quantities of stone, and even those needing lesser overall quantities often used large blocks. In keeping with Vitruvius, most of it came from local or nearby quarries.

For most of the arches, the task of moving the stone would have required a great deal of effort. The stone for the arch at Susa would have required approximately 1,920 post-wagon loads, which, considering the 12km roundtrip distance from site to quarry, would have taken slightly more than five years with one vehicle. Naturally, this time span could be reduced by the use of multiple wagons. For example, twenty vehicles (requiring 120 to 160 oxen) could have moved the entire load in about two

DeLaine has demonstrated that the transportation cost for building materials was the largest expenditure required in the construction of the Baths of Caracalla, and therefore it would seem that the primary reason for the use of local stone was to minimize cost by minimizing transport. 93 During the Middle Ages, the cost of the transport exceeded that of the stone if the distance between the extraction and construction sites exceeded twelve miles or 19.3km, and with a few important exceptions, the stone for most of the monuments from the core sixteen sites did not exceed this distance.94

95

On what follows see DeLaine 1997, 98-100 and 107109; Pearson 2006, 99. 96 Rea 1902, 34. 97 Kendal 1996, 143. 98 Pearson 2006, 99-100. 99 Kendal 1996, 141-152; DeLaine 1997, 99; Pearson 2006, 100. 100 For a similar work year during the construction of Hadrian‘s wall, see Kendal 1996, 144.

92

Vitruvius, De Architectura I.5. DeLaine 1997, 217. 94 Salzman 1992, 119; Pearson 2006, 91. 93

63

S.L. McGowen months. In comparison, the relatively small arch at London would have required only about 200 post-wagon loads, but at a roundtrip distance of 290km, eleven and a half years to move this proportionally smaller load. Moving such a load by boat would have accomplished the task much more quickly.

these rivers were navigable and used for transport is unclear. Larger ships with varying capacities are also known to have transported stone by sea. Since most of the sites in this study are inland, it is not necessary to consider travel times by coastal ship for all of them. The exception is London, and it seems that the arch at London would provide a prime occasion for the use of a coastal ship to transport stone such a great distance. A small coastal or river vessel carrying a cargo of Kentish ragstone, dated to the second century A.D., was found in the River Thames.103 It is precisely this type of vessel that could have moved the stone for the arch from the Lincolnshire area to London. The surviving blocks of the arch are relatively small, and the stone quantity altogether is not great. Thus, it could have been taken from the quarry to the coast by river, loaded onto four ships capable of carrying loads of fifty tonnes, and delivered to London. Such ships could travel at a rate of 13kph, given the proper conditions, and so the time could have been cut to about ten days.

The sanctuary sites present two different scenarios in regard to movement of materials. Moving stone for the sanctuaries, such as Bath, would have been similar to moving stone for the large stone arches, with a certain number of men or vehicles required to make multiple trips from quarry to site to deliver all the materials needed for construction in a relatively short period of time. Considering the total weight of stone for the first phase of temple construction at Bath, the entire load would have required 2.6 wagon years to move, but with twenty wagons, the entire load could have been moved within about a month. In the smaller sanctuaries of Deneuvre, Nettersheim, and Hochscheid, because all the pieces almost certainly did not arrive at the same time, multiple wagon trips would not have been required; therefore, no need exists to consider wagon days, wagon years, etc. for these sites. In almost all instances each block for the individual stelai and freestanding statues could have been moved with a single post-wagon in a relatively short period of time, about 2 hours in most cases.

Although the area around London lacked a good source of stone, the city‘s location near the coastline and on both major roads and a navigable river certainly made the solution to this transportation problem somewhat easier. Moreover, the status of London as an important merchant city and provincial capital likely meant many patrons could have afforded the extra expenditure associated with long distance transport of material. The importance of London is also attested by the presence of much imported stone, including the marble sculptures from the Mithraeum. These marble sculptures, however, represent an altogether different phenomenon, and so their transport is discussed in the context of import activity in the region.

While roads may have been the more reliable means of transportation, travel by water was much quicker; it seems that water was used to transport heavy loads, including stone, as far as possible. River boats and sea ships could carry bigger loads and travel at faster paces, and the proximity of rivers seems to have played an important role in the development and placement of quarries. Likewise, cities located along navigable rivers were at a distinct advantage in the procurement of heavy goods, particularly stone. 101 Roman-period boats, both smaller river boats and larger log-built barges capable of carrying larger loads of stone, have been found in Britain, the Netherlands, and Belgium.102 The smallest of these boats could carry loads of approximately seven tonnes, while the largest could carry up to about seventy. Unfortunately, the speed of such vessels is unknown, but assuming they traveled even twice as fast as post-wagons, approximately 7kph, they would prove a considerable savings in time and money. Thus, if the rivers were navigable, such boats would have provided a useful means of transport for the often large quantities of stone needed for these projects. At Reims, located on the navigable Vesle River, use of even the smallest river boat would have cut the number of days required for moving stone for the arch from more than 5,000 to fewer than 700. Many of the other core sites (Bath, Deneuvre, Nettersheim, London, Susa, Orange, Besançon, Reims, and Mainz) are also located on rivers, but to what extent

Imports Although sculptors and builders usually made use of whatever stone was available, stone and stone sculpture could and did travel great distances. Stone quarried within the provinces traveled widely on a regional level. The two quarries with the biggest distributions in the Gallic provinces were those at Norroy near Metz, whose products reached as far as Mainz (300km), Nijmegen (400km), and even Colchester (650km), and those at St.Beat, whose products are found across the region. 104 The oolitic limestones of Bath and Lincolnshire were also transported great distances when desired, but in Britain, widespread distribution of stone remained exceptional. Throughout the region, the use of such stone was reserved primarily for ornamentation and statuary. 105 Stone was also imported from outside the region. In the aforementioned second-century will from Langres, the benefactor specifies the use of marble from overseas as 103

Marsden 1994, 80-83. Bedon 1984, 86; Haywood 2006, 359-363. 105 Bedon 1980, 20; Bedon 1984, 85-86; Pearson 2006, 81.

101

104

Bedon 1980, 22. 102 Merrifield 1983, 163-164; Marsden 1994; Henig 1996, 97; Pearson 2006, 95-96. See also McGrail, 139-145. 64

The Interplay of Agency, Material, and Style well as that from the quarries at Luna. 106 Such an inscription indicates that when the means allowed, stone extracted from beyond the borders of the province was not at all excluded and, in fact, was valued likely because of the ostentatiousness associated with it. 107

For the larger-scale projects like many of the arches and the stone-built sanctuaries, use of local material to minimize transport and cost seems a reasonable assumption. This may too have been the case at the smaller sanctuaries, where size of the sanctuary and quality of some of the carving would suggest that dedicants were not among the wealthiest. It seems almost unfathomable, however, that not a single member of the religious community could have afforded imported material if he or she so desired. At Deneuvre, for example, even if made of heavier marble, most of the individual pieces could have been carried by a wagon or river boat, and considering both a provincial marble source, St.-Beat, and an Italian one, Carrara, the transport times would not have been substantially long for either. While conceding that the Alps pose an obstacle which these calculations have not accounted for, from Carrara to Deneuvre wagon transport would require twenty-eight days and river boat twelve days. From St.-Beat to Deneuvre, the distance could have been covered by wagon in forty days and by river boat eighteen days. If such a hypothetical situation occurred, one can imagine that some combination of both road and river transport would have been required and thus settle on an average of about a month for both. At Deneuvre as well as Nettersheim and Hochscheid, however, use of imported material never occurred, which suggests that in many cases outside materials were not wanted. Ultimately, it would seem that for most, local material was sufficient, perhaps even desired, for their needs. Moreover, these sites in particular were religious, and the people setting up sculpture in them were announcing their participation in the wider religious community. Thus, it seems possible that even for those who could have afforded imported material, peer pressure to belong to the religious community may have led to use of local material as well.

Perhaps the most elaborate example of the use of imported stone in the region is the large stone arch that once stood at Richborough (Rutupiae). Unfortunately, very little is known of its sculptural decoration, and therefore it has not been included in this study. It would seem that the arch celebrated the final conquest of the province and was constructed possibly during the first century, but could have been as late as the Hadrianic period following the securing of the frontier. What is known for certain, however, is that the arch was entirely encased in Carrara marble.108 The amount of marble used for the veneer is estimated at 400 tonnes, and moving this amount of stone some 1500km was a monumental undertaking. Using the parameters established above, and considering that in this case roundtrip journeys would not have been practical, transport of this amount of material by road would have required more than 450 wagons and taken more than two months to move. It seems most likely, however, that wherever possible, such a shipment would have traveled by river, in which case more than fifty average-size river boats would have been required to move the load in about one month. To reach the island from the continent, a seagoing vessel would have been required, but some larger sea-going vessels could have carried the entire shipment in a single load.109 In this regard, however, the location of Richborough on the coast was particularly advantageous. Therefore, the use of imported material from the Richborough arch begins to illustrate the difficulties (and associated expenditure) involved in moving materials for large-scale projects such as large stone arches or temple complexes.

Part 3: Style The Richborough arch is exceptional, and use of imported materials was otherwise negligible. No monolithic columns of marble, granite, or porphyry are known to have been used in the northwest provinces, and extraprovincial stone was used primarily for statuary, inscriptions, or veneer. The marbles from the London Mithraeum do follow this general trend in that they are all portrait heads or small figures. Many of the pieces could have been carried by a single individual. Even if the eight marble works traveled together, the entire load would have weighed only an estimated 276kg and could have easily been transported by one post-wagon, river boat, or coastal ship, and perhaps all three means were employed. Furthermore, the size of the pieces would have minimized time for loading and unloading. Such examples remain out of the ordinary in the northwest provinces, and one can only imagine the striking impact such rare materials would have made on the provincial viewer.

At the outset of this chapter, style was defined as the way the images are represented or their final appearance, and it is to this subject that we now officially turn. Elements such as layout and design as well as motif and iconography have largely been omitted and are discussed in the next chapter. As regards the iconography, it is offered that, with the exception of the sculpture from the sanctuary of the Matronae Aufaniae, the iconography is entirely Greco-Roman. Because of the widespread diffusion of the core sites, it is not possible to use them as a measure of regional stylistic traditions, nor is it really the purpose of this study. That such localized trends did exist is apparent from, for example, the Roman-period sculptures from the Cotswolds area in Britain, which is typified by luxurious, flowing hair, almond-shaped, prominent eyes, and a fondness for patterning on drapery and other accoutrements.110 In fact, these stylistic traits, when used in reference to sculpture not only from the Cotswolds area and Britain but also from the entire region of the

106

CIL XIII.5708. Bedon 1980, 15. 108 Blagg 1990b, 40; Pearson 2006, 23-24, 42, and 81. 109 Pearson 2006, 97. 107

110

65

Henig, et al. 1993, xiv.

S.L. McGowen northwest provinces, has often been viewed as a lingering so-called Celtic style, which stands in opposition to the naturalistic, traditional Greco-Roman style.111 Some have taken it so far as to suggest that such stylistic features may indicate ―...conscious attempts by indigenous populations...to make a positive and independent statement...,‖ i.e., against the Roman occupying force. 112 Recently, however, Johns has pointed out the problems and complexities of maintaining such a view and has presented a strong counter argument, suggesting that not only did the aims of the patron, but also, and perhaps more importantly, the skill of the artist and the nature of the material influenced its style. The variations in style of the sculpture from the core sites seem to support Johns‘ supposition.113

style. Although none of marble statues is complete, the positioning of the legs suggests that the contrapposto stances were well executed. Likewise, on the fragmentary torsos the anatomy is plastically rendered, and the facial features and hair of the surviving marble heads are deftly and naturalistically depicted. Because it seems that the marble for the statues came from nearby quarries, they must have been carved in the area, which suggests that at least one sculptor adept at carving marble to a high standard worked in the area. Since it appears that no urban center existed near the sanctuary, the sculptor was likely imported, and we have seen that sculptors could and did travel in pursuit of commissions. Marble was not the only material used at Montmarte. Eleven fragments of limestone sculpture were discovered at the site, and some have survived more completely than their marble counterparts. Several of the limestone sculptures, for example, the Genius (Cat. VII.2; Fig. 2.37) or the limestone Mars (Cat. VII.3; Fig. 2.34), are of the same high quality as the marble pieces, with fully plastic drapery and well-proportioned and well-rendered anatomy and contrapposto stances. What is possibly most remarkable about this assemblage is the distance of this site from any major urban center where such a style seemed to predominate. The high quality of both the limestone and marble sculptures from Montmarte demonstrate, however, that sculpture styled in this way could and did exist even in more remote areas of the region.

That sculpture of a high-quality, naturalistic, traditionally Hellenic style existed in the region is clear, even from the limited sample of monuments from the core sixteen sites. In the most recent corpora of sculpture from Lyon (Lugdunum) and Vienne (Vienna), which include all representational sculpture currently known at these two locations, the vast majority of the works are of highquality and Hellenic style, and in fact, at Vienne, out of more than five hundred works, only six are not. 114 Lyon and Vienne had early histories of involvement with the Romans and were important parts of the Roman administration of the area. With Lyon being a Caesarian colony as well as the provincial capital and Vienne being an Augustan colony, they would have had the type of clientele who may have desired such works. Moreover, the two cities were among largest and most prosperous in the region and could sustain the type of competitive markets required to elevate the technical competence of sculptors. While perhaps not as prosperous, Glanum, Carpentras, and Orange, had histories of involvement with the Romans comparable to Lyon and Vienne, and the arches at these three locations are decorated with sculpture largely of the same quality. For example, on the captives from the arches at Glanum (Cat. III.2c-d and III.3c-d; Figs. 2.12-2.13) and Carpentras (Cat. II.1-2; Figs. 2.9-2.10), the musculature and anatomy of human figures are entirely naturalistic in proportion, the poses are realistically executed, and the drapery fully plastic. Therefore, some patrons in the south of the region clearly wanted high-quality, naturalistic sculpture and procured artists who could execute it.

Sculpture in a high-quality, Mediterranean style also existed in Britain but to a more limited extent. The marble heads and figurines from the London Mithraeum are fine examples of the high-quality sculpture. Consider, for example, the head of Serapis (Cat. XVI.4; Fig. 2.73). The facial features are naturalistic, as is the treatment of the hair. Furthermore, the drapery of both the Genius (Cat. XVI.2) figure as well as that of the Mercury statuette (Cat. XVI.8) is fully plastic, showing no signs of patterning. These works entered the region as imports already sculpted, as seems to be the case with other stone sculptures of similar quality from Britain, such as the marble busts from the Roman villa at Lullingstone and a handful of smaller figurines.115 Although we have laid out a case for the presence of high-quality, naturalistic, sculpture in the northwest provinces, the large majority of inhabitants, especially the rural people in regions north of Lyon/Vienne and outside of the urban centers like Trier, Cologne, and London, would have had much less familiarity with such works than people living in the Greco-Roman Mediterranean. There is no way to prove how these people would have reacted upon seeing this type of sculpture for the first time, but similar changes in the level of realism have

The appearance of high-quality, Hellenizing sculpture is not limited to the three arches of Gallia Narbonensis. Most of the sculptures from the sanctuary at Montmarte in Gallia Lugdunensis are of a similar stylistic standard (Cat. VII.2-3, 5-14; Figs. 2.34-2.37). Some of the pieces, including three heads (Cat. VII.5b, 13, 14) and three pairs of legs (Cat. VII.6-8), just to name a few, are made of marble, a material well-suited to execution in this 111

Toynbee 1964, 105; Harding 2007, 51-52. Green 1998, 28. 113 Johns 2003a, 18. 114 Terrer 2003, xliii; Darblade-Audoin 2006, xli-xlii; McGowen 2008, 412-413. 112

115

Johns 2003b, 27. On the sculpture from Lullingstone, see Meates 1955, 81-89, figs. 18-19 and 23-29; Henig 1995, 69; Wilson 2002, 83. 66

The Interplay of Agency, Material, and Style

Figure 3.4. Freestanding sculpture of Hercules from Deneuvre (Cat. IX.37). (Image: ©S. McGowen)

Figure 3.5. High-quality relief of Hercules from Deneuvre (Cat. IX.39). (Image: ©S. McGowen)

drapery linear, and there is no unity of scale. 117 Since Cottius erected the arch to pronounce his participation in the Roman government and lifestyle, it seems unlikely that he would have chosen such a style to show resistance to the Roman regime. Instead, the style of the Susa frieze

occurred in other media at later times that may provide a useful parallel. Of the experience of art, Gombrich says:116 To those used to the style we call ‗Cimabue‘ and expecting to be presented with a similar notation, the paintings of Giotto came with a shock of incredible lifelikeness. ‗There is nothing,‘ writes Boccaccio, ‗which Giotto could not have portrayed in such a manner as to deceive the sense of sight.‘ It may seem strange to us, but have we not experienced a similar shock, if on a very much lower level? When the cinema introduced ‗3-D,‘ the distance between expectation and experience was such that many enjoyed the thrill of a perfect illusion.

has much in common with the funerary reliefs of freedman from Italy and even Rome, and thus seems to derive more from the Italic tradition. On the roughly contemporary funerary reliefs of Lucius Vibius 118 and the Furius family,119 the folds of the togas are exaggerated in a way similar to those on the Susa arch. The Amiternum relief shares not only this feature but also lack unity of scale and overlapping.120 Taken together, the stylistic similarities between such funerary reliefs and the Susa frieze may even suggest that the sculptor of the frieze carved such pieces before undertaking work on the arch.

One can only imagine that a similar reaction occurred when those unfamiliar with naturalistic and realistic sculptural representations, especially for a rural location like the sanctuary of Montmarte. The large number of high-quality sculptures there would not only have made a pronouncement about the wealth of their patron or patrons, but may also have created for the viewer an aweinspiring or even shockingly frightening experience.

Cottius may have, in a way similar to freedman reliefs, valued the narrative clarity of this more schematic style over the naturalism of a more Hellenizing style. The stylistic peculiarities of the frieze all work towards the same effect as they stress his citizen status and his full participation in the Roman lifestyle. The full profile and awkwardly heavy nature of the chairs on which the central figures sit make clear that they are sellae curules, the chairs reserved for Roman magistrates, indicating that

Despite these instances, much of the sculpture from the Northwest was less naturalistic and of a lower quality. The first example of the use of a more schematic style is the frieze from the arch at Susa (Cat. I.1a and I.3a; Figs. 2.2-2.7), erected by the client-king turned Roman prefect Cottius in honor of Augustus. On the frieze, the anatomy of the figures is ill-proportioned, the poses awkward, the 116

Figure 3.6. Schematic relief of Hercules from Deneuvre (Cat. IX.5). (Image: ©S. McGowen)

117

On the style of the arch, see Felletti Maj 1963, 125127; Prieur 1982, 458; Cavargna Allemano 2004, 113138. 118 Kleiner 1992, fig. 58. 119 Kleiner 1992, fig. 60. 120 Kleiner 1992, fig. 105.

Gombrich 1989, 61. 67

S.L. McGowen (Cat. IX.37; Fig. 3.5).126 Most, however, are not. On these less stylistically accomplished works, the appendages are often awkwardly executed, and the anatomical details are highly schematic (Cat. IX.5; Fig. 3.6).127 In these cases, the hair is abstractly represented in loops or S curls,128 the club and lion skin are added with varying effect and level of detail,129 and the faces are regularly schematized.130

whatever civic activity is taking place, it is Roman civic activity (Cat. I.4; Fig. 2.6). Similarly, the exaggerated folds of the togas emphasize his Roman citizenship, just as newly-minted freedmen often wished to do on their grave markers. Likewise in the sacrifice scenes, the schematic folds accentuate the covering of the head, a Roman sacrificial custom, and, on the west frieze particularly, the oversized animals make it obvious that the ritual celebrated is the Roman suovetaurilia (Cat. I.1a; Fig. 2.3). Here especially, the value of the schematic style is apparent as naturalistic proportions of the animals would have made them barely visible from the ground. Thus, while we cannot eliminate other possibilities such as the skill level of the sculptor that Cottius was able to bring to Susa or the amount of money he was willing to spend on his commission, it seems possible that the schematic, Italic style may have appealed to him because of its communicative capacities; nor are these two possibilities mutually exclusive. Susa would not long after acquire high-quality sculptures of a more Greco-Roman style. Found reused in the city walls were fragments of the breastplate and arm of an adlocutio general and a head of Claudius wearing the corona civica, both from the middle of the first century A.D. 121 Where these fine sculptures would have stood is unclear, but one can only wonder at the jarring contrast of sculptures such as these with the highly schematic style of the frieze from the arch at Susa. Such stylistic contrasts were not, however, uncommon even in Rome itself and even on the same monument, as, for example, on the socalled Altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus from the early first century B.C.122 or the Arch of Titus from the late first century A.D.123 Many but not all of the sculptures and reliefs from the sanctuary of Hercules at Deneuvre were also highly schematic. All of the sculptures are made of local sandstone, a material unable to reach a high level of detail or to attain a high quality of finish. Although the number of freestanding sculptures is limited (only perhaps four),124 the choice of this material almost certainly explains the stiffness and narrowness of the freestanding works with arms and other accoutrements placed very close to the body (Cat. IX.37; Fig. 3.4).125 The choice of material limited the stylistic options. Most of the sculptures at Deneuvre are in relief, and while the quality of finish of the sandstone still plays its part in the overall appearance of the works, reliefs are not bound by the same constraints as freestanding sculpture. Indeed, some of the reliefs are stylistically high quality with the anatomical and facial features naturalistically rendered and the contrapposto stances well executed

Figure 3.7. Stele from Aïn Nechma. (Image: ©A.I. Wilson)

126

For example, Moitrieux 1992, S.A. 15, S.A. 120, and S.E. 286. 127 For example, Moitrieux 1992, A.A. 6 and S.A. 23. 128 For example, Moitrieux 1992, S.A. 23 and S.A. 68. 129 For example, Moitrieux 1992, S.A. 23 and S.A. 79. 130 For example, Moitrieux 1992, T. 20, T. 42, and A.A. 65.

121

Brecciaroli Taborelli 2006, 49. 122 Torelli 1982, 5-25; Kleiner 1992, 49-51; Stilp 2001. 123 Pfanner 1983; Kleiner 1992, 183-191. 124 Moitrieux 1992, 166-167. For example, Moitrieux 1992, S. 138, S. 139, D. 114, and D. 176. 125 Moitrieux 1992, 148. 68

References These features, particularly the patterning of the hair and the schematization of anatomy and faces, are often cited in reference to a particularly Celtic style, but distortions of anatomy and patterning of hair are found in sculpture throughout the Roman Empire, even in places without any Celtic influence.131 For example, stone heads discovered at Ghirza in Libya have features strikingly similar to those of the so-called Celtic heads.132 In addition, schematic rendering of anatomy, including the often-cited Celtic over-emphasis of the head, is evident on numerous sculptures from North Africa, including a second century funerary relief from Aïn Nechma in Algeria (Fig. 3.7).133 In addition to showing the same sort of schematic faces, such as on funerary reliefs also from Ghirza shows patterning of hair. In fact, upon comparison of these faces to Toynbee‘s definition of ―wholly Celtic – triangular in form, with large, bean-shaped eyes, a wedge-shaped nose, and a slit-like mouth,‖134 it is clear that the figures on this relief from Ghirza meet all of the

criteria. These are only a few examples of many, but they establish that that schematic anatomy and faces are not particularly Celtic stylistic features. Continuing to confirm the assertion that the schematic features are not related to any sort of Celtic stylistic preference is the fact that at Deneuvre, not only are stylistic variations or variations of quality visible among the different reliefs, they are also apparent within the individual sculptures themselves. For example, on one stele where Hercules brandishes his club, the proportions of the head to the body and the execution of the hair are not naturalistic, and, perhaps more importantly, the placement of the hips indicates a contrapposto stance was intended but not fully realized (Cat. IX.18; Fig. 3.8).135 Combinations such as these would seem to indicate a varying level in artistic skill rather than conscious stylistic choices on behalf of the patron. While some of the sculptors seem to have been reasonably adept, most were less skilled. As previously mentioned, the sanctuary is quite a distance from any major urban center where more and bigger commissions would no doubt lead to the presence of more and better artisans, and it appears as though many patrons may have been of limited means. Thus, in this extra-urban location, it seems that, while some could attain better sculptors who were either passing through or brought in for specific commissions, most used the available craftsmen. It is equally possible that most patrons simply could not afford the more highly skilled artisans, for, while it seems that no one had a particular desire to have sculpture in imported material, some do appear to have desired high-quality works. Although Mortrieux claims that the formal appearance of the figures indicates ―à une déformation intentionnelle de la nature,‖ the fact that the stylistically inferior sculptures imitate features of those of higher quality would suggest that economic factors and availability of skilled craftsmen were the driving forces behind the style of sculptures at Deneuvre.136 Moreover, these sculptures were erected for a purpose. They were meant to be, in Greek, agalmata, pleasing gifts for the god. Therefore, patrons would not have dedicated something they deemed second-rate or of poor quality. Instead they set up something that suited their needs and their wealth, either their available wealth or the amount they were willing to expend. By setting up the sculpture, the patron was indicating his satisfaction that the work would achieve its intended task. The sculptures of Hercules are not the only ones at Deneuvre. Several depict Spring Goddesses with wellrendered anatomy revealed through the drapery in a Hellenizing style, but the drapery itself shows a marked linear patterning, a stylistic feature often ascribed to a Celtic preference (Cat. IX.4; Fig. 2.47).137 Indeed, such linear patterning of drapery does appear frequently in the northwest provinces. From the core sixteen sites, in

Figure 3.8. Relief of Hercules from Deneuvre showing partial contrapposto stance (Cat. IX.18). (Image: ©S. McGowen) 131

Johns 2003a, 20. Brogan and Smith 1984, 112, 284 and pls. 127 and 141. 133 Wilson 2005, 403-408. 134 Toynbee 1964, 19. 132

135

Moitrieux 1992, A.A. 267. Moitrieux 1992, 167. 137 Moitrieux 1992, S.A. 330. 136

69

S.L. McGowen addition to the Spring Goddesses from Deneuvre, linearly patterned drapery can been seen on the deities from the Bath altar, particularly Jupiter (Cat. V.2c; Fig. 2.23) and the Spring Goddess (Cat. V.2a; Fig. 2.21), on the Sirona relief from Hochscheid (Cat. X.2; Fig. 2.50) and on the Matronae Aufaniae altars from the sanctuary near Nettersheim (Cat. XIII.2 and XIII.5; Figs. 2.63-2.64). As for schematic faces and anatomy, linear drapery appears on monuments throughout the Roman world with no Celtic influence. For example, numerous examples can be seen on the monuments from Terenouthis (Kom abu Billu) in Egypt,138 at Ghiza139 and Sidi Khrebish Benghazi (Berenice)140 in Libya, and at Hajeb el-Aioun141 and Sousse142 in Tunisia, just to name a few. Johns has convincingly argued that such patterning is ―a simplification easier for an artist of limited skill.‖ 143 Unquestionably not all drapery was simplified in the same way either across the northwest provinces or in the North African examples, reflecting local carving traditions.

among others no doubt, a more schematic one often resulted. The smaller demand for sculpture in the northwest provinces, particularly outside the south of Gaul, did not create the type of competitive markets required to elevate technical standards especially in comparison to the highly competitive market in Rome and, as will be demonstrated in chapter six, the East. As for material, many patrons used what was available from their local sculptors, what they could afford, or what met their needs at the level of their desired expenditure. Others, perhaps of greater means, if they desired, hired more highly skilled sculptors, either local or imported, and still others imported sculpture already carved directly from Mediterranean regions. If a couple of generations of patrons in the Northwest had been willing to pay more money for less quality to allow sculptors‘ skills to develop, then the level may have elevated. Most patrons simply were not concerned with this sort of issue. In the end, a naturalistic, even realistic style does not seem to have been a major concern. It was not that, as Green would suggest, they rejected the high-quality, Hellenizing style for political reasons, but equally so, it does not seem that most patrons were particularly bothered by the alternative and the entire spectrum in between. In fact, it seems quite the contrary: the patrons of these monuments erected them in public places, sometimes inscribing their names on them, as gifts to their gods and their communities.

Because schematic sculpture was easier to carve does not mean that it was not effective, nor does it mean that the buyers did not like it. In the London Mithraeum, for example, the Cautopates relief was not only made of Cotswolds limestone but also carved in a Cotswolds tradition, particularly evident in the swirling flames of the torch (Cat. XVI.1; Fig. 2.72). Something made of Italian marble and carved in a Hellenizing style would not have, in this instance, been out of place, but something provincial was selected. This is a fine example of the quality-to-cost ratio at work. Perhaps funds were not available or someone did not want to expend the funds necessary to procure a work to match the other pieces in material and style. Therefore, the patron or patrons procured a high-quality piece made of provincial material by a provincial craftsman and set it up alongside all the others. Moreover, in a case such as Nettersheim, sculpture of a more schematic style was, perhaps, essential. If it is true that the beneficiarii set up their monuments in part to integrate into the community, they may have desired something sculpted in the local tradition. At Nettersheim, something made out of imported marble and carved in a Hellenizing style would have been out of place, perhaps having the opposite effect — it would have set the beneficiarii apart from the community of worshippers. In sum, many different styles existed in the northwest provinces. Sculpture of a high-quality, Hellenizing style was visible to inhabitants of the northwest provinces and available to commissioners of sculpture in the region, but for a network of reasons related to material, local traditions, economic means, availability of sculptors, 138

el-Sawy, et al. 1980, 330-355. Brogan and Smith 1984, 195 and fig. 115. 140 Bonanno 1977, 53 and pl.51, fig. 51. 141 M'Charek 2002-2003, 21-28, figs. 22-23, 26-28, 1015. 142 Chaisemartin 1987, 147-148 and fig. 211. 143 Johns 2003a, 20. 139

70

Form and Iconography – Choices and Development

Chapter 4: Form and Iconography – Choices and Development The fictional case of Trimalchio and the real example from Langres illustrate that patrons were especially concerned with what was depicted, the iconography, and the way the depictions were arranged, the form. This chapter examines these two key elements in regard to the sculptures from the core sixteen sites. It examines the choices made and what these choices might tell us about the people who made them. It also looks for changes and development over time, in regard to design and iconography individually but also jointly, and what such changes may reveal about both patrons and viewers in the northwest Roman provinces.

campaign, just as they were only one element of a triumph, and therefore, the direct approach forms a striking excerpt. On the arch at Carpentras the primary decoration appeared on the lateral façades, which were also the east and west sides. As such, the captives and trophies referred to victories in the East and West and thereby victory over the entire known world; some of the monument’s visual impact was sacrificed for this iconography and its contextual meaning. A second example of the direct design approach can be found at Glanum, where the main façades were decorated with sculpture. Although the amount of decoration increased with the addition of the Victories in the spandrels and the garlands on the face of the arched entranceway, the design scheme remained simple, direct, and easily readable even from afar (Cat. III.2 and III.3; Fig. 2.11). As the viewer approached the arch at Glanum and was able to take in the details of the images, the picture changed, so to speak. This seems particularly relevant to the only non-captive figure (Cat. III.3c; Fig. 2.13). From a distance, with all its balance and symmetry, the design of the monument may actually have functioned to disguise his identity, and his flowing drapery may have made him seem to be another female captive. 4 His appearance and the details of his attire were only revealed as one moved closer to the arch, creating, in a way, a surprise for the viewer. In terms of visual design, the appearance of the unexpected increased the impact of the visual product.

Part 1: Form – Layout and Design The sculptures at the focus of this study are, at their most basic, visual products: they were made to be looked at and to have an impact on the viewer. The first part of this chapter analyzes the layouts and design schemes of the stone monuments from some of the core sixteen sites and suggests ways they attempted to seize the attention of the viewer. It breaks down the form of the monuments according to techniques of modern-day graphic designers. Ancient designers almost certainly did not have such techniques specifically in mind when creating the monuments, but these categories nevertheless provide a useful framework for thinking about design. The emerging patterns that result may represent something larger: changing modes of viewing. The Direct Approach The human sensory system is constantly processing visual stimuli of which some are vitally important, some are relevant, and some entirely insignificant. 1 Humans must process visual information swiftly and correctly to comprehend these stimuli. One of the main design schemes for attracting visual attention is the “direct approach,” or the use of images with “straight to the point immediacy.”2 With the direct methods, “no unnecessary details...dilute its striking impact, and no elaboration of the image...obscure its message.”3 Simplicity of the image and minimal secondary ornamentation intensify the message. The arches from Carpentras and Glanum and the votive dedications from the sanctuary at Deneuvre exemplify the direct approach.

Moreover, the panel’s design differentiates this figure even more as this is the only male-male pair, and he is the only male figure who stands on the left. As Bartman has outlined, in the private sphere the arrangement of images could be just as important, if not more so, than the choice of iconography.5 Gregory posits something similar for public images at Rome, noting for example, how a statue of Lucius Junius Brutus with his sword drawn stood among statues of the seven kings in stating: “Brutus’ political contribution to the community was surely broadcast not only by his posture and attributes, but also by his juxtaposition to the images representing the political order he had so successfully overturned.”6 The positioning of the Glanum figure presents something similar, demonstrating that it was not only the iconography but also the form that gives the image its saliency and potency.

On the arch of Carpentras, two pairs of captives chained to trophies decorate the two lateral façades (Cat II.1-2; Figs. 2.9-2.10). The figures wear elaborate costumes and the trophies are very ornate, but with the exception of the small accoutrements at the sides of the captives, the image is simple. The largeness of the captives and the trophies, the fact that they fill the entire frame, and almost complete absence of other decoration increases the impact of its message: Roman victory over foreign foes. The captives represented only one element of a victorious

The reliefs from the sanctuary at Deneuvre also employ the direct approach (Cat. IX; Figs. 2.44-2.46). In the more than forty reliefs and freestanding images, the demigod fills the entire frame. No other figures appear with him, and he never appears in any narrative scenes. In part, 4

For a similar situation among the statues decorating the Canopus of Hadrian’s villa, see Raeder 1983, 86-87, no. I 83 and 92-93, no. I 90; Bartman 1988, 224-225. 5 Bartman 1988, 211-225. 6 Gregory 1994, 85-86.

1

Solso 1994, 114-115. Karo 1975, 25-27 and 50-51. 3 Karo 1975, 115. 2

71

S.L. McGowen this may have resulted because patrons of lesser means frequented the sanctuary and less ornate designs may have been less expensive. Such a presentation is, however, fairly standard for depictions of deities in the northwest Roman provinces – for example, the reliefs of Sirona and Apollo (Cat. X.1-2; Figs. 2.49-2.50) from the sanctuary at Hochscheid or the corners of the altar from Bath (Cat. V.2; Figs. 2.20-2.23) – and elsewhere in the Roman Empire.7

friezes on the west side, and presumably the east, emphasized his role as a Roman magistrate, as he wore the garment indicative of Roman citizenship and took official action, indicated by the curule stool (Cat. I.4; Fig. 2.7). On the north and south sides, dressed as a Roman sacrificant, he presided as priest in a Roman sacrificial ceremony (Cat. I.1 and I.3; Fig. 2.5). The inscription also appeared on the north and south sides (Cat. I.1b and I.3b). With its shiny bronze lettering, it would certainly have made a striking impact on the viewer, even those who could not read it. 11 The presence of his tria nomina emphasized Cottius’ citizenship, which was represented visually on all four sides by him wearing the toga. The inscription also announced his new role as Roman prefect, the same role he is seen fulfilling in the friezes on the east and west sides. In this way, the message of Cottius’ citizenship and role as a Roman official is repeated on all four sides of the arch in multiple modes. The inscription played an important part in ensuring that the message of the arch was understood as intended, but it was the frieze that really spelled out the meaning. Petersen has identified a similar repetitive design of both frieze and inscription on the contemporaneous tomb of Eurysaces the baker in Rome, and concludes: “[R]epetition of its three surviving façades exists to increase the chances of their message sticking in a viewer’s mind.”12 It would seem that the direct approach to design in conjunction with the repetition on the arch at Susa had the same intention.

Repetition Unlike the images adorning the arches at Glanum and Carpentras, however, those from Deneuvre were not imposing, and in fact, most were the same size as a gravestele. The power of the images at Deneuvre, and to a lesser extent those at Carpentras and Glanum, results not only from their direct representations but also from their repetition: while the images on the arches at Glanum and Carpentras are repeated in two or four instances, the sanctuary at Deneuvre incorporates more than fifty. As Freedberg posits, “[R]epetition, sheer repetition – whether in pattern or as evident multiple, whether of motif or of whole visual theme – engenders a new and compelling aura of its own.”8 Bartman has noted a similar use of repetition at villas. At Sperlonga it seems that one villa owner used repetition of images around his fountain to compete with the famous Polyphemus grotto. 9 Although a single patron did not set up the Deneuvre reliefs at a specific time as at Sperlonga, the sculptures must have functioned in a similar way. Every time a patron set up a new image of Hercules, s/he not only performed an act of religious devotion, s/he also increased the impact on the viewer and thereby the power of the entire sanctuary.

The Visual Barrage Although the direct approach and repetition could effectively impact the viewer, in fact, it seems some of the monuments at the core of this study took the opposite approach. Instead of a simple and uncluttered display, images bombarded the viewer. No modern-day graphic design term exists for this technique, which we refer to as the “visual barrage,” but the technique is certainly employed by modern-day graphic designers.

Furthermore, we rely on two key elements, similarity and proximity, to make sense of the visual world, and we tend to group items accordingly.10 Thus, because of the similarity in shape, size, and iconography as well as their propinquity, the reliefs at Deneuvre were transformed from individual, almost insubstantial dedications into a single large-scale monument. The same type of site layout occurred at the sanctuary of the Matronae Aufaniae as well as at the sanctuary of Mars(?) at Montmarte. Taken together, such evidence suggests that repetition could effectively impart power to smaller sculptural displays.

The sanctuary façade from Genainville and the arch at Besançon provide the two best examples of this type of visual product from the core sixteen sites. The poor state of preservation of the sanctuary at Genainville prevents a precise analysis of its layout, but from the amount of architectural sculpture that survives, it seems that images covered the entire façade (Cat. VIII.1-7; Figs. 2.392.43). Similarly, sculptural decoration covered every available space on the arch at Besançon (Cat. XI.1-4; Fig. 2.51). The contrast in design with the arches at Carpentras and Glanum could not be starker.

A different sort of repetition occurred on the arch of Cottius at Susa. The frieze was the only pictorial decoration on the arch (Cat. I.1-4; Fig. 2.1), and this lack of distracting decoration increased its visual impact. More importantly, the images on all sides of the arch reiterated Cottius’ participation in the Roman world. The

Especially when viewed from a distance, such designs would create the appearance of all-over patterning, perhaps even non-figural patterning. Because such patterning may be hard to see at a glance, much less comprehend, it captivates the viewer precisely by slowing him/her down. Gell takes this even one step further in

7

For similar assertions regarding depictions of gods on lamps, see Stewart 2003, 201-202. 8 Freedberg 1989, 126. For the importance of repetition in the Roman world in reference to Roman copies of Greek originals, see Gazda 1995, 146-147. 9 Bartman 1988, 220. 10 Solso 1994, 89-91.

11 12

72

CIL V.7231. Petersen 2006, 114-118.

Form and Iconography – Choices and Development ideological messages.”16 It seems possible that shift in design scheme seen in the northwest provinces may have reflected something similar, and what seems to confirm the notion is that this change occurred in tandem with a change in iconography.

suggesting that “…the essential property of surface decoration [is] its cognitive resistance, the fact that once one submits to the allure of the pattern, one is liable to become hooked, or stuck in it.”13 It is not necessary to take matters this far, but it does seem that this design could have compelled the viewer to look at the façades in an attempt to understand the patterning and make it intelligible.

Part 2: Iconography Chapter two described the iconography from the core sixteen sites and, where possible, clarified disputed figures and redefined misidentified ones. This section examines the iconography more analytically, and it does so in two different ways. The first half focuses on iconographic programs at sacred sites. It is by now well established that sculptural displays at sites ranging from the Forum of Augustus to Hadrian’s Villa at Tivoli to imperial baths in Asia Minor were often the result of carefully planned iconographic programs.17 Not many attempts have been made, however, to consider the sculpture from sanctuaries of the northwest provinces in the same way. Here we aim to address what may have inspired the choices, what they might reflect about the makers, and how the viewers might have understood them.

In addition, this design approach had particular value at both Genainville and Besançon because of the type of images used and the requirements they made on the viewer. At both sites, primarily mythological iconography, speaking predominantly in the language of allegory, was used. Thus, for the viewer to understand the overall message, s/he had to know the myths. When only one mythological scene was used, if the viewer could not recognize the scene or did not know the story, the message of the monument would largely have been lost on that viewer. Because of the overall number of myths on monuments such as the arch at Besançon and the sculpted screen at Genainville, the viewer did not have to understand every detail or even every myth to grasp the overall meaning of the monument. Zanker has proposed something similar for the Forum of Augustus, conceding that the “typical visitor” might not have “grasped the entire pictorial program,” but because of the profusion of images could not have failed in understanding its message.14

The iconographic programs of the large stone arches have fared much better, and so the second half of this section takes a different approach. Using primarily the arches, it examines how and why choice of iconography changed over time. Also, by focusing on how provincial cities celebrated the emperor, it considers how provincial iconography was influenced by thinking from the center and driven by changes coming from Rome. Although the arches provide the primary examples, such iconography was not limited to this category.

Although some have attributed the visual barrage to a Celtic preference for patterning, the façade at Genainville and the arch at Besançon were constructed in the second century A.D., and by this time the region had been part of the Empire for more than a century. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the design represented some sort of lingering preference. Instead, such a complicated design may only have became effective after the region had used figural sculpture for some time, allowing viewers to become familiar with them. Moreover, it may have reflected a change in viewer preferences.

Iconographic Programs: The Evidence from the Sacred Sites In the case of Sirona from Hochscheid (Cat. X.2; Fig. 2.50), she clearly took her iconography from her association with Greco-Roman Apollo and his mythology. This small-scale example indicates how both myth and cult could influence iconographic choice. At three of the core sacred sites, Deneuvre, Nettersheim, and Montmarte, the iconography is relatively uniform. In contrast, those at London, Bath, Genainville, and Champlieu present a wide variety of iconographic motifs. Although these motifs may seem random, upon closer inspection, certain aspects of cult and myth actually unite them.

From this albeit cursory analysis, something of a pattern emerges. The direct approach appeared primarily on early monuments (Augustan-Tiberian period) while the visual barrage did not occur until later (the Trajanic period and beyond). These trends seem to parallel some discovered by Zanker in his attempt to understand the Roman viewer.15 He noticed a pattern in depictions of architectural sculpture on coins: those from the early empire tended to emphasize individual sculptures which stressed certain politically and ideologically appropriate messages, while those from the later empire focused more on the amount of decoration, accentuating the grandeur and extravagance of the buildings. According to Zanker, people grew tired of the repetitive political and ideological images, and “the breadth, expense, and complexity of the decoration in the long run outweighed

Toynbee, in her analysis of the sculptures from the London Mithraeum, outlines a program for the deities not directly connected with Mithraism, and so we will only briefly recount it here.18 We cannot know precisely why these deities were included, but each one did have associations with Mithraic cult and its ideas of fertility 16

Zanker 1997, 182. Bartman 1988, 219. See also Manderscheid 1981, 2836; Raeder 1983, 287-315; Zanker 1988, 192-215. 18 Toynbee 1986, 61-62.

13

17

Gell 1998, 82. 14 Zanker 1997, 186. 15 Zanker 1997, 179-183. 73

S.L. McGowen set ivory breasts and a single bronze breast.25 Taken together, they attest the popularity of Sulis Minerva among women, and it seems that significantly more evidence exists for fertility as a major component of worship than for healing, which is generally considered to be the primary purpose for the temple-bath complex.

and salvation, both in this life and the next. One of the pieces was a head of Minerva (Cat. XVI.9), the goddess of warfare, among other things; 19 Mithraism had great popularity among soldiers, and we know from the dedication of Ulpius Silvanus (Cat. XVI.3; Fig. 2.71) that at least one member of the London cult was associated with the military community. A water deity was also discovered. Water was an essential element in Mithraic cult activity, and one part of the Mithraic narrative involved a water miracle, in which the god caused water to flow from a stone.20 Therefore, a water deity was very much at home in a Mithraeum (Cat. XVI.6). Several of the deities had specific connections with the afterlife, a feature of Mithraic cult associated with apogenesis.21 Although the Genius with his cornucopia (Cat. XVI.2) could represent fertility, with his snake he could also symbolize life after death. Serapis, a Greco-Egyptian fertility deity who sometimes took the Mithraic epithets “Sol” and “Invictus,” could bring abundance during both life and the afterlife (Cat. XVI.4; Fig. 2.73). Finally, Mercury (Cat. XVI.8) led the souls of the dead to the underworld. The iconographic congruity of these deities does suggest a conscious program, and so it is possible that iconographic programs occurred at other sanctuaries including Bath, Genainville, and Champlieu.

In the late first century, the spring sanctuary was monumentalized, and the iconography from the two sculpted elements of this phase, the pediment and the altar, seems to have been chosen programmatically. We have already discussed in chapter two how the male gorgon head, though strange, cleverly takes its form from both Minerva, the patron deity, and Oceanus/Neptune, the god of inland springs (Cat. V.1a; Fig. 2.19).26 The careful pairing of the helmets, one decorated with an owl and one shaped like a dolphin, reinforce the conflation. In addition to the pediment, the gods on the sculpted corners, presumably belonging to the sanctuary’s main altar, also seem to have been selected as part of an overarching plan.27 It has been proposed that the eight deities from the corners plus a hypothetical four from the sides, which would produce a total of twelve, could have been the twelve Olympian deities.28 Since one of the figures is easily recognized as Hercules, this seems unlikely. Although the choice of deities for the altar was presumably dictated by whoever funded the construction of the monument, each of the five firmly identifiable ones does seem to have specific connections with worship at Bath.

As discussed in chapter two, the sanctuary at Bath was dedicated to Sulis Minerva, a combination of the Celtic deity Sulis with the Roman Minerva, and in order to understand the iconographic program and its cultic connections, it is necessary to know something about this deity. Because ritual activity focused on the sacred spring, it seems that Sulis was a water deity.22 It also seems possible that Sulis was associated with the sun, which the heat of the water may have reinforced. Minerva, although primarily a goddess of war and wisdom in Greco-Roman mythology, was the patron deity of springs and as a goddess of healing in not only Britain but also Gaul and Italy.23 Perhaps related to her healing capacities, she seems to have had certain fertility associations. The finds from the oldest known Latin cult of Minerva, that of Lavinium or modern-day Pratica di Mare, establish that she had such a character, particularly with regard to women and childbirth, in Italy. Among other votive offerings were found terracotta figurines of unarmed Minerva holding children and anatomical votives in the form of breasts and wombs. 24 From the sacred spring at Bath were recovered numerous objects associated with mundus muliebris, including brooches, earrings, necklaces, bracelets, combs, and spindle whorls. The only votive body parts discovered at the site were a

Unfortunately, damage and weathering sustained by one of the panels has left the figure virtually unrecognizable, except to say that it was a nude (Cat. V.2b). As discussed in chapter two, the figure appears to holds a dolphin, and so it is possible that it represents Neptune or even Venus.29 Neptune would have been highly appropriate for the sanctuary’s main altar for reasons just discussed, and Venus, who sometimes took the epithet Genetrix, would also have been suitable in connection with women and procreation, and she was, after all, born from water. 30 Because so much is uncertain about the figure, however, the remainder of the discussion focuses on the other figures. Apollo appears on the panel adjacent to the Neptune/Venus depicted in a traditionally Greco-Roman way (Cat. V.2b).31 This god was well-known at other 25

Henig 1984, 141 and fig. 174; Henig, et al. 1988, 5-6; Cunliffe 2000, 66. 26 LIMC II.447 and IV.163. See also Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, 29; Henig 2000, 124. 27 Henig 1980, 97. 28 Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, 183; Henig 1986, 162. 29 Beeson 2002, 10-13. 30 On the temple of Venus Genetrix, see Richardson 1992, 166-167. 31 Henig 1984, 117; Cunliffe 2000, 48. Cunliffe (2000, 47) supposes that the Bath figure could also be Orpheus, but based on probability his presence seems far less likely than Apollo’s. When images of Orpheus occur in

19

Girard 1981b, 212. Clauss 2000, 71-74. 21 Beard, et al. 1998, 290. 22 Cunliffe 1986a, 71; Green 1995, 96; Henig 2000, 125. 23 Sauer 1996, 63-93; Graf 2001, 138-139. 24 Castagnoli 1979, 1-14; Zadoks-Josephus Jitta 1984, 70; Graf 2001, 133-135. 20

74

Form and Iconography – Choices and Development Romano-Celtic thermal and spring sanctuaries in the northwest Roman provinces, including the sanctuary at Hochscheid, where we have seen, he had a Celtic consort, Sirona. There Sirona takes on the traditional iconography of Hygeia, bolstering Apollo’s associations with healing in the northwest provinces. Somewhat problematically, however, no evidence for a connection between Apollo and Celtic healing water deities has been found in Britain. Nevertheless, Apollo in his guise as the Roman god of healing certainly suited the sanctuary at Bath. Apollo was the father of Asclepius, the Roman god of medicine, and the grandfather of Hygeia, the personification of health. In fact, like Minerva, he could take the epithet Medicus.32 In addition, because of his association with the sun and its heat, Apollo was a god especially suitable, because the water from the springs is naturally hot.

Figure 4.1. Panel of so-called Tellus from the Ara Pacis at Rome. (Image: ©C.M. Lewis)

Hercules is on the third corner, nude except for the lion skin tied around his shoulders, resting his arm on his club (Cat. V.2c; Fig. 2.22). He holds a large vessel, and hence he is sometimes given the epithet Bibax.39 Hercules’ presence in the sanctuary of Sulis Minerva is appropriate for several reasons. Minerva, in her association with the Greek goddess Athena, protected and aided the hero during his great labors. In addition, in the Greek world, strong connections existed between Hercules/Herakles, healing, and water.40 In the northwest provinces, he is worshipped at numerous spring sanctuaries; in Gaul, at not only Deneuvre but also Glanum, Mont-Dore, Pelm, Dombourg, Chaligny, Sources de la Seine, Fontaines Salées, Vichy, Entrains, Bolards, Aix-les-Bains and Trouhans; and in Germany, at both Nettersheim and Cologne.41 Furthermore, at the spring sanctuary of Hercules at Deneuvre, in one badly damaged relief, the hero holds what seems to be a vase which conceivably ties him directly to the veneration of the springs. 42 Perhaps the vase held by Hercules in the panel from Bath should not be understood solely as a means of designating him as Bibax, but instead the vessel, like that held by the supposed Spring Goddess, could give him a specific connection with the spring, the focus of worship. In any case, Hercules is at home in a spring sanctuary.

On the second corner, Bacchus offers a panther a drink from a cup (Cat. V.2a; Fig. 2.20).33 Bacchus, particularly in his association with Liber Pater, functioned as a god of fertility and germination, both of which are emphasized on the altar by the presence of the thyrsus, a symbol of fertility. 34 In reference to his rescue of Ariadne after Theseus abandoned her on the shores of Naxos, Bacchus was also considered “a saviour god.”35 In fact, this very scene occurs on a smaller altar from Bath. 36 As both fertility and rescuer deity, Bacchus suited the emerging iconographic program, particularly as a reflection of the healing and fertility aspects of worship there. The Spring Goddess appears on the other side of this corner, and she is undoubtedly connected with cult activity (Cat. V.2a; Fig. 2.21). Her attributes, the cornucopia and the overturned vessel, symbols of fertility and abundance well known in Roman art, suggest that she also had associations with fertility. 37 A similar female figure, who has been variously identified as Venus, Tellus, Pax and Terra Mater, occurs on the Ara Pacis at Rome (Fig. 4.1).38 Regardless of her precise identification, from the children on her lap and the abundant vegetation around her, the Ara Pacis goddess has strong connections with growth and fertility. What is more, in the lower left corner, an overturned jug pours forth a never-ending supply of water, and a plentiful supply of water is undoubtedly needed for growth and abundance.

The sixth and final god from the three sculpted corners is Jupiter (Cat. V.2c; Fig. 2.23).43 Certainly, Jupiter, as sovereign god, first among Roman deities, would be appropriate for almost any traditional Roman sanctuary. Jupiter and Minerva appear together in sanctuaries throughout the Roman world as part of the Capitoline triad of Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva. 44 Furthermore, through her correspondence with the Greek goddess Athena, the daughter of Zeus, Minerva becomes the daughter of Jupiter. In fact, Ovid calls her ”Iove nata,”45 and likewise speaks of her leaping fully formed from the head of Jupiter.46 Thus, as Minerva’s sole parent, Jupiter’s presence is even more fitting for the sanctuary at Bath.

Northwest Europe, they are almost exclusively in mosaic, and images of the bard in stone are very rare. On Apollo at spring sanctuaries in the northwest, see Woolf 2003b, 140-141; Green 2004, 148-150. 32 Scheid 2003, 105. 33 Cunliffe 2000, 46-47. For images of Bacchus/Dionysus with the panther, see LIMC III.430-434. 34 MacMullen 1981, 52; Scheid 2003, 156. 35 Dalby 2003, 92-102. 36 Henig 1984, 117. 37 Cunliffe 2000, 47. 38 Zanker 1988, 172-175 and fig. 135-135; Kleiner 1992, 96 and fig. 80.

39

Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, 35. Salowey 1994, 77-94; Salowey 2002, 171-177. 41 Moitrieux 1986, 230. 42 Moitrieux 1986, 231. 43 LIMC VIII.54; Cunliffe 2000, 48. 44 Girard 1981b, 223-224. 45 Ovid, Metamorphoses V.297. 46 Ovid, Fasti III.845. 40

75

S.L. McGowen The pediment and the altar were only the first phase in sculptural decoration of the sanctuary at Bath, and three decorative elements were added later: the quadrifrons, the screen, and the small pediment. Considering that the quadrifrons formed the entrance to the sacred spring, the presence of the water nymphs and the rock gushing water clearly indicate that the cult activity influenced the iconography (Cat. V.3; Fig. 2.24).47 Moreover, on the quadrifrons these images were united with a representation of the sun, almost certainly because of the hot waters of the spring, demonstrating the attention paid to iconographic choice.

at Champlieu and Genainville. At each of these sanctuaries, the façades were decorated with multiple scenes all deriving from Greco-Roman mythology. In fact, not a single instance of a Celtic deity is found at either site. Unfortunately, the state of preservation at both sites makes understanding their iconography difficult. Further complicating matters, neither site has produced evidence securely identifying the patron deity or deities. Despite these complications, some degree of unity is apparent in the choices of iconography. The scenes with reasonably secure identifications from Champlieu include: Ganymede, two instances of Apollo, youthful Mars(?), Coronis(?), Thetis with infant Achilles, Niobe, Mercury with infant Bacchus, Leda and the Swan, and Prometheus enchained. Since the patron deity is unknown, we cannot tie these myths to cultic activity, but it does seem that they are connected with the life-cycle and, more specifically, mortality or immortality, and sometimes both.

Although its scheme is more uncertain, the iconography on the sculpted screen also seems related to cult activity (Cat. V.4; Fig. 2.25). The four unidentified female figures constituted the main decorative elements, but the putti as the Seasons certainly gave the screen ties to growth, abundance, fertility, and the harvest. 48 Likewise, the small pediment was decorated with a head of Luna, the goddess of the moon, and the moon had strong connections with women, childbirth, and fertility throughout the Empire (Cat. V.5; Fig. 2.26).49 That the moon had an important role in cult activity at Bath is confirmed by the discovery of a silver-gilt lunate pendant in the sacred spring, which was perhaps once affixed to a staff as part of the priest’s regalia. 50 If the pediment was part of the screen, it would have given this feature even stronger ties to fertility. Its potential location on the north side of the precinct, counterbalancing the solar iconography from the quadrifrons, would indicate a high degree of planning.

Several have maternal themes, including that of maternal bereavement. Two of the figures, Thetis (Cat. VI.1b; Fig. 2.27, right) and Niobe (Cat. VI.1c; Fig. 2.29), experienced the early demise of their children. In the Iliad, Thetis is “characterized by helplessness and by impotent grief. Her presentation of herself is as the epitome of sorrow and vulnerability in the face of her son’s mortality.”51 At Champlieu the definitive scene of Thetis’ helplessness in the face of her child’s death, the dipping of Achilles into fire or the river Styx, is depicted.52 Niobe, who caused the death of her twelve children, is perhaps the epitome of maternal bereavement.53 It seems possible that the panel containing the image of Apollo with his bow was meant to represent the murder while it was taking place.

The case for a conscious iconographic program at Bath seems clear. The pediment shows an astute mixing of iconography appropriate to both Minerva, the patron goddess of the place, and Oceanus/Neptune, with his aquatic associations and connections to spring sanctuaries. The deities on the altar seem to have been chosen carefully, with each connected to cult activity and/or the patron goddess. Furthermore, the sanctuary at Bath allows us to see such an iconographic program unfold over time, and when the later decorative elements were added, their iconography also seems to have been selected with regard to cult activity. The early phase relied primarily on mythological connections, while later choices, though still mythological, focused more on ritual activity. The iconography at Bath testifies that sanctuaries in the northwest provinces could and did have carefully orchestrated iconographic programs.

A third mythological mother from the sanctuary at Champlieu is Leda, who is shown holding the swan, the union responsible for the Dioscuri (Cat. VI.1f; Fig. 2.32).54 Therefore, this scene depicts the moment of conception. Furthermore, the Dioscuri, with each spending alternating days among the dead in the Underworld or among the immortals on Olympus, represented both death and immortality. 55 A second figure related to immortality is Ganymede, who became immortal after he was abducted by Jupiter (Cat. VI.1e; Fig. 2.30). In fact, Leda and Ganymede are frequently found together as sculptural pendants, as for example, on a second or third century monument from Thessalonika. 56 It seems possible that the two may have been paired at Champlieu as well, but there is no way to be certain. That

At Bath, although mythological connections linked some of the iconography, no narrative scenes occur as they did 47

51

Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, 43-45 and 49-52; Cunliffe 2000, 55-56. 48 Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, 123-124 and 126; Cunliffe 2000, 66. 49 Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, 6, 9, and 126-127; Cunliffe 2000, 67-68; de la Bédoyère 2001, 173. 50 Cunliffe and Tomlin 1988, 6; Cunliffe 2000, caption of plate 16.

Slatkin 1986, 1. For the story, see Hyginus, Fabulae III.10; Statius, Achilleid I.134 and 269. See also Brown 1999, 6-7. 53 For the story, see Ovid, Metamorphoses VI. 145-312. See also March 1999, 1045. 54 Dowden 1999, 837. 55 Parker 1999, 484. 56 Clarke 1991, 99-100. 52

76

Form and Iconography – Choices and Development the two were related in the Roman mind is clear, as is their association with immortality.

support the existence of an iconographic program at Champlieu.

Two other scenes, although much more badly damaged and therefore much more tentative in their precise identifications, seem also to have had connections with birth, motherhood, and death. One is Mercury with the infant Bacchus, whose mother died before his death (Cat. VI.1d; Fig. 2.33).57 So here again the chosen myth combines birth and death. The birth of Bacchus had a mythological counterpart in the dramatic birth of another deity, Aesculapius, who was snatched out of his mother’s womb as she lay dying on her funeral pyre by his father Apollo.58 This scene may have been depicted at Champlieu because the head of Coronis, the mother of Asclepius, may have appeared on the bottom block of the panel of Apollo the archer (Cat. VI.1a; Fig. 2.28). Unfortunately the block has been lost, so we have only Espérandieu’s drawing and identification to rely upon. Like Bacchus, Aesculapius was born from a mortal mother, Coronis. She also died a fiery death, bringing back the themes of birth, death, and immortality. 59

Like the sanctuaries at Bath and Champlieu, the sanctuary at Genainville had numerous iconographic elements. Although the state of preservation is even worse than at Champlieu, it does seem that something can be suggested about its iconographic program. One advantage, however, is a proposed identification of the patron deity or, in this case, deities. Circumstantial evidence presented in chapter two suggests that the sanctuary was dedicated to Mercury and his consort Rosmerta, a Celtic deity (Cat. VIII.12-13). Both of these deities had primarily fertility capacities in the northwest provinces, 64 and in fact, according to Green, Rosmerta “enhances Mercury’s Celtic fertility function.”65 Thus, cult activity at Genainville may have had a fertility component to it. In addition, the temple was adjacent to a series of pools, and although it is unknown precisely what type of activity took place there, the attention paid to them suggests they held a certain importance. One of the best preserved pieces of sculpture from Genainville, the statue group of the three females, has obvious connections with both water and fertility (Cat. VIII.7; Figs. 2.42-2.43). The fairly typical representations of Spring Goddesses or water nymphs with their overturned vessels are clearly connected water and the nearby pools, in which these figures were found. The enthroned figure may represent a Mother Goddess, emphasizing the fertility aspect of the group; but regardless of precise identifications, the presence of the two infants certainly connects the group with fecundity.

The myths of the births of Bacchus and Aesculapius associating fire, birth, and immortality return us to the myth with which we began, the birth of Achilles. 60 Because of the state of preservation of the sanctuary at Champlieu, while it is possible that Thetis dips the infant into water, what remains look strikingly like flames. If so, Thetis is attempting to do to her son what had been done to both Asclepius and Bacchus – to burn away his mortality.61 Fire and birth are related to another scene from the sanctuary, that of Prometheus (Cat. VI.1e; Fig. 2.31). Prometheus not only created mankind, but he also gave fire to man, for which he was punished in the scene chosen for Champlieu.62 In some accounts it was Prometheus who revealed to Thetis the prophecy that she would bear a son greater than his father, which would specifically tie the Prometheus panel to that of Thetis and Achilles.

From their size, it seems that the Cyclopes had particular decorative importance (Cat. VIII.6; Fig. 2.39). Representation of Cyclopes, particularly Polyphemus, occurred in grottos and nymphaea throughout the Roman Empire, and at Lyon (Lugdunum) a fountain in the form of a Cyclops was discovered; and so their presence would accord well with the pools.66 Moreover, the relationship between Polyphemus and the nymph Galatea eventually led to the death of Acis, who was transformed into a river. The story occurs in Latin literature as well as in both painting and mosaic,67 but the state of preservation prevents any identification of narrative at Genainville. A scene involving Polyphemus, Galatea, and Acis would seem fitting because of the connection between the temple and the pools. It would also have accorded well with the frieze of putti, sea monsters, Tritons, and Nereids encircling the temple, and the mythological panels from the façade.

The final figure, youthful Mars, does not fit this paradigm as seamlessly as the others (Cat. VI.1c). Mars was the god of war, and certainly death in battle occurred frequently throughout the Roman Empire, ending the lives of many young men. In the Roman world and particularly in the Northwest, Mars was also associated with fertility.63 At Champlieu, he is presented at rest and unarmed, and so here he may appear in this capacity. Despite this potential outlier, in the end the evidence does 57

Ovid, Metamorphoses III.308-315. Burgess 2001, 214. 59 Pindar, Olympia II.68ff; Ovid, Metamporphoses II.542632. See also Mackie 1998, 333; Burgess 2001, 214 and 217-218. 60 Burgess 2001, 216. 61 Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica IV.869-72. See also Mackie 1998, 329-338. 62 Apollodorus, Bibliotheca I.7.1; Hyginus, Fabulae 142 and 144. See also Philips 1973, 293-294. 63 Beard, et al. 1998, 15; Green 2004, 90. 58

The only securely identifiable panel from Genainville is the resurrection of the ram by Medea in front of Pelias (Cat. VIII.3; Fig. 2.40). Although the scene appeared 64

Green 2004, 90. Green 2004, 37. 66 Lavagne 1970, 706; Mitard 1994, 206; DarbladeAudoin 2006, 134-135, no. 388. 67 Ovid, Metamorphoses XII.738-897. 65

77

S.L. McGowen often in sixth and fifth century B.C. Attic art,68 it is found infrequently thereafter. Scenes of Medea did appear on Roman sarcophagi, but with only one possible and tentative exception from Rome which may show the Peliades killing their father, scenes of the rejuvenation did not.69 A single metope from the Treasury of Silaris at Poseidonia from c. 500 B.C.70 and two Roman copies of a Greek marble relief, which show the Peliades but not the ram, constitute the only three surviving sculptural representations.71 The rarity of the motif should end the idea of random selection of scenes from a pattern book. Thus, we must accept the counter, the scene was intentionally chosen.

magic, resurrection and rejuvenation provide the focus of the scene, and this seems true of the fifth century B.C. representations as well.73 Thus, the choice of this motif at Genainville was likely made for its connotations of metamorphosis, resurrection, and rejuvenation. A second mythological scene, that of Venus and Adonis, has related themes (Cat. VIII.1c). The story of Adonis and its treatment have several features in common with that of Medea: it had a long visual history and literary tradition, the most extensive treatment occurring in Ovid’s Metamorphoses;74 it can be found on many sarcophagi, particularly from the second century, when the façade at Genainville was constructed;75 and it involved death, transformation, and rebirth. Unfortunately, the state of preservation prevents even confirmation that the scene depicts Venus and Adonis, much less the precise event, but the moment when Venus falls in love with Adonis or his departure for the hunt seem likely. In any case, it certainly is not his death. In classical Greece, the death of Adonis was celebrated by an annual rite called the Adonaia, supposedly founded by Aphrodite.76 The Adonaia celebrated the “metamorphic cycle from tree to flower within which the mythic action is set. According to legend, these rites culminated, albeit symbolically, in Adonis’s resurrection.”77 Thus, in the story of Adonis, the themes of death, rebirth, and metamorphosis recur, and perhaps they were connected with the fertility aspects of religious life at Genainville.

By the time of the construction of the sanctuary at Genainville, numerous literary accounts of the story of Medea existed, including two or possibly three late-first century B.C./early-first century A.D. accounts by Ovid, Seneca’s mid-first century A.D. tragedy, and Valerius Flaccus’ Argonautica from the last quarter of the first century A.D.72 Perhaps related to the minimal number of representations of the resurrection scene in art, Seneca and Valerius Flaccus only make passing references to the death of Pelias. Ovid, on the other hand, gives a lengthy account of the event in his Metamorphoses (VII.312321): protinus innumeris effetus laniger annis attrahitur flexo circum cava tempora cornu; cuius ut Haemonio marcentia guttura cultro fodit et exiguo maculavit sanguine ferrum, 315 membra simul pecudis validosque venefica sucos mergit in aere cavo: minuunt ea corporis artus cornuaque exurunt nec non cum cornibus annos, et tener auditur medio balatus aeno: nec mora, balatum mirantibus exsilit agnus 320 lascivitque fuga lactantiaque ubera quaerit.

In sum, it seems that the choice of iconography at sanctuaries in the northwest provinces resulted from deliberate and systematic efforts and, indeed, constituted iconographic programs. Although we cannot know for certain why particular iconography was selected, that from London, Bath, Champlieu, and Genainville indicates an in-depth knowledge of Greco-Roman religion and myth on the part of the selectors (whether patron or artists or both).

Straightaway a ram affected by his countless years with his horns curved around his hollow temples, was dragged forward, when its feeble throat she cut with the Thessalian knife and spotted the iron with little blood, at the same time the limbs of the animal and the strong potions the witch threw into the bronze cauldron: these things diminished the limbs of the body and burned up the horns and with the horns the years and a thin bleating was heard from inside the pot: and without delay, while marveling at the bleating, the ram jumped out and ran away playfully and sought lactating udders.

How visitors to these sites would have understood the program is impossible to reconstruct. Some images such as the rock gushing water from the quadrifrons at Bath would have been intelligible and certainly the male gorgon head of the pediment would have been a fearsome presence without any knowledge of Greco-Roman mythology. Section one of this chapter outlined how the layout and design at Genainville and even at Champlieu may have assisted the viewer who only knew some of the myths in understanding the overall message, and perhaps in these instances the captivating nature of the display superseded the complex iconographic programs envisioned by their designers. Even without a precise understanding of the myths, it seems likely that the

Here, Medea transforms the ram, not just from alive to dead to alive, but also from old to young. Thus, although we realize that evil will come to Pelias because of this 68

73

Sourvinou-Inwood 1997, 262-279; Griffiths 2006, 2326. 69 Gessert 2004, 229 and n.238. 70 Halm-Tisserant 1993, 41-43. 71 Schmidt 2000, 265. 72 Griffiths 2006, 92-99.

Sourvinou-Inwood 1997, 264. X.503-738. See also Servais-Soyez 1981, 222-229. 75 Koortbojian 1995, 8-9. 76 On this festival, see Simms 1997, 45-53; Simms 19971998, 121-141. 77 Koortbojian 1995, 25-26. 74

78

Form and Iconography – Choices and Development virtus and felicitas became associated with individuals.84 This trend continued throughout the Republic in the figures of Fabius Maximus, Claudius Marcellus, and Scipio Aemilianus. By the time of Sulla (who took the epithet Felix)85 and later Pompey,86 virtus and this individual type of felicitas were inextricably linked. The Augustan Principate was founded and maintained as a military monarchy, and its success rested on one person, Augustus.87 In the Res Gestae, he enumerates his military accomplishments first.88 Both poetry and art make clear that whatever military successes his generals had, they were because of his charisma alone. For example, in Carmina IV.14, Horace grants the victories of Tiberius and other generals to Augustus. 89 Likewise, in the upper register of the Gemma Augustea, Tiberius and Germanicus return from battle, but it is Augustus who is crowned with the corona civica by Oikoumene.90

abundance of decoration would still have provided an awesome experience for visitors to these sacred sites. Iconography from the Center: Celebrating Victory and the Emperor Victory is Ours: Virtus and Personal Felicitas of the Emperor During the Augustan and early Tiberian period, some seventeen large stone arches, including those at Carpentras, Glanum, and Orange, together with other types of monuments such as the Tropaeum Augusti at modern-day La Turbie and the free-standing sculptures from St.-Bertrand-de-Comminges, constituted a series of triumphal monuments dotting the landscape of southern Gaul. Like the Tropaeum Augusti and the monument at St.-Bertrand-de-Comminges, the three arches at Carpentras, Glanum, and Orange were decorated with captives chained to trophies, an image which had a long history in both the Greek and Roman world. The earliest trophies in the Greek world, consisted of piles of the defeated’s weaponry, set up on the battlefield at the point of true victory where the enemy had begun their flight. 78 As such, they became symbolic of military success and glory. By the fourth century B.C., however, erection on the battlefield was no longer required. For example, after the defeat of Pleistarchos in 304 B.C., the Athenians constructed a gateway decorated with a trophy at a street entering the agora.79 It not only commemorated victory in a particular battle but also marked military achievements and eternally glorified the city.

The triumph (along with political success) provided the primary means of celebrating virtus and personal felicitas.91 The triumph was, however, transient and sitespecific. It occurred in Rome on a single occasion. Trophies and other triumphal monuments endured, thereby making the honor permanent in Rome, and they could be constructed outside the capital and in doing so propagate the message of victory. Never before and never after were representations of trophies more numerous in Rome than during the Augustan period.92 Against this background, the arches at Carpentras, Glanum, and Orange, were constructed, and from their iconography they clearly celebrated the virtus and personal felicitas of emperor.

During the third century B.C., trophies were depicted on Roman victoriatus coins, and by the second century B.C., the Romans used the trophy to symbolize military victory.80 In 121 B.C. Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus and Quintus Fabius Maximus constructed the first stone trophies in what would become the province of Gallia Narbonensis.81 Pompey also built a grand victory monument in the region, sometimes called a “landscape trophy,” after his victory in the Spanish War. Thus, by the beginning of the first century A.D., when the first large stone arches were erected, the stone monumental trophy had a long history as a symbol of victory in and around southern Gaul.

The arch at Carpentras, the earliest of the three, was constructed during the Augustan period. No one who looked at the forlorn captives from the east and west façades would doubt the might of their conquerors (Cat. II.1-2; Figs. 2.9-2.10), and since all victories were credited to Augustus alone, it celebrated him specifically even if it did not celebrate a specific victory. The general message of victory is clear, and as Ennius says, “qui vincit non est victor nisi victus fatetur” – there can be no victory without vanquished.93 In this way, the monument celebrated the virtus and personal felicitas of Augustus.

In the minds of the Romans, the combination of virtus, or military valor, and felicitas, the good fortune granted by the gods to good men because of their actions, brought victory.82 During the Republic, “virtus and felicitas resided in the collective entity of the Roman people.”83 Beginning with Scipio Africanus the Elder, however,

The arch at Glanum, decorated with its captives and trophies, also celebrated the virtus and personal felicitas of Augustus, with certain elements of design and 84

Cicero, De Finibus IV.22. See also Fears 1981a, 779781; Fears 1981b, 865-866. 85 Fears 1981a, 796. See also Fears 1981b, 877. 86 Cicero, De Imperio Gnaei Pompei 47. See also Fears 1981a, 798-800. 87 Fears 1981a, 804-806. 88 Augustus, Res Gestae I-III. 89 Horace, Carmina IV.14. See also Wistrand 1987, 4551. 90 Wistrand 1987, 59; Kleiner 1992, 69-71. 91 Fears 1981a, 781; Hölscher 2006, 37-42. 92 Picard 1957, 234. 93 Ennius, Annales 493. See also Fears 1981a, 752.

78

The standard work on trophies is Picard 1957. See also Lendon 2005, 41-42; Hölscher 2006, 28-30. 79 Hölscher 2006, 31. 80 Picard 1957, 105-106; Hölscher 2006, 32. 81 Picard 1957, 104 and 107; Hölscher 2006, 33. 82 Cicero, De Lege Manilia XLVII-XLVIII. The standard work on the subject during the Republican period is McDonnell 2006. See also Fears 1981a, 747-748. 83 Fears 1981a, 775-777. 79

S.L. McGowen the architrave (Cat.IV.2c and IV.4c; Fig. 2.15).99 Although these piles of weapons may have been meant to recall the weapons of trophies set up on the battlefield by the Greeks, Romans, and Gauls, they may also have hearkened back to the Roman Republican tradition of hanging the armor of the vanquished on the houses of the victors as “μαρτύρια τῆς ἑαστῶν ἀρετῆς” – evidence of their bravery.100 Just as these displays marked out their inhabitants as valiant, so those on the arch at Orange established the bravery of the citizens of the entire town who had, after all, served as Roman soldiers. Naval spolia filled the spaces above the Gallic spoils (Cat. IV.2e and IV.4f; Fig. 2.15).101 While they may have referred to a specific sea victory, most likely they descended from the naval spolia used to decorate Augustan monuments after the battle of Actium and celebrated victory on sea in a general sense. 102 Thus, together with the other spolia, they suggested Roman victory over the entire earth.

iconography elevating the theme (Cat. III.2-3; Figs. 2.19 and 2.22). The seven captives and four trophies certainly increased the tenor of victory as did their placement on the main façades, the faces directly confronting the viewer. The addition of the Victories in the spandrels advanced it even further. In addition to the themes of virtus and personal felicitas, the arch at Glanum celebrated a second incarnation of felicitas: felicitas temporum, the “peace, security, and general contentment” brought about through military victory attributed to and guaranteed by the emperor. 94 In Horace’s Carmina IV.15, victory was again attributed to Augustus as was the subsequent peace and prosperity, and similar themes occur in Horace’s Carmen Saeculare, Vergil’s Aeneid and Georgics, as well as Ovid’s Metamorphoses.95 The acanthus scrolls and garlands of the Ara Pacis, a monument of peace vowed in honor of a military victory,96 visually expressed the idea,97 and the flowers of the coffers (Cat. III.1a) and the garlands of the voussoirs (Cat. III.1b) and archivolts (Cat. III.2a and III.3a; Fig. 2.11) from the Glanum arch had the same function. The differences of garlands confirm the notion as the ripe fruit appeared on the side facing the city, while the immature and unripened appeared on the side facing the country.98 Thus, when entering the city, one would have seen the abundant growth, emphasizing the prosperity brought by Roman peace; and when leaving the city one would have seen the unripened fruit, reminding the viewer of the world beyond, one without the influence of the Rome. Moreover, when passing through the arch, the viewer would have seen the frieze of musical instruments and sacrificial implements (Cat. III.1c), symbols of pietas, indicating that proper reverence of the gods guaranteed divine favor for Augustus and the inhabitants of Glanum and secured both military victory and felicitas temporum. Nonetheless, on the arch at Glanum, felicitas temporum, while important, remained only a secondary theme to virtus and personal felicitas.

New motifs also appeared on the central block of the second attic and the frieze, and they further enhanced the arch’s theme of victory. The successful Roman cavalry engagement provides an obvious reference to military victory (Cat. IV.2g and IV.4h),103 as does the frieze decorated with pairs of Romans battling Gauls in single combat (Cat. IV.3b, IV.4e, and IV.5b; Fig. 2.16).104 By the time of Tiberius, single combat, particularly single combat against Gauls, had a long history in Roman literature as a means of showing personal bravery. 105 Thus, the iconography on the second attic, and especially the frieze, augmented themes of virtus and personal felicitas. As at Glanum, the arch at Orange had decoration symbolic of pietas. On the second attic storey of the north façade, the left small pedestal is decorated with a simpulum, a patera, and, most important, a lituus (Cat. IV.2f).106 From the time of Sulla, the lituus represented the ability of a favored leader to interpret correctly the auspices and thereby bring victory. 107 On some Sullan denarii, the lituus was placed between a pair of trophies, clearly connecting the idea of victory with correct interpretation of the auspices (Fig. 4.2).108 As with virtus and felicitas, in the Principate, this power became concentrated into the hands of one man, the emperor. As visual substantiation, on the Gemma Augustea, Augustus holds the lituus, suggesting that only through the auspices

The arch at Orange had the same general iconographic theme as the arches at Carpentras and particularly Glanum, but its design and additional motifs greatly intensified it. It had the same garlands, Victories, flowerfilled coffers, and not two, not four, but six trophies with six pairs of captives. Besides these repeated elements, several new motifs related to virtus and personal felicitas occurred. Gallic spoils – shields, spears, swords, cuirasses, wild boar insignia, and carnyces – filled the spaces over the small flanking arches up to the level of

99

Amy, et al. 1962, 77-88. Polybius VI.39.10. See also Picard 1957, 324; Rawson 1991, 583-586; Lendon 2005, 175. 101 Amy, et al. 1962, 94-106; Bellet 1991, 55-56. 102 Picard 1957, 322; Zanker 1988, 84-85. 103 Amy, et al. 1962, 117-140; Bellet 1991, 57-58. 104 Amy, et al. 1962, 107-116; Bellet 1991, 56-57. 105 Lendon 2005, 174-176. 106 Amy, et al. 1962, 141. 107 Fears 1981a, 783 and 802. 108 Crawford 1974, 359/352. 100

94

Wistrand 1987, 51. Horace, Carmen Saeculare 53ff; Vergil, Aeneid I.286 and VI.791 and Georgics I.24; Ovid, Metamorphoses XV.821ff. See also Wistrand 1987, 51-53; Musso 2000, 378. 96 Augustus, Res Gestae 7. 97 Zanker 1988, 179-182; Kleiner 1992, 90-92. 98 Clavel-Lévêque and Lévêque 1982, 683-698; KüpperBöhm 1996, 77-85. 95

80

Form and Iconography – Choices and Development they alight on globes, an omnipresent motif symbolic of Roman power over the inhabited earth.117 The Tritons from the corners round out the theme of victory in the same way they did at Orange, by suggesting victory at sea. Finally, at the top of the pediment are the remnants of a star. Following the death of Julius Caesar, the star came to symbolize imperial divination, even appearing in the pediment of his temple in a representation on coins,118 and by the Flavian period, it had association with imperial cult.119 It is uncertain which particular emperor, if any at all, the pediment from Bath may have celebrated, but its iconography clearly establishes that large stone arches did not have sole proprietorship over themes of victory. Figure 4.2. Reverse of a denarius of Sulla showing a lituus and a jug with two trophies. (Image: ©American Numismatic Society)

Benefits Conferred: Cosmic Virtus and the Increasing Role of Felicitas Temporum The evidence for the iconography of large stone arches increases in the later second century. From the surviving, albeit limited, examples, the arches from Besançon and Reims, it seems that by the mid to late second century, the iconographic choices had not so much changed in entirety, as changed in emphasis. While the themes of virtus and personal felicitas remained, those of felicitas temporum and the cosmic nature of victory grew in importance in accordance with changing views about the emperor.120

of Augustus had Tiberius achieved victory. 109 Perhaps related to the theme of pietas, an entirely new theme emerges at Orange.110 The sculptural decoration from the west façade, with the head of presumably Sol and the Tritons (Cat. IV.3c), introduces divinities into the iconographic mix, and thereby a new theme, divine victory.111 Nowhere on the arches at Carpentras and Glanum was this kind of divine iconography present, but looking ahead, it would come to predominate.

In the Augustan period, the idea of felicitas had already begun to acquire the connotation of the state of peace and prosperity, felicitas temporum, brought about by the emperor, and it became standard practice to designate each emperor’s reign as felicitas saeculi or aureum saeculum.121 Felicitas as a personification first occurred on the coinage of Galba and remained prevalent on coins of Vespasian and Titus.122 Her popularity on coinage waned during the reign of Domitian, but her images experienced a renaissance during the Trajanic period and remained popular throughout the second century and into the third.123 On coinage, she generally held a cornucopia and caduceus.124 Likewise, the legend temporum felicitas together with cornucopias, caducei, and children confirms that these symbols and the female personification who held them stood for felicitas temporum rather than the

No decorated stone arches from the late first and early second centuries have survived, but similar iconography does occur on other types of monuments. For example, enchained captives and Roman soldiers appear on some late second century column bases from Mainz (Mogontiacum).112 Additionally, columns from Périgueux (Vesuna) are decorated with spolia as well as bands of sea motifs, including Tritons.113 The pediment from the sanctuary of Sulis Minerva at Bath also contains victory iconography. Although it has some unusual elements, most of the iconography from the Bath pediment is well known to Roman art and taken from official Roman imperial imagery (Cat. V.1a; Fig. 2.19).114 The imitation shield on which the enigmatic male face appears is surrounded by an oak wreath, recalling the corona civica, a symbol of imperial power from the time of Augustus.115 The shield evokes the clipeus virtutis, the honorific shield awarded to Augustus in 27 B.C. and inscribed with his virtues, copies of which were set up around the Empire, including in the northwest provinces.116 It is held by Victories, a victory motif known to both sculpture and coinage, and

117

Zanker 1988, 81 and 267. Weinstock 1971, 378; Zanker 1988, 34. 119 Weinstock 1971, 421. 120 On the date of the arch at Besançon, see Drinkwater 1983, 76-77; Walter 1986a, 424-430; Lerat and Walter 1990, 21-22; Carroll 2001, 43; Bromwich 2003, 167. At Reims, see Picard 1974, 68-69 and 72; Lefèvre 1987, 156. 121 For Nero, Seneca, Apocolocyntosis I.1; for Vespasian, Tacitus Diologus de Oratoribus 17; for Nerva, Tacitus, Agricola III.1; for Trajan, Tacitus, Agricola XLIV.5 and Pliny, Epistulae X.12 See also Wistrand 1987, 63-65. 122 Ganschow 1981, 586; Wistrand 1987, 65. 123 Fears 1981b, 911. 124 RIC III, no. 555. See also Ganschow 1981, 586. 118

109

Picard 1957, 325; Zanker 1988, 230-231. Picard 1957, 323-325. 111 Amy, et al. 1962, 140; Kleiner 1985, 48. 112 Espérandieu, VII.5816, 5818, 5819, and 5822. See also Picard 1957, 348-349; Selzer, et al. 1988, 241-243. 113 Espérandieu, II.1293-1295. 114 On what follows, see Henig 1999, 419-425. 115 Zanker 1988, 93-94. 116 Zanker 1988, 95-96; Galinsky 1992, 80-90. 110

81

S.L. McGowen

Figure 4.3. Jupiter handing over his thunderbolt from the Arch of Trajan at Benevento. (Image: ©S. McGowen)

Figure 4.4. Trajan receiving the thunderbolt of Jupiter from the Arch of Trajan at Benevento. (Image: ©S. McGowen)

personal felicitas.125 Thus, by the second century, a wellestablished iconography existed for felicitas temporum and its related concepts (felicitas saeculi, aureum saeculum, etc.). Finally, in the Aurelian adventus panel from the Arch of Constantine, the emperor is greeted by Roma and Felicitas with her cornucopia and caduceus and followed by Mars, who symbolized virtus. Thus, this panel connects the emperor with both virtus and felicitas temporum.

Jupiter hands over his thunderbolt to be received by Trajan who appears in the panel on the other side. In this way, the emperor’s power is shown to be derived directly from the supreme deity of the Romans (Fig. 4.3-4.4).129 The thunderbolt was also an attribute of the emperor on the coinage of Domitian, Trajan, and Marcus Aurelius. 130 On the column of Marcus Aurelius, in one scene the Roman troops are rescued by a miracle, prayed for by the emperor himself, in the form of a thunderbolt.131 Likewise, Jupiter and the Gigantomachy became a metaphor for the role of the emperor on earth as it was the emperor’s duty to rid the world of evil and thereby bring peace and prosperity.132 These same trends occurred on contemporaneous sarcophagi, many decorated with dramatic battle scenes but, more frequently, with mythological struggles alluding to human warfare.133

Although the idea of personal felicitas did not disappear, felicitas temporum began to dominate the iconography. This shift of emphasis onto the benefits of imperial rule over military might during the second century likely occurred because during this period “Rome was often at peace, and when at war, victorious…,” and this was especially true for the Gallic provinces, which had been part of the Roman Empire for about 300 years by the time of the construction of the arches at Besançon and Reims.126

The importance of certain deities who had “benefitted mankind through the exercise of arête and who had accordingly joined the ranks of the immortals,” also increased in this period.134 These gods included Asclepius, the Dioscuri, and particularly Hercules. Hercules personified virtus, as did Mars, Romulus, and Minerva.135 In the Trajanic period, Dio Chrysostom presented Hercules as the archetypal king who rids the world of monsters and evil humans, bringing blessings to the inhabitants of his realm.136 Antoninus Pius was presented as the new Hercules as was Commodus, who pushed the notion even further.137 On coins of Commodus from A.D. 191, not only does the hero hold a cornucopia evoking the theme of felicitas temporum, but also the

On the arch at Orange, iconography related to the divine providence of the emperor occurred but only to a limited extent. Like felicitas temporum, the supernatural and cosmic nature of the emperor had increased over time, with the most dramatic increase coming in the reigns of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius. The genius of Nero appeared on the large Jupiter column at Mainz, among figures of deities, including perhaps the first representation of Virtus.127 Beginning with the arch of Titus in Rome, the emperor and divinities intermingled on official state monuments.128 On the arch of Trajan at Benevento, in a panel on the left side of the inscription,

129

Wistrand 1987, 817; Kleiner 1992, 227-228. For Domitian, see RIC II, no. 57; for Trajan, see RIC II, no. 144. See also Wistrand 1987, 817. 131 Kleiner 1992, 297 and fig. 265; Ferris 2003, 92. 132 Fears 1981a, 816 and 820. 133 Ferris 2003, 103-110. 134 Fears 1981b, 876. 135 Picard 1957, 381. 136 Dio Chrysostom, I.49-84. 137 Picard 1957, 376-377; Fears 1981a, 821. 130

125

For a caduceus between a pair of cornucopias on a coin of Commodus, see RIC III, no. 574-575; for Faustina the younger with two infants, see RIC III, no. 1673-1677. 126 Lendon 2005, 264. 127 Picard 1957, 314; Kleiner 1992, 157-158. 128 Kleiner 1992, 188. 82

Form and Iconography – Choices and Development legend Hercules Commodianus appears, explicitly expressing a formal union of the demi-god and the Emperor.138 Finally, the portrait of Commodus as Hercules, supported by two cornucopias, makes the assimilation unmistakable.139

the north façade (Cat. XI.2e; Fig. 2.55). Mars, the Roman god of war, personified virtus, and Venus had a long history of association with felicitas, going back at least as far as Sulla, who initiated a cult for her in the guise of Venus Felix.143 She embodied the personal felicitas of the emperor, who was personally responsible for the victories depicted on the inside the arch. If the identification is accurate, the combination would provide a perfect unification of the concepts virtus and personal felicitas on a cosmic level.

The iconographic choices on the large stone arch at Besançon demonstrate these realignments of thinking about the emperor. First, the depictions of historical virtus and personal felicitas have been moved from the exterior to the interior (Cat. XI.1b-c; Figs. 2.52-2.53). In this location, they already had less prominence. Moreover, the passageway measures only 2.10m in depth, and so assuming a pace of around .75m, one would take no more than three steps inside the arch. At a walking pace of 1.3m per second, the time spent inside the arch would be no longer than two seconds, and so unless the viewer made a concerted effort to look, s/he would not see these images for very long. Nonetheless, the six superimposed panels showing scenes of cavalry and infantry engagements, the emperor receiving captives, etc., divided from each another by friezes of weapons, provided a viewer, even at a cursory glance, with an awesome reminder of the martial prowess of Rome. Nor would anyone have doubted the virtus and personal felicitas of the emperor.

Many of the gods and heroes on the Besançon arch had associations with apotheosis, a motif which became more prevalent in the Trajanic period and increased even further in the second century. These figures overtly manifested personal felicitas, the good fortune granted by the gods to specific, deserving individuals.144 On the north façade, beside the spandrels, are, presumably, the Dioscuri (Cat. XI.2g). The Dioscuri were the embodiment of felicitas: “they are the epiphany of divinely granted victory.”145 No doubt related to presence of the Dioscuri, two of the five occurrences of Hercules show him at rest, presumably after his deification. What is more, Hebe appears on the south façade with the eagle of Jupiter, and it was the marriage of Hercules to Hebe that completed his divination (Cat. XI.4b; Fig. 2.56). Similarly, Ganymede, another mortal who joined the ranks of the divine, was depicted on the now-lost east façade (Cat. XI.3a). Recall too how the eagle of Jupiter carried the divine emperors heavenward as they became human incarnations of figures like the Dioscuri and Hercules.146

Moreover, these historical military panels were set within a divine framework because mythological scenes covered the arch’s exterior (Cat. XI.2-4; Fig. 2.51).140 The theme of virtus still dominated, but it was reconfigured through the use of mythology, thereby elevating the theme to a cosmic level. Of the twenty-five small mythological panels decorating the pilasters, seven deal directly with conquering of foes. For example, on the north side, Theseus dispatches the Minotaur, and on the south side, Minerva battles a Giant – both unmistakable examples of divine virtus. Hercules occurs in five panels, and eight others show scenes of punishment, clearly evoking the idea that not all men have or deserve to have the favor of the gods. On the archivolt face, Jupiter himself slays the Giants with his thunderbolt, a clear act of divine virtus (Cat. XI.2b; Fig. 2.54).141 Recall that in the late first century and into the second, the thunderbolt had become an attribute of the emperor and Jupiter battling the Giants symbolized the role of the emperor on earth. This motif along with the representations of Hercules and the other gods and heroes mark clear instances of celebrating the emperor on a cosmic level and aligning his acts of virtus with the divine.142

The final example of such a divinized figure on the arch at Besançon is Bacchus/Dionysus. Of the twenty-five small vignettes, six depict Bacchus or members of his retinue, including Maenads, Satyrs, and even Silenos. Bacchus may have appeared because of his apotheosis, but his presence may be related to his associations with felicitas temporum. Many of the other panels had iconography related to the felicitas of abundance and plenty, including Apollo, Mercury with his moneybag, and an uncertain woodland deity. Vegetal motifs covered many of the columns, pilasters, cornices, and friezes, and underneath the archway, again flowers fill the coffers. Altogether, these motifs add further nuance to the message of the arch at Besançon: by ridding the world of evil, the emperor brings felicitas temporum. The large stone arch at Reims shares some of these same iconographic elements. Eighteenth century records indicate that the scenes of historical, human virtus at Reims have been moved to the interior as at Besancon.147

Deities also appeared in the intercolumnar spaces, though many of these panels have sustained heavy damage. Mars and Venus may have filled in the intercolumnar panel of

143

Fears 1981b, 877-878; Kousser 2006, 223. See also Walter 1986a, 426. 145 Fears 1981a, 776. See also Schilling 1960, 338-353; Parker 1999, 484. 146 For Titus’ apotheosis on the back of an eagle, see Pfanner 1983, 76-79 and plates 68-69; Kleiner 1992, 189190 and fig. 157. 147 Lefèvre 1987, 154.

138

144

BMC 669, no. 676-677. See also Fears 1981a, 821. 139 Kleiner 1992, 277. 140 For a more in depth analysis of the iconography on the arch at Besançon than the brevity of this section allows, see Walter 1986a, 424-437. 141 Walter 1986a, 429-430. 142 Lerat and Walter 1990, 55. 83

S.L. McGowen

Figure 4.5. Mosaic of Aion with a zodiacal wheel and the Seasons. (Image: Public Domain)

Since none of this decoration survives today, confirmation is impossible, but such motifs definitely did not decorate the exterior. Similar to Besançon, spolia friezes decorated the interior of the arch at Reims, surrounding the central vignettes at the top of the vaults (Cat. XII.2-3; Figs. 2.60-2.61). Among the spolia, a new motif appears, Victories inscribing shields. This motif is found on numerous Roman imperial victory monuments, including Trajan’s column, and in the northwest provinces it occurred as early as the late first century A.D. on a Jupiter column from Mainz.1

felicitas. On occasions, Pax and Concordia also took the caduceus as an attribute, because felicitas was “an essential quality of the conditions of peace and civil discord.”2 Thus, the eight pairs of caducei on the arch at Reims almost certainly stood for felicitas temporum, particularly in the context of the remaining extant decoration. Much of the iconography from the arch at Reims refers to children and childbirth, a theme that certainly signifies felicitas temporum. The use of children to symbolize prosperity goes back to the Augustan period, with several children appearing on the Ara Pacis, a monument celebrating the period of peace and prosperity brought by Augustus.3 In the second century, the reverses of some coins of Antoninus Pius show Faustina the Younger holding two infants surrounded by the inscription TEMPOR FELIC.4 Others show busts of young boys coming out of crossed cornucopias with the legend TEMPROVM FELICITAS; these coins apparently celebrated the birth of Marcus Aurelius’ twin sons, who not only confirmed the prosperity brought by the emperor, but also guaranteed its continuation. 5

As at Besançon, the rest of the arch’s iconography consisted of mythology, setting the scenes of historical virtus within a divine framework. The iconography at Reims focuses more, however, on felicitas temporum than on the virtus and personal felicitas of the emperor. The poor preservation of the sculpture niches prevents much discussion of them. The only securely identifiable figure is Bacchus (Cat. XII.5), and we have already mentioned his associations with felicitas temporum. The images on the frame’s niche of men carrying large vessels presumably full of wine, the fruits of felicitas temporum, reinforce the theme. Venus may have appeared in the southwest niche (Cat. XII.6b), and her relationship with felicitas has already been discussed.

On the arch at Reims, the central vignettes in the two flanking arches both refer to childbirth. Leda and the swan, the union which produced the Dioscuri, appear in the west arch (Cat. XII.3; Fig. 2.61). The Dioscuri occur frequently in triumphal art, usually in a martial guise with their horses, as they do on the arch at Susa. At Reims, however, they are not present at all, and instead it is their conception that is depicted. Similarly, in the east panel, the she-wolf suckles Romulus and Remus (Cat. XII.2;

Many of the other vignettes celebrating felicitas temporum, although well-known in Roman art, had not yet appeared on large stone arches in the northwest provinces. The first motif that suggests the idea of felicitas temporum on the arch at Reims is the crossed caducei above each of the clipei (Cat. XII.4-6; Fig. 2.58). The caduceus served as one of the main attributes of Felicitas; it is also found on some coins without the female personification but with the legend temporum 1

2

Fears 1981b, 879. Kleiner 1992, 92-93. 4 RIC III, no. 719 and 1673-1677. 5 RIC III, no. 857, 859, and 961; Fears 1981b, 905. 3

Kousser 2006, 229-232. Espérandieu, VII.5887. 84

Form and Iconography – Choices and Development Fig. 2.60). Romulus, as the personification of virtus, is found on numerous victory monuments. On an arch, then, one might have expected a scene of Romulus carrying a trophy, a victory motif known at least since the Augustan period, but instead his birth is depicted.6 Because the different ways of depicting both Romulus and the Dioscuri had different messages, one related to virtus and one related to felicitas temporum, we can perhaps see choice at work, and in both instances, the theme of felicitas temporum prevailed.

both he and Minerva could be personifications of virtus. Neither deity is shown, however, performing overt acts of virtus. These two can be found together on numerous Jupiter columns throughout the northwest provinces, and the design of these London panels emulates those of the Jupiter columns.12 Jupiter columns may also have celebrated virtus on a divine level because many of them were topped by statues of Jupiter trampling an anguiform foe.13 Hercules and Minerva may have appeared on the arch at London because of their associations with cosmic virtus, but its function as the entrance to a sacred area may provide enough justification for the presence of these divine figures.

Iconography signifying felicitas temporum also decorated the interior of the middle arched entranceway at Reims. A seated male holding a cornucopia surrounded by four putti constitutes the central vignette (Cat. XII.1a; Fig. 2.62). The figure almost certainly represents Annus, or even Aion, the Roman god of the saeculum.7 Aion is frequently depicted as a nude youth, often accompanied by putti representing the Four Seasons, as for example, on an early third-century mosaic from Sassoferrato now in Munich (Fig. 4.5).8 A coin of Commodus showing four boys as the Four Seasons and the legend TEMPORVM FELICITAS confirms the connection.9 Moreover, at Reims, a calendar of events from the twelve months of the year (although only June through December survive) surrounds this panel, and these agricultural vignettes undoubtedly suggest felicitas temporum. Elsewhere in both coins and mosaics, including the mosaic from Sassoferrato, Aion stands with, or even inside, a circle or ellipse representing the passing of the year, much as he does at Reims. Thus, the iconography decorating the central passageway in conjunction with the rest makes a clear pronouncement of arch’s theme, which is that proper and regular progression of the year, guaranteed by the personal felicitas of the emperor, ensured felicitas temporum.

While the iconography celebrating virtus at a cosmic level is insubstantial, that celebrating felicitas temporum is unmistakable. The spandrel roundel on the London arch, decorated with a composite season or Abundantia (Cat. XIV.4c), clearly suggests the idea of felicitas temporum.14 Moreover, as at Reims, the London arch also uses a calendar to signify the theme as its frieze depicts the gods of the days of the week (Cat. XIV.4d; Figs. 2.67-2.68).15 This weekly calendar in conjunction with a figure who exudes the concept of growth and plenty makes the message of felicitas temporum evident. The arch at Mainz also celebrated felicitas temporum and, as at Reims and London, used a calendar to do so: on the face of the archivolt were the signs of the zodiac (Cat. XV.2d; Fig. 2.69). The zodiacal calendar as an indication of the passage of time plainly enough exemplifies the theme, but the motif has associations with others that strengthen the connection with felicitas temporum. For example, in the mosaic from Sassoferrato, the wheel Aion stands in is decorated with the signs of zodiac, 16 and in a second mosaic of the same theme from Ostia, the Four Seasons progress through the zodiacal wheel, thereby suggesting the passage of time.17 On coinage beginning in the Hadrianic period, images of Aion holding the zodiacal wheel through which personifications of the Four Seasons walk, occur with the legend SAECVLVM AVREVM,18 and on medallions of Commodus, the same iconography appears with the legend TEMP FELICITAS. 19 In addition, on a medallion of Severus Alexander, the emperor may even assume the role of Aion by holding the wheel himself. Thus, the zodiacal wheel clearly symbolized felicitas temporum.

Changing Priorities: Without Virtus, Only Felicitas Temporum Remains The latest two of the core eight arches, those at London and Mainz, have no military iconography. Perhaps the choice of entirely non-martial iconography was related to the function of these arches: the arch at London may have marked the entrance to a sacred precinct,10 while the Mainz arch served as an entrance to a porticus.11 Nonetheless, the iconography of each follows the changing trends seen at Besançon and Reims, particularly as regards the use of divinities and representations of felicitas temporum.

Further supporting the expression of felicitas temporum made by the calendar of the zodiac are the two putti, who almost certainly represent seasons (Cat. XV.2f; Fig. 2.69). Their placement reinforces the notion: they progress towards the opening of the arch as if to pass

The two surviving figural panels from the arch at London contain images of Hercules and Minerva (Cat. XIV.2b and XIV.4a; Fig. 2.65). The importance of Hercules in conjunction with the emperor, specifically in late second and early third centuries, has already been discussed, and

12

Bauchhenss and Noelke 1981, 47-55. Bauchhenss and Noelke 1981, 5-46; Green 2004. 14 Schofield and Dyson 1980, 21; Blagg 1980b, 136. 15 Blagg 1980b, 155. 16 Musso 2000, 376. 17 LIMC V.72. 18 Musso 2000, 378. 19 LIMC V.75b. 13

6

Zanker 1988, 203. Zosimus II.1.1. See also Musso 2000, 375-376. 8 Musso 2000, 376. 9 RIC III 414, no. 418. 10 Blagg 1980b, 178-179. 11 CIL XIII.6705. 7

85

S.L. McGowen through, much the same way as the Seasons in the mosaics and on the coins pass through the wheel of time. Moreover, the individuals walking through the arch served almost the same function. As a person walked through, s/he too passed through the wheel of time and ensured perpetual growth and abundance. In this way, the arch at Mainz shows how design can effectively reinforce iconography.

of divine metaphors for the emperor. In addition, these arches increasingly employed iconography related to felicitas temporum. Finally, the latest arches had no references to military victory, perhaps because of their semi-sacred functions, but the iconography continued the trend of celebrating felicitas temporum, in both instances, through the use of calendar motifs. Except in the cases of Mainz and Orange, the dedicatory inscriptions have not survived. At Orange, although the inscription does not name the patron, there is no indication therein that the funds came from Rome. At Mainz, Dativius Victor, a leading citizen at Nida, funded the construction. As discussed in chapter three, it seems that local elites funded most, if not all, of the other arches. Although the iconography on the arches does correspond to changing views of and about the emperor, views that undoubtedly originated from the center, it was, nevertheless, chosen by the patrons, artists, or both.

The arch at Mainz celebrates not just felicitas temporum but also, through his associations with Jupiter, the emperor. We have already discussed the arch of Trajan at Benevento, where Jupiter gives his thunderbolt to Trajan, granting him a divine mandate and the power to ensure prosperity. In the Antonine period, “the intimate association of emperor and Jupiter…was closely linked to the conception of an ecumenical golden age arising out of the imperial order.”20 The arch’s inscription illustrates the connection between the god and the emperor because the arch and portico were dedicated to Jupiter Optimus Maximus Conservator (I O M CONSERVATORI) in honor of the imperial house (IN H D D).21 Therefore, it seems that the arch at Mainz celebrates the emperor as Jupiter’s representative on earth, as the one who ensured the continuation of peace and prosperity.

Perhaps the best arch in the region to support this assertion is the earliest, the arch of Cottius at Susa. It was constructed only shortly before the arches at Carpentras and Glanum, but references to military victory are all but absent. It has no enchained captives, no trophies, no heaps of weapons, no single combats, no clashes of cavalry or infantry. Instead, the north and south depict sacrifice, specifically Roman sacrifice, and thereby, pietas (Cat. I.1a and I.3a; Figs. 2.2-2.5). The east and west friezes show civic ceremonies, specifically Roman ones, as indicated by the togas and the curule stools (Cat. 1.4; Figs. 2.6-2.7).23

In addition to the cosmic representations of felicitas temporum, the arch at Mainz is also decorated with scenes from the human realm. In the space between the archivolt and the inscription are two scenes of sacrifice suggesting pietas. Although it had become common to designate the reign of each emperor as a felicitas temporum, the reality must have varied from time to time as well as from place to place. Although the emperor had a divine mandate to bring about peace and prosperity on earth, such peace and prosperity was not guaranteed, and since the arch was dedicated to Jupiter Conservator, some crisis may have occurred at Mainz or at Dativius Victor’s home city of Nida. Felicitas temporum was only granted in exchange for pietas, which required sacrifices such as those depicted on the arch, forever immortalized in stone.22 Likewise the arch itself, since it was dedicated to Jupiter, was also a sign of the pietas of Dativius Victor, his family, and the inhabitants of Mainz, and thus provided further hope for the granting and preservation of felicitas temporum. Ending at the Beginning: Iconography is a Choice From a close examination of the iconography of these seven arches, certain trends become evident. The iconography on the early arches focused heavily on military victory, virtus, and personal felicitas. The ideas of felicitas temporum and the cosmic nature of victory appeared but were relatively limited. In the second century, the divine role of the emperor increased, and the iconography on the arches mirrored this trend. Military victory and virtus remained important, but they were represented and celebrated increasingly through the use

The inscription makes clear that Cottius funded the construction of the arch in honor of Augustus (Cat. 1.1b and 1.3b); that it celebrates the emperor is not in doubt. 24 The way the emperor is celebrated is, however, entirely different from the rest of the arches of this period, suggesting that iconography was indeed a choice. Cottius and the Alpine tribes were ostensibly the losers in this campaign, Cottius losing his kingship and the rest losing their freedom. This victory arch was, however, constructed in their territory, and it was paid for by the leading member of the local elite. As such, the use of enchained captives to decorate the arch might not have been appropriate or politically sensible for Cottius. Segusio had only achieved status as a Roman colony at this time, and it had no military settlers. The other early arch from a non-colonial town was constructed at Glanum; but by the time it was built, the town had been under Roman rule for at least fifty years, and so such iconography was perhaps more acceptable. From Pliny and the inscription on the Tropaeum Augusti at La Turbie, it seems that not all the members of the Alpine tribes donned the toga as eagerly as Cottius; indeed, some of the tribes mentioned on the arch at Susa rebelled against the Romans.25 Augustus put down the revolt, solidifying Roman control of the area, and to

20

23

21

24

Fears 1981a, 817. CIL XIII.6705. 22 Musso 2000, 814-815.

Pauli 1984, 31. CIL V.7231. 25 Pliny, Historia Naturalis III.20. 86

Form and Iconography – Choices and Development commemorate his victory, the Tropaeum Augusti was constructed. This monument, with its trophies and captives, clearly belongs with the other early arches. The Tropaeum Augusti, however, celebrated a military victory, and it was funded by the Senate and Roman people, namely, the victors. Thus, the iconography on the arch at Susa indicates that while iconography on large stone arches did, in general, follow trends in celebrating the emperor, their patrons could choose how to honor him. In this chapter, we have examined two aspects of Roman sculpture from the northwest provinces, design and iconography. When considered together, certain patterns become apparent. The earliest monuments, including the arches at Susa, Glanum, Carpentras, even Orange, employed designs that were easy to access visually. They also used straightforward iconography, limiting use of mythology and allusions. Of the four, the arch at Orange had the most complicated design and iconography, but the repetition of the chosen motifs served to simplify the design, and the mythological/allegorical iconography was limited. Orange was, however, a military colony full of veterans, who were no doubt familiar with the use of such visual products. By the second century, more complicated designs and more complicated iconographic programs occurred, for example, at the sanctuaries of Champlieu and Genainville from the early and middle of the second century and on the arches at Besançon and Reims from the late second century. The sanctuary of Sulis Minerva at Bath, constructed in the last quarter of the first century and not long after the incorporation of the area into the Empire, contradicts the pattern. Even in the first phase, it had an intricately designed iconographic program, with not only mythological iconography, as one would expect at a religious site, but also iconography allegorical of victory. The iconographic program was not fully implemented until the late second or early third century. The allegorical nature of the first-century pediment is somewhat harder to explain since the person who chose the decorative scheme is unknown. It demonstrates, however, an in-depth understanding of mythological and allegorical iconography on the part of the pediment’s designer. It remains to be seen whether these features and trends appear in sculpture from other contexts, namely funerary contexts, in the northwest provinces and in the same types of sculpture from elsewhere in the Empire. These topics provide the subject of the next two chapters.

87

88

Comparing Trends – Funerary Monuments from the Northwest Provinces

Chapter 5: Comparing Trends – Funerary Monuments from the Northwest Provinces In the northwest provinces, as elsewhere in the Empire, sculpted stone monuments were used not just to honor the gods or celebrate civic identities. They also commemorated individuals in death. This chapter aims to put the themes discussed in previous chapters into a wider context by examining briefly the third large body of sculpted stone monuments from the northwest Roman provinces, funerary monuments. It does not offer a comprehensive treatment of funerary monuments or the particular concerns they generate, but instead, examines their links to the sacred and civic sculpted monuments as a means of contextualizing this material. Therefore the choice of funerary monuments is selective.

known about their patrons. Some large and elaborate funerary monuments, such as the Mausoleum of the Julii at Glanum or the memorial of the procurator Gaius Julius Alpinus Classicianus at London, were erected by members of the upper echelons of both civilian and military society, but the majority were small monuments, predominantly in the form of stelai, and dedicated by members of lower social strata.6 At Nîmes, of the 968 surviving epitaphs only forty-nine, or five percent, were erected by senators, equites, and magistrates combined.7 It was the freed class who energetically took up the practice. Similarly, the so-called rider reliefs, prevalent in the Germanic provinces but also known in Britain and other parts of the region of study, are some of the most ornately sculpted and therefore likely some of the costliest of the stelai; but they were almost exclusively set up by or for members of the auxiliary cavalry units rather than the more elite legionary ones.8 Likewise, in Britain, few of the surviving military grave-stelai commemorate officers.9 On the whole, it seems that the groups most inclined to use grave markers adorned with figural decoration were, although wealthy, of an inferior status in life and perhaps wished to advance their status in death, particularly the successful attainment of Roman citizenship.10 Therefore, when citizenship was more freely granted, the desire to advertise it seems to have waned, contributing to the decline in such monuments.11 At the same time, such individuals seem to have found new ways to advertise their wealth and status by setting up the types of monuments at the core of this investigation, sacred and civic ones.

General Regional Trends and Patterns of Patronage As with stone sculpture used for religious and civic purposes, prior to the Roman conquest of the continental provinces and then of Britain, stone sculpture as a means of memorializing the dead was almost unknown. Also, like civic and religious sculpture, the use of sculpted funerary monuments began in the southern part of the region, and in fact, remained largely a phenomenon of Gallia Narbonensis and the military areas of the Germanic provinces until the late first century A.D. 1 During the first century, the practice began to disseminate gradually, occurring at the administrative centers but also, and perhaps more importantly, at the main military installations.2 In Britain, stone funerary monuments are found almost exclusively at sites with military connections, either legionary bases, smaller auxiliary forts, or veteran colonies, and nearly a third of the civitas centers have produced no stone funerary monuments at all.3 Thus, the distribution of funerary monuments in Britain stands in contrast to that of both the sacred and civic stone monuments. In the continental provinces, by the second century, the use of sculpted funerary monuments became generally widespread, with particular concentrations in the central and northeastern parts of the region. At the same time their use declined in the areas where it had begun: the south and particularly the military areas, such as the legionary base at Mainz.4 At Mainz, however, this decline occurred alongside a dramatic increase in the use of inscribed votive altars, as dedicatory emphasis had shifted.5

Style, Form, and Iconography Like sacred and civic monuments, and perhaps even more explicitly, funerary monuments were intended to catch the attention of passers-by who would then perpetuate the memory of the deceased simply by attending to the monument. Thus, it seems relevant to examine the design of these monuments using the same graphic design principles discussed in chapter four. A small number of large so-called tower tombs, including the Mausoleum of the Julii at Glanum or the Monument of the Secundinii from Igel, with their towering height and elaborate decorative programs, have been found in the area of the northwest provinces. In fact, the design scheme of the Monument of the Secundinii, with its multiple panels of decoration on the steps, the main façades, the frieze, the upper attic storey, and the pediment, is very much like that of the arch at Besançon (Cat. XI.1-4) and the sanctuaries of Champlieu (Cat. VI.1-7) and Genainville

The decline of sculpted funerary monuments is also attributable, in part, to their patrons. Because more funerary inscriptions (from both sculpted and unsculpted monuments) survive than sacred or civic ones, more is 1

Nerzic 1989, 207-210; Woolf 1998, 102; Carroll 2001, 58 and 90. 2 Woolf 1998, 102. 3 Anderson 1984, 20; Hope 1997, 247; Mattingly 2006, 205-206 and 305. 4 Hope 1997, 249-250; Woolf 1998, 102-103; Hope 2000, 180; Hope 2001, 48 and 105; Bishop and Coulston 2006, 10. 5 Hope 2001, 93.

6

Hope 2001, 25-26 and 34. On the monument of Classicianus, see Henig 1995, 30; Grasby and Tomlin 2002, 43-75. 7 Hope 2000, 97. 8 Hope 2000, 165, 169, and 171. 9 Hope 1997, 255-256. 10 Meyer 1990, 74-96. 11 Hope 2000, 180-181. 89

S.L. McGowen funerary monument in the northwest province was the sculpted stele, which relied almost entirely on the direct approach. Despite the varying identities of the deceased, the design of funerary stelai was largely uniform. Most consisted of a single figure or occasionally a small group of figures, who sat or stood holding definitive attributes or participating in a characteristic activity.13 In this way, the design of funerary stelai had much in common with small-scale sacred monuments such as those from Deneuvre (Cat. IX.2-57; Figs. 2.44-2.46 and 3.3-3.5) and Nettersheim (Cat. XIII.2-17; Figs. 2.63-2.64), and the prime examples of its employment were soldier tombstones.14 Most show only a frontal soldier, in full or from the waist up, wearing the complete array of military armor, often adorned with military medals, and holding weaponry, such as swords or spears, or other defining accoutrements, such as standards (Fig. 5.2).15 The rider

Figure 5.1. Cast from Trier of the Monument of the Secundinii from Igel. (Image: ©J. Wallace)

(Cat VIII.1-7), even down to the superimposed figural panels on the pilasters (Fig. 5.1).12 Such a design, with its numerous, elaborately sculpted façades, would no doubt have said much about the wealth of its patrons. Moreover, it may have had this design scheme for the same reasons as sacred and civic monuments: to create an array which would overwhelm the visual field of the viewer and thereby attract attention. Such large-scale monuments were, no doubt, impressive, and it would have been difficult not to notice them. They were, however, uncommon, and with the possible exception of the memorial of Classicianus, no such monuments have been found in Britannia. By far the most common type of Figure 5.2. Grave-stele of M. Favonius Facilis from Colchester. (Image: ©Colchester Museum)

12

Espérandieu, VI.5268. On the Monument of the Secundinii at Igel, see Zahn 1968a; Zahn 1968b, 227234; von Elbe 1977, 155-160; Nerzic 1989, 289-290; Kleiner 1992, 345-349; Beal 1999, 95-105; Scheid 2003, 113-140.

13

Henig 1995, 46. On soldier stelai, see Anderson 1984; Tufi 1988. 15 Anderson 1984, 16-17. 14

90

Comparing Trends – Funerary Monuments from the Northwest Provinces tombstones were perhaps the most complicated in design, and yet most showed only the mounted rider charging down a defeated foe with a groom occasionally appearing in the background.16 The direct design was not, however, limited to soldier tombstones. It was also used on gravestelai of workmen, such as the grave-stele of a craftsman from Bordeaux (Burdigala) (Fig. 5.3),17 as well as women, including that of a woman with a mirror from Châtillon (Fig. 5.4).18 Because most stelai were erected in cemeteries on roads outside city and town centers, most viewers were in transit and perhaps not inclined to stop and look. 19 Therefore, the direct design would have been particularly effective in achieving maximum visibility and readability upon even a brief glance. In some instances, the image overflows the boundaries of the niche, and it seems that the aim of the design was to place the deceased within the world of the viewer, the world of the living. On the stele of Gaius Largennius, for example, his so-called apron hangs not only out of the niche but even breaks into the frame of the epitaph (Fig. 5.5).20 This technique is also used on some funerary reliefs of workmen such as the grave-stele from Bordeaux (Burdigala) on which the craftsman’s hammer overruns the frame (Fig. 5.3), or that of the sculptor Amabalis, who actually reaches out of his frame to carve the capital of his own niche (Fig. 3.3). By increasing the immediacy of the deceased, such devices may have increased the impact of the reliefs, thereby attracting even more attention.

Figure 5.3. Grave-stele of a craftsman from Bordeaux. (Image: ©D. Cingal)

In addition to the direct approach, a second design feature that funerary stelai share particularly with religious monuments is repetition. As was suggested to explain the similarity of the monuments dedicated to the Matronae Aufaniae by the beneficiarii consularis (Cat. XIII.2-3, 57, 9-10), foreign soldiers perhaps wishing to integrate into their local community, such repeated designs and motifs were particularly effective in visually expressing group identity. This is equally true, if not more so, for funerary monuments, and the military tombstones support the notion particularly well.21 Especially in the early empire, when soldier tombstones were reaching their peak, soldiers were foreigners residing in a foreign land, and some may have wished to set themselves apart from their barbarian neighbor. In this way, the funerary monuments may had almost the opposite effect from the altars from Nettersheim.

16

Espérandieu VIII.6435. Anderson 1984, 17-18 and 33. The standard work on rider reliefs is Schleiermacher 1984. 17 Espérandieu, II.1117. 18 Espérandieu, IV.3407. See also Nerzic 1989, 232; Henig 1995, 65. 19 Goodman 2007, 150-151. 20 Espérandieu, VII.5495. On this feature of military armor, see Bishop and Coulston 2006, 100-110. 21 Mattingly 2006, 208.

Figure 5.4. Grave-stele of a woman from Châtillon. (Image: ©Bases NEsp et RBR)

91

S.L. McGowen Although the designs and even the iconography of funerary stelai could be repetitive, as for sacred and civic monuments, the style of funerary stelai varied widely, even for the same motifs. For example, the first-century stele of Marcus Favonius Facilis23 from Colchester (Camulodunum) is well executed, having realistic body proportions and even a contrapposto stance (Fig. 5.2), while the early third-century stele of the centurion Marcus Aurelius Nepos24 from Chester (Diva) is less so (Fig. 5.6). The same comparison holds for craftsmen reliefs. The grave-stele of the sculptor Amabilis from Bordeaux is naturalistic while that of Sabinianus25 from Autun is highly schematic. These few examples of many strongly suggest that no association exists between type of relief, and thereby group identity of the deceased, and style. Because of the survival rate of inscriptions on funerary monuments, more is known about the ethnic identity of their patrons, and it seems clear that no association exists between sculptural execution and ethnicity. For example, on the so-called “Rhenish couple” funerary stele from Mainz dated to the Claudian period by the female hairstyle, the figures wear traditional Gallic garments (Fig. 5.7).26 Yet, the sculpting of the relief is high quality, the body proportions are naturalistic, and the drapery is fully plastic. Conversely, the more stylistically-typical grave-stele from Chester (Diva) dated to the third century and dedicated to Caecilius Avitus, an optio of Legio XX Valeria Victrix, is highly schematic – the limbs are Figure 5.5. Grave-stele of Gaius Largennius from Strasbourg. (Image: ©Bases NEsp et RBR)

Furthermore, literary, epigraphic, and artistic sources reveal that in the Roman army “attachment between soldiers of the same rank and specialty across units” was stronger than bonding between individual soldiers within the same unit.22 The military tombstones from the northwest provinces seem to support the concept. For example, the rider tombstones were almost exclusively erected by or on behalf of members of auxiliary cavalry units. In choice of design and iconography, they were proudly announcing their membership in this division of the army and associating themselves not just with the members of their unit but with all members of the auxiliary cavalry. Legionary cavalry members rejected the design, reinforcing the idea that it was associated with the particular group identity of auxiliary cavalrymen. Repetition was not limited to the rider or soldier reliefs but also occurred on grave-stelai of craftsmen, married couples, women, etc., for almost certainly the same reason: desire to express the identity of the deceased. What makes repetition even more effective is that, because the same motifs appeared both within the same cemeteries and in others throughout the region, the motifs would have been instantaneously recognizable.

Figure 5.6 Grave-stele of M. Aurelius Nepos. (Image: ©Grosvenor Museum, Chester) 23

CSIR I.8.47; Anderson 1984, 44, plate 41. CSIR I.9.33. 25 Espérandieu, III.1878. 26 Espérandieu, XI.7581=CSIR II.6.1. See also Selzer, et al. 1988, 172-173; Hope 2001, 83. 24

22

Lendon 2005, 255. 92

Comparing Trends – Funerary Monuments from the Northwest Provinces excessively thick, and the garment is overly heavy – but Caecilius Avitus had an important position in the legion as second in command to a centurion (Fig. 5.8).27 These two monuments were, however, made at different times and in different places. They were even made of different material, with the monument of the Rhenish couple made of limestone and the Chester stele made of sandstone. Certainly such factors could easily account for any stylistic discrepancies. Thus, it is difficult if not impossible to sustain the notion that a schematic sculptural style was somehow tied to ethnic identity and desire to resist Roman culture. In sum, it seems that for funerary sculpture, as for sacred and civic sculpture, style was not the overriding concern for most patrons. What is more, although the high-quality sculptures such as the monument for the Rhenish couple or the famous tombstone of Marcus Favonius Facilis receive the most attention in the scholarship, they are exceptions. Those who wanted and could afford highquality, naturalistic sculpture got it. The rest, quite contentedly it seems, used what was available to create monuments which were meant, after all, to celebrate their lives and accomplishments or those of their comrades or families.

Figure 5.7. Grave-stele of the so-called Rhenish couple. (Image: ©LVR-Landesmuseum Mainz)

Figure 5.9. Grave-stele of a shoemaker from Reims. (Image: ©S. McGowen)

27

Figure 5.8. Grave-stele of Caecilius Avitus. (Image: ©Grosvenor Museum, Chester)

CSIR I.9.32. Anderson 1984, 45, plate 43; Henig 1995, 46. 93

S.L. McGowen

Figure 5.10. Grave-stele of the imaginifer Genialis from Mainz. (Image: ©LVR-Landesmuseum Mainz)

Figure 5.11. Grave-stele of Gnaeus Musius from Mainz. (Image: ©LVR-Landesmuseum Mainz)

If style was not the primary concern for the patrons of funerary stelai, then what was? The main goal of funerary monuments was to honor the deceased, and in conjunction with the often detailed epitaphs, the way this was done in most cases was through iconography. Mythological scenes are found on some funerary monuments from the northwest provinces, appearing for example on funerary mausoleum of Poblicius from Cologne28 and Monument of the Secundinii at Igel. 29 Mythological scenes also seem to have inspired the panels on the Mausoleum of the Julii from Glanum. 30

Most, however, including the Monument of the Secundinii, were adorned with quotidian scenes. 31

28

1980, 105-126; Gros 1986a, 65-80; Nerzic 1989, 32-35; Kleiner 1992, 112-113; Bromwich 1996, 217-219; Roth Congès 2004, 21-25. 31 Nerzic 1989, 244. 32 Espérandieu, V.3685.

Craftsmen and laborers appear frequently on funerary stelai from the northwest provinces. On many, the craftsman actually performs his craft. For example on a grave-stele from Reims, a shoemakers works the sole of a shoe (Fig. 5.9).32 In other instances, such as the gravestele of the artisan from Bordeaux or that of Sabinianus, the figures simply hold the tools of their trade. Such identifications almost never appear in epitaphs, some of

Nerzic 1989, 218. See also Kähler 1970, 14-29; Precht 1975. 29 Espérandieu, VI.5268. 30 Espérandieu, I.114. The standard work on the Mausoleum of the Julii is Rolland 1969. See also Kleiner 94

Comparing Trends – Funerary Monuments from the Northwest Provinces which are otherwise very detailed, and so the image actually adds information about the deceased to the funerary monument, making it a crucial part of the individual’s commemoration.33 As with many gravestelai of workers and craftsmen from Italy, often the execution of the sculptural representations of the craftsmen is poor, giving the relief a very schematic appearance, but in a way similar to the frieze from the arch at Susa, the schematism increased the readability of the images. Iconographic details were also of prime importance on military tombstones, with Anderson even referring to the rider tombstones as “executed with a conspicuous regard to detail.”34 As with the grave-stelai of craftsmen, the details establish their role, in this instance, their role in the military. Soldiers often held implements advertising their positions. On a stele from Mainz, Genialis proudly displays the imago, announcing his role as imaginifer, which is also mentioned in the inscription (Fig. 5.10).35 Specific to the military tombstones, however, the details consistently emphasized the notion of virtus, the core value of the Roman army. Certainly the successful dispatching of a barbarian foe advertised virtus. The primary way for infantrymen to display their virtus was through military medals.36 Thus, the infantry soldier could advertise his virtus by giving extra importance to the military medals he had earned. On some of these grave markers, such as that of Gnaeus Musius from Mainz (Fig. 5.11), the uniform and the all-important medals are extremely detailed and well executed, but the anatomy is not.37 Preference was given to the iconographic details that defined the individual, in this case the valor of the soldier Gnaeus Musius.

Figure 5.12. Relief from the Mausoleum of the Julii identified as the battle between Hector and Patroclus. (Image: ©D. Pipet)

The Monument of the Secundinii is also decorated with clearly identifiable mythological scenes as well as quotidian ones.39 Many of the daily-life scenes illustrate different elements in the production and selling of cloth, the means by which the family presumably made their money, the money to fund the construction of the grand funerary monument itself.40 The mythological scenes include elements from the life of the heroes Achilles and Perseus as well as the apotheosis of Hercules. As was suggested for large stone arches, it is possible that such combinations were aimed at heroizing the deeds of mortals, elevating them to the level of the divine. Such a program may also have expressed the notion that such labors in this life could lead to happiness in the next. Iconographic programs were not limited to large-scale funerary monuments, appearing even on the smaller stelai. One such example is the funerary monument of the sailor Blussus from Mainz (Fig. 5.13).41 On one face sit Blussus and his wife dressed in their finest garments; he holds a money bag, she is elegantly bedecked with jewelry, and a slave appears in the background between them. All of the iconographic elements proclaim the wealth of the couple. On the opposite side appears a boat, and together with inscriptions on both faces identifying Blussus as a nauta, they declare how he earned the money to fill the money bag and to purchase the garments, jewelry, and even the stele. Thus, the image on one side of the monument reinforces that of the other, and they work together with the inscription, in a manner similar to the arch at Susa, to emphasize the monument’s message.

How does the use of iconography on these funerary stelai compare with trends seen on the sacred and civic monuments? As for many of the core religious monuments, where multiples images appeared on funerary monuments, they were parts of a carefully orchestrated iconographic program. This certainly seems to be the case for two of the large-scale funerary monuments from the northwest provinces, the Mausoleum of the Julii at Glanum and the Monument of the Secundinii from Igel. Although an in-depth discussion of the individual reliefs from the Mausoleum of the Julii is not possible here, the four sculpted panels depict scenes of battle, some of which are reminiscent of wellknown mythological scenes (Fig. 5.12).38 Each scene, however, clearly celebrates military victory, valor in battle, and even heroic death; it was, after all, a funerary monument. The Mausoleum also stood next to the large stone arch of Glanum (Cat. III), with each reinforcing the message of military valor of the other.

A second example of small-scale iconographic programs on funerary monuments is illustrated by the so-called totenmahl reliefs. Like the rider tombstones they were set up primarily by and for members of the auxiliary, second

33

Hope 2001, 57. Anderson 1984, 18. See also Bishop and Coulston 2006, 9-10. 35 CSIR II.5.9. 36 Lendon 2005, 247-248. 37 CSIR II.5.1. 38 Infra no. 31. 34

39

Infra no. 12. Drinkwater 2001, 297-308. 41 Espérandieu, XI.7815=CSIR II.6.2. See also Selzer, et al. 1988, 95-98 and 168-169; Nerzic 1989, 129-224; Boppert 1992-1993, 345-378; Hope 2001, 42. 40

95

S.L. McGowen

Figure 5.13. Grave-stele of Blussus and his wife from Mainz. (Image: ©LVR-Landesmuseum Mainz)

Figure 5.14. Detail of the grave-stele of Silius from Mainz. (Image: ©LVR-Landesmuseum Mainz)

class members of the military.42 On these stelai, however, they present themselves at elegant banquets of the sort enjoyed by the upper echelons of society. In addition, these scenes were often found together with secondary ones, most often depicting a horse and groom, as on the tombstone of Silius, an auxiliary cavalryman of Ala Picentiana, from Mainz (Fig. 5.14).43 The upper part of the stele shows Silius in the typical totenmahl fashion, reclining on a sofa in front of a three-legged table with his servant, and below the inscription outlining his membership in the auxiliary cavalry unit, appears an elaborately adorned horse and a groom. The relief advertises both the civilian and military status of Silius. Thus, the monuments of Blussus and Silius, just two examples of many, show that those who were selecting the iconography to celebrate either themselves or their relatives in death were doing so carefully.

Monument of the Secundinii shows that the barrage approach was also used. The value of the direct approach, along with the usefulness of the repetitive nature of such monuments, as a design scheme may have outweighed desire for a more elaborate design. The funerary monuments from the northwest provinces do seem to support the conclusions concerning style discussed in relation to the core sacred and civic monuments. Certainly much of the sculpture from the northwest provinces, civic, religious, and funerary, was highly schematic, but such schematism was more the product of the economic realities and the ability of sculptors than any sort of lingering Celtic artistic inclinations. In regard to iconography, funerary monuments do show the same sort of careful planning in iconographic choices illustrated by the religious monuments. The iconographic choices emphasized the status of the deceased, and where present, both on the large and small scale, the iconographic programs reinforced this identity.

In sum, although sculpted funerary monuments have a different rate of distribution and a different geographical spread when compared to sacred and civic stone monuments, they do share some features of design, style, and choice of iconography. The direct approach seems to be the overwhelming design choice, though the

Apart from the use of mythology on the Mausoleum of the Secundinii, which is an exceptional monument in totality, the choice of quotidian scenes for funerary monuments remained relatively consistent, and the value of using repeated designs has already been discussed here. A decline in the number of military tombstones in comparison with civic and familial ones, is apparent, but this is certainly due to the change in patronage behind

42

Anderson 1984, 19; Hope 2001, 42. On this type of relief, see Noelke 1974, 545-560. 43 CSIR II.5.52; Selzer, et al. 1988, 74. 96

Comparing Trends – Funerary Monuments from the Northwest Provinces such monuments rather than a shift of mentality as seen on the large stone arches. Interestingly, however, in the second and third centuries when the rider reliefs were declining on funerary monuments, at the same time, use of an image of Jupiter riding down a monstrous foe increased on certain religious monuments: the large socalled Jupiter columns.44 Finally, both large and small funerary monuments constituted one part of the overall visual environment in which the civic and sacred stone images also existed. They were all part of the visual world in which the inhabitants of the region lived, worked, worshipped, and died. What is more, the images from all three groups would have undoubtedly influenced how a viewer experienced them. The decorative schemes of the Mausoleum of the Julii and the arch at Glanum, standing side by side, as they did, reinforced each other. This must also have been true for places like Orange where cemeteries are known to have been nearby. Monuments separated by distance could also reinforce each other in a similar way. Matronae monuments, such as those from the sanctuary of the Matronae Aufaniae near Nettersheim, were very similar both in design and iconography to grave-stelai depicting draped, seated women. It seems this was considered the appropriate way to represent maternal figures of a certain age and status, but the similarity would also have added meaning to both types of monuments. In a way, each shaped the meaning of the other. The sculptural depictions of mortal women, such as the wife of Blussus or the Rhenish woman, visually expressed their identities as matronae, with all the connotations the word entails. Similarly, it was the ideal role of these mortal women within the fabric of society that gave goddesses like the Matronae Aufaniae their identity within the Roman pantheon. The same can also be said of individual deities. The appearance of Hercules on all three types of stone monuments does not simply attest the popularity of the hero in the northwest provinces; the importance lies in how the hero is used. On the arch at Besançon and on the Igel monument he appears as the half-mortal who cheated death and became a god because of his labors on earth, which was undoubtedly meant to reflect upon the persons to whom these monuments were dedicated. Likewise, such a meaning reinforced and was reinforced by his capacity as powerful god, who could and did answer prayers, as he was worshipped at the sanctuary at Deneuvre. Thus, for stone sacred, civic, and funerary monuments, although their precise meaning was defined by their functions and contexts, they could also work together, establishing and reinforcing the message of one another.

44

On Jupiter columns, see Bauchhenss 1984; Green 2004, 59-62. 97

98

A Wider Picture – Sacred and Civic Stone Monuments of North Africa and the East

Chapter 6: A Wider Picture – Sacred and Civic Stone Monuments of North Africa and the East In regard to stone sculpture, the Northwest to some extent lagged behind many other regions of the Empire in many ways, including both quantity and quality. Nevertheless, the trends outlined in previous chapters were very much a part of sculptural activity occurring elsewhere in the Empire. This penultimate chapter aims to place the sacred and civic sculpture from the northwest provinces in context of the wider Empire by examining two other multi-provincial regions, one in the East and one in the West: the Greek and Anatolian provinces and those of North Africa west of the Great Syrtis. These regions have been selected primarily because of their distance from each other and from the northwest provinces. In this way, they provide entirely different sets of historical and geographical circumstances in which sacred and civic stone sculpture functioned and, thus, provide good comparisons with and contrasts for the northwest provinces. As with funerary monuments, this chapter does not provide a comprehensive treatment of sculpture in either the East or North Africa. Instead, a select sample of monuments is used to highlight similarities and differences with the northwest provinces. The chapter begins with brief examination of the cultural, historical, and geographical histories of the Eastern and North African provinces, addressing, if only in a limited way, how these elements influenced the use and decoration of sacred and civic stone sculpture. The chapter then examines monuments in reference to the main themes of this work: style, design, and iconography.

Such an increase in urban centers in the East and North Africa also reflected a marked difference in wealth between these regions and the northwest provinces. Much of North Africa was wealthy primarily from a thriving trade in agricultural products, particularly grain and olive oil.6 Many in the East prospered because of the region’s fertility and favorable climate and because of the established trade routes between the major consumer centers at Rome and the Middle East.7 The ancient world provided few opportunities for investment of such wealth, and one potential outlet for it was the public munificence, including the construction of sacred and civic monuments.8 The North African and eastern provinces also had, in addition to indigenous cultural traditions, numerous outside cultural influences, some with long-established sculptural traditions. The cultural traditions of the eastern provinces included both Greek and the Near East, and the sculptural tradition of this region is well-documented and needs no further discussion here. In the North African provinces, primarily Phoenician but also Greek and Egyptian constituted the main outside influences, and yet with the exception of stelai, pre-Roman stone sculpture was limited.9 The sanctuary at Slonta does, however, attest an indigenous sculptural tradition.10 Neither region erected large stone arches, but in the East, other types of monuments were used to celebrate victory. Friezes of armor and weapons, for example on the balustrade from the sanctuary of Athena at Pergamon (decorative schemes that greatly impacted the iconography of large stone in the northwest provinces) were prevalent during the Hellenistic period.11

General Regional Trends Certain trends of both regions, ones that particularly set them apart from the northwest provinces, undoubtedly had an impact on the use and appearance of stone sculpture. First, both had markedly greater levels of urbanization than the western provinces. 1 Both had large and important urban centers, such as Athens, Sparta, Ephesus, Pergamon, and Smyrna in the East2 and Carthage in North Africa,3 that were thriving centers of business and culture long before their respective incorporations into the Empire. Furthermore, during the Roman period, whereas Gaul had some sixty urban centers, the East had at least 5004 and North Africa some 600, including the home of an emperor.5 Urban centers facilitated the spread of stone sculpture for the following reasons: many served as homes for Roman colonists who brought Roman cultural traditions; they were locations of population concentration, giving the monuments constructed in them greater visibility; and they provided commercial markets that could encourage competition among artisans that the northwest provinces seemed to lack.

In addition to cultural and economic differences, and probably in part because of them, one major difference between the northwest provinces and the eastern and North African ones was the use of marble. In the East, marble was abundant; in many instances, for example Ephesus and Aphrodisias, marble was the local material,12 and so that it served as the primary material for sculpture is no different from the use of local limestone in the northwest provinces. North Africa was not as well equipped with sources of marble, though giallo antico from Chemtou was exported to Rome from the second century B.C.13 Before the second century A.D. use of local stone, both limestone and sandstone, 6

Duncan-Jones 1962, 69-70; Raven 1984, 84-100; Mattingly and Hitchner 1995, 199-200. 7 Richmond 1963, 53; Mitchell 1993, 71 and 257-258. 8 Raven 1984, 109. 9 Raven 1984, 30; Mattingly 1995, 38. 10 Golfetto 1973, 14-25; Mattingly and Hitchner 1995, 207; Luni 2005, 193-200. 11 Vermeule 1968, 49; Webb 1996, 19 and 57-59; Webb 1998, 243. 12 Ward-Perkins 1981, 296; Dodge 1990, 108-109. 13 Dodge 1990, 108.

1

Woolf 1997, 1. Woolf 1997, 4. 3 Wimmer and Vilímková 1963, 8-11; Raven 1984, 3033. 4 Mitchell 1993, 80-98; MacMullen 2000, 10. 5 Raven 1984, 1. 2

99

S.L. McGowen predominated and remained standard for construction in much of the region throughout the Roman period. In the second century A.D., in primarily the coastal cities, “…marble [became] the building material par excellence for monumental use.”14 With this new material came craftsmen skilled in working it, who brought new traditions in building and sculpting. Such a change in materials never occurred in the northwest provinces, not even in the coastal cities, and correspondingly, no major influx of artisans occurred. The wealth of North Africa, in conjunction with the littoral nature of so much of the region, no doubt facilitated the change there.

the Arch of Caracalla at Volubilis, and, perhaps most famously, the Arch of Septimius Severus at Leptis Magna. The Arch of Septimius Severus is vastly different from anything in the northwest provinces in that it demonstrates the kind of grandeur that imperial favor could elicit.18 The northwest provinces never received this kind of imperial largesse. Therefore, it is not given much consideration here, but instead, the arches at Oea and Volubilis provide the focus of the discussion.

Large Stone Arches of the East and North Africa The large stone arches in both the eastern and the North African provinces far outnumbered those in the Northwest. Moreover, unlike the cities of the northwest provinces, often multiple arches were constructed in the same locale. For example, at Isaura (Zengibar Kalesi) large stone arches were dedicated to Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius, and Alexander Severus, 15 and at Leptis Magna, in addition to the well-known arch of Septimius Severus, there were three arches of Tiberian date, one Flavian, and others dedicated to Trajan, Hadrian or Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius.16 Certainly the increased urbanization and the wealth of these regions played a large part in this phenomenon. Figure 6.1. The Arch of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus at Oea. (Image: ©G. Higgs)

Most of the arches were not, however, decorated with stone sculpture beyond simple moldings or friezes decorated with vegetal motifs. Although now-lost bronze decoration may explain this in part, many were decorated with niches, which would almost certainly have contained freestanding sculpture. North Africa and especially the East also had a predilection for elaborate architectural and columnar façades for which large stone arch provided a perfect outlet. Ward-Perkins describes the phenomenon as such:17 Whereas in Rome the taste for decorative innovation found expression in the exuberant detail of individual moldings and motifs, here in Asia Minor it was channeled into more strictly architectural forms, of which the elaborate columnar façades...were the most striking and characteristic expression. Thus it seems that, at least in the East, ornate columnar façades were preferred to elaborate relief sculpture for large stone arches; instead it seems that, such relief sculpture was generally found on other types of monuments and at other venues, above all sacred sites. From the North African provinces, three stone arches with stone sculptural decoration have survived: the Arch of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus at Oea (Tripoli),

Figure 6.2. Detail of the captives from the Arch of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus at Oea. (Image: ©G. Higgs)

14

Ward-Perkins 1951, 94-95; Ward-Perkins 1981, 412. Vermeule 1968, 17-18; Lenski 1999, 433. See also Verzone 1959, 1-16. 16 Mattingly 1995, 118. 17 Ward-Perkins 1981, 296-297. 15

18

On the arch of Septimius Severus at Leptis Magna, see Bartoccini 1931, 32-152; Ward-Perkins 1948, 75-79; Stroka 1972, 147-172; Kleiner 1992, 340-343; Newby 2007, 206-211. 100

A Wider Picture – Sacred and Civic Stone Monuments of North Africa and the East

Figure 6.3. Arch of Caracalla at Volubilis. (Image: ©J. Wallace)

The earlier of these two arches was constructed at Oea, a Roman colony established in the second century B.C. and the second most important city after Leptis Magna in the province of Africa.1 The inscription on the arch indicates that it was built in A.D. 163 for Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus and paid for by a member of the local elite, C. Calpurnius Celsus.2 As in the northwest provinces, members of the local elite were the primary patrons of large stone arches in North Africa. Thus, in type of location and period as well as patronage and identity of the dedicatees, the arch at Oea has much in common with 3 the arch at Besançon (Cat. XI). Unlike the arch at Besançon (or any of the other arches in the Northwest), the arch at Oea is made of marble. The arch, then, epitomizes the change in building material seen in the coastal North African cities by the second century, a particularly important change for Oea because the only locally available building material was poorly-weathering sandstone.4 As regards importation of materials, Oea actually had an important advantage because it was located on the coast and, in fact, was home to one the best natural harbors in the area.

arches and the scenes of historical victory had been relocated into the interior of the arch. Such placement was not an option at Oea, because it was a quadrifrons and had little room for decoration on its interior. As at Besançon, however, mythological figures did appear on the arch at Oea. In the spandrels above the trophies on both the north and south façades appeared the patron deities of Oea, Apollo in a chariot driven by griffins and Minerva in one pulled by sphinxes. Though simpler in design and iconography, the arches at Oea and Besançon had the same overall theme: with divine favor the good are victorious over the barbarian. The carving on the arch of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus is very much the high-quality Hellenizing style found in the East and Rome itself, leading some to suggest that the figural work was done by an immigrant sculptor (or sculptors).5 It is possible that they were the artisans who came to North Africa along with the new building and carving material, marble. That the Northwest never saw this change of material with the accompanying influx of carvers may partially explain why such a high-quality Hellenizing style is not as evident on second-century monuments there.

Although the arches at Oea and Besançon have much in common, they had vastly different decorative schemes. Typical of North African arches, on the east and west façades were pairs of niches for freestanding sculptures (Fig. 6.1), one of which seems to have been Lucius Verus. The primary decoration of the north and south façades constituted scenes of captives chained to trophies (Fig. 6.2). In comparison, by this time in the Northwest, trophies of this type no longer decorated large stone

The second arch with surviving relief decoration comes from Volubilis in the province of Mauretania Tingitana (Fig. 6.3).6 The arch of Caracalla, dated by the inscription to A.D. 217, illustrates many of the trends of North African and eastern arches. This single-bay arch was, as at Oea, made of marble. Its wide piers were adorned with sculpture niches7 and by disengaged columns commonly found on columnar façades and screens. In fact, aside

1

On Oea, see Mattingly 1995, 122-124. On the arch at Oea, see Densmore 1908, 60-61; Aurigemma 1970; Kleiner 1992, 308-309; Arata 1996, 9-30. 2 CIL VIII.24. See also Raven 1984, 109-116. 3 Walter 1986a, 448. 4 Ward-Perkins 1951, 95.

5

Kleiner 1992, 309. On Volubilis, see Manton 1988, 44-45. On the arch of Caracalla at Volubilis, see Domergue 1966, 463-472; MacKendrick 1971, 301. 7 Ball 2000, 285 and 325. 6

101

S.L. McGowen from the detachment of columns, the design of the piers 8 mirrors that at Reims (Cat. XII.4-6; Fig. 2.57). Tondi or clipei decorated with busts are also common to both arches. At Volubilis it has been proposed that the images on the tondi represent the Four Seasons, but they are badly damaged. If true, they would iconographically connect the arch at Volubilis with the arches not only at Reims but also London through the concept of felicitas temporum. It is unknown what type of sculpture the niches of the Volubilis arch may have contained, but in its current state, as at London and Mainz, it has no images of war. In the East, the only extant arch with surviving sculptural decoration comparable to the arches of the northwest provinces was located Pisidian Antioch, a Roman colony in the province of Galatia from 25 B.C. (Fig. 6.4-6.6).9 This triple-gated arch was not, however, freestanding, but instead functioned as the entrance to the probable Temple of Augustus (or Augustus and Roma). Its Latin inscription indicates that it was erected in 2/1 B.C. in honor of Augustus, but it does not indicate who dedicated it.10

Figure 6.4. Fragment of naval spolia from the arch at Pisidian Antioch. (Image: ©DAI-Istanbul)

The sculptural program of the arch of Augustus was thematically very similar to that of contemporary arches of southern Gaul. The spandrels next to the central archway were filled with bound captives, while those of the lateral bays contained Victories and genii holding garlands. The frieze, undoubtedly inspired by Hellenistic prototypes, was adorned with weapons, armor, tritons, and naval paraphernalia. These motifs clearly parallel those found on the arches of Carpentras (Cat. II.1-2; Figs. 2.9-2.10), Glanum (Cat. III.2-3; Figs. 2.11-2.13), and Orange (Cat. IV.2-5; Figs. 2.14-2.18).

Figure 6.5. Cupid with garland from the arch at Pisidian Antioch. (Image: ©DAI-Istanbul)

Although the southern Gallic arches and that of Pisidian Antioch share iconography, they differ markedly in design. At Pisidian Antioch, the sculptural decoration appears only on the spandrels and the frieze, while the piers served as the primary decorative zone on the Gallic arches. The design gives the same iconography a different tone, the theme of imperial victory and domination is downplayed at Pisidian Antioch because of the placement of the images. Perhaps what most sets the arch at Antioch apart from the Gallic ones is function in that it served as a propylon for the probable Temple of Augustus. Such iconography on large stone arches associated with sacred sites also occurred at Eleusis, where Marcus Aurelius dressed in military attire appears on a tondo from the Great

Figure 6.6. Barbarian with a trophy from the arch at Pisidian Antioch. (Image: ©DAI-Istanbul)

Propylaea.11 In the northwest provinces, arches as monumental entrances to sanctuaries did occur, which the London arch attests (Cat. XVI). The arch at London does not have any triumphal or imperial iconography, for reasons outlined earlier in this study. That such iconography appears on arches serving as entrances to sanctuaries illustrates that they could function as both sacred and civic at the same time. In addition, that most

8

Picard 1974, 69. On the arch at Pisidian Antioch, see Vermeule 1968, 7879, 93, 169, and 485; Kleiner 1985, 39; Mitchell and Waelkens 1998, 146-147 and 161-164. On the development of Pisidian Antioch, see Mitchell and Waelkens 1998, 1-14. 10 Byrne 2002, 193-200. 9

11

Vermeule 1968, 18; Burrell 2004, 285. See also Giraud 1989, 69-75. 102

A Wider Picture – Sacred and Civic Stone Monuments of North Africa and the East referring to imperial victory.15 The panels were made of single blocks of the local stone, Aphrodisias marble. In addition to allegorical figures, the north side was decorated with reliefs depicting the ethne of the peoples of the Empire (Fig. 6.7), and they are very similar to the female captives from the arch at Glanum (Cat. III.2c-d and III.3d; Figs. 2.20-2.21 and 2.23). The panels on the south side contains scenes from Greek mythology on the lower level and emperors and gods in the upper registers. It does not seem that the panels together had a specific message of imperial victory, but instead “as a whole present[ed] a detailed and broadly expressed vision of the fortunate position of the Greek world under Roman imperial rule.”16 Beginning with the arch at Glanum, the benefits of participation in the Empire became a major theme of the arches in the northwest provinces, but the Sebasteion was a religious rather than a civic monument.

of the northwestern arches with triumphal and imperial iconography were not located in religious contexts suggests that the blending between civic and sacred was stronger in the East than in the northwest provinces – and the choices of iconography from sacred sites in the East support the notion. Sacred Sculpture from the East and North Africa By the first century B.C., the East had a long tradition of ruler worship,12 and it seems largely for this reason that imperial and triumphal iconography appeared at sacred sites in this part of the Empire. The primary means of realizing this sculpturally was by the setting up of imperial statues at temple sites: The votive or temple statue with interplay of autocratic and divine implications was much more suited to the Greek notion of an imperial art than were the triumphal arches of the type set up throughout Rome, by Trajan at Beneventum, by Galerius at Salonika….13

In addition to the ethne, the Sebasteion porticos shared some design and iconographical elements with both the sacred and civic monuments from the northwest provinces. As on the arches of Besançon and Reims as well as at the sanctuary sites of Genainville and Champlieu, the myths chosen at Aphrodisias came almost exclusively from the standard repertoire of Greco-Roman mythology. In addition, it seems that some thought was given to the arrangement of the reliefs because the more important, more significant, or more Roman groups were placed closer to the temple. 17 Such orchestrations are evident at many of the core sixteen sites. For example, Ganymede and Hebe were placed on adjacent faces of the arch at Besançon (Cat. XI.3a and XI.4b; Fig. 2.55), and it seems that the Luna pediment counterbalanced the sun on the pediment of the quadrifrons at Bath (Cat. V.3-5; Figs. 2.25-2.26). (Unfortunately, the state of preservation does not allow similar assessments of the sanctuaries of Champlieu and Genainville, but we have established that their decorative schemes did constitute iconographic programs.) Even these two examples suggest, however, that although the patrons of sculpture in the northwest provinces are sometimes maligned as naïve or uncultured, many took just as much care and consideration for the design and decoration of their monuments as their counterparts in the East.

The grandest example, both in scale and design, of appearance of imperial victory iconography at a sacred site is the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias. Not only did this temple complex for imperial cult have a propylon decorated with freestanding sculptures of the imperial family, both human and divine,14 but it also had a long portico decorated with 190 sculpted relief panels, many

The careful combination of allegory, mythology, and history to celebrate participation in the Roman Empire also ties the Sebasteion façades to the arches of the northwest provinces. In the northwest, however, this sort of complex decoration does not reach its fullest potential until the construction of the arches at Besançon and Reims a century or more after the construction of the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias. It may be that by this time in the West, thinking about the emperor had changed sufficiently to allow for inherent allusions to deification that are absent from the early monuments. Furthermore, it is possible that by the late second century, the people of

Figure 6.7. Ethnos of the Piroustae from Aphrodisis. (Image: ©New York University Excavations at Aphrodisias)

15

On the Sebasteion, see Smith 1987, 88-138; Smith 1988, 50-77; Smith 1990, 89-100; Kleiner 1992, 158-161. 16 Smith 1987, 138. 17 Smith 1987, 133; Smith 1990, 100.

12

Price 1984, 23-52. 13 Vermeule 1968, 46. 14 Smith 1987, 87. 103

S.L. McGowen the northwest, who had neither a tradition of figural sculpture nor strong familiarity with Greco-Roman mythology in the first century B.C. or A.D., had become sufficiently versed in these myths and their allegorical associations to make their use effective. The only example of triumphal or imperial iconography at a sacred site from the core sixteen is the pediment from the sanctuary of Sulis Minerva at Bath (Cat. V.1a; Fig. 2.19). Such iconography also appeared on the altar of Roma and Augustus at Lugdunum (Lyon), which was decorated with a series of ethne similar to those from the Sebasteion.18 Unfortunately none of these figures has survived. It also seems possible that it may have appeared at temples for imperial cult, such as at the Temple of the Divine Claudius at Colchester, but the evidence does not survive. From the extant imperial iconography and its context (on arches of an almost entirely civic nature), it seems that such iconography did not typically appear at sacred sites in the northwest. The different ways the emperor was represented also confirms the notion. As at Rome, in the northwest, the emperor does not appear nude nor does he intermingle with gods. Both occur on the Sebasteion reliefs: “In the Sebasteion,…the emperors are gods ruling over, and accommodated smoothly into the conceptual structure of, the Greek world.”19 It is perhaps for this reason that imperial and victory iconography appear at sanctuary sites, including their arched entranceways, in the eastern provinces while it does not in the northwest. As in the northwest provinces, only a few sanctuaries in North Africa were decorated with imperial sculptures, largely in the form of freestanding sculpture. For example, in the Temple of Apollo at Bulla Regia were found over-life-size statues of Apollo, Ceres, and Asclepius, and a head of Nero reworked as Vespasian,20 and at the Tiberian Temple of Augustus and Roma at Leptis Magna appeared not only statues of Roma and Divus Augustus but also members of the Julio-Claudian family.21 Such decoration was not standard, but instead the definitive stone sacred monument from the North African provinces was the votive stele.

Figure 6.8. Stele from Aïn Nechma. (Image: ©A.I. Wilson)

northwest provinces, the stelai typically represented the deity (or deities), as at both Deneuvre and Nettersheim, a variation which illustrates a divergence in belief about the appropriate means of honoring a deity. At many sanctuaries, the North African stelai marked the point where a sacred deposition had been made, and so they had a different function than stelai in the Northwest. Evidence at many Baal/Saturn sanctuaries suggests these stelai predated the Roman period, and so they provide an opportunity to examine the type of influence that incorporation into the Roman Empire had on previously existing religious display.

Despite formal similarities, the North African stelai had several key differences from those in the Northwest. They were almost without exception dedicated to Baal or his Roman counterpart, Saturn,22 whereas in the northwest provinces stelai were used at many different kinds of sanctuaries for both Greco-Roman and local deities. The Saturn stelai generally depicted the dedicant, while in the

At the sanctuary at Aïn Nechma (Thabarbusis) in Numidia,23 the pre-Roman stelai, some inscribed in neoPunic, show a nude frontal figure, presumably the dedicant, with arms raised, holding offerings (Fig. 6.8). Those from the Roman period have only two small but revealing differences: the inscription is written in Latin and the figure wears a tunic and mantle (Fig. 3.7). In both periods, the representations are highly schematic, and have many features in common with sculpture from the

18

Turcan 1982, 607-644; Fishwick 1989, 111-112. Smith 1987, 134-138. 20 Beschaouch, et al. 1977, 86-87; Barton 1982, 273-274; Varner 2004, 54. 21 Fishwick 1987, 521-522. See also Boschung 2002, 821; Livadiotti and Rocco 2005, 165-264. 22 The standard work on the so-called Saturn stelai is Leglay 1961. On what follows, see also Picard 1982; Wilson 2005, 403-408; Schörner 2007, 92-97. 19

23

104

Leglay 1961, 404-408.

A Wider Picture – Sacred and Civic Stone Monuments of North Africa and the East Northwest which are often referred to as Celtic, i.e., lentoid eyes, over-emphasized heads, linear drapery, etc. As discussed elsewhere, it seems likely that such features were the result of the abilities of the carvers. The fact that these stylistic features remain on the North African stelai, however, even after the region became part of the Empire and they started to assume Roman elements suggests, however, that schematism was effective for patrons.

chose the same design. Thus it seems that here too desire to belong to the community of worshippers prevailed over any penchant for individual originality. In conclusion, the analyses presented in this brief comparison between selected monuments from the East and North Africa has not only supported but also expanded upon many of the assertions made about sacred and civic stone monuments from the northwest Roman provinces. Certainly much unites the monuments, to varying degrees, from the northwest provinces with those of both the East and North Africa in terms of monument type, choice of iconography, style, etc. It is also clear, however, that all three regions had their own idiosyncrasies, which were often reflected in their stone monuments.

Although some Saturn stelai, such as those from La Ghorfa, were elaborate,24 as at Aïn Nechma, most were simple in design, using the direct approach. This design was fairly standard for votive stelai throughout the Empire, obviously considered an appropriate means of veneration. It is also possible that this design scheme was used because it was easier to carve and less expensive, which the differences between the La Ghorfa and Aïn Nechma reliefs would seem to attest. The more elaborate reliefs from La Ghorfa were also of a higher quality of carving. La Ghorfa was also located in the highly urbanized area of the Tunisian Tell, illustrating the potential impact of urbanization on sculptural development discussed at the start of this chapter. Likewise, as at Deneuvre, Nettersheim, and Montmarte, at most of the Saturn sanctuaries, images were repeated dozens if not hundreds of times (some 800 appear at the presumed Temple of Saturn at Volubilis). 25 The power of such displays has already been discussed, and one can only wonder at the spectacle of hundreds of virtually identical images covering the landscape. Furthermore, a simple comparison of the Saturn stelai from only La Ghorfa and Aïn Nechma demonstrates that, although the images were uniform within the same sanctuary, they were far from identical across the region. 26 While it seems possible that the people of Aïn Nechma were generally less wealthy and less urbanized than those of La Ghorfa, levels of wealth must have varied within the groups. Nevertheless, the stelai are virtually uniform in material, size, quality of execution, and iconography. Therefore, it does not seem that variation in wealth is the sole explanation for the differences between sanctuaries. Perhaps instead, a sort of pressure to conform was involved, and individuals wanting to belong to the community of worshippers dedicated the same type of stele as their fellow worshippers.27 Such a situation has direct relevance for both the sanctuaries at Nettersheim and Deneuvre. It supports the notion that the similarities among the monuments dedicated by the beneficiarii at the sanctuary of the Matronae Aufaniae near Nettersheim (as well as those from sanctuaries for the same goddesses at Cologne and Bonn) may indeed reflect a desire to integrate into the local community. Moreover, by the time of the sanctuary of Hercules at Deneuvre, many ways of representing Hercules existed, but patrons and/or artists consistently 24

Bisi 1978, 21-88. Morestin 1980, 141-215. 26 McCarty (Forthcoming). 27 Schörner 2007, 96. 25

105

106

Conclusion

Chapter 7: Conclusion At the outset, the goal was to understand why sacred and civic sculpture from the northwest Roman provinces looked the way it did: what subjects were represented, what shape they took, and how were they rendered. To do so, three themes of style, form, and iconography served as the focus of this study. In the process, there were other elements such as patronage, craftsmanship, and material, that became apparent and proved to be vital components in a sculpture’s or monument’s final appearance. The core sixteen sites proved to be a representative sample. Each site provided an interesting array of individual issues and offered a valuable set of opportunities to understand the larger picture of sacred and civic sculpture from the northwest Roman provinces. To conclude, then, it seems useful to revisit briefly the three main themes.

was used to reduce cost by reducing transport, whereas for smaller monuments procuring higher quality or imported stone was a feasible choice. Even for small monuments, however, importing stone was not done on a large scale. In fact, throughout the Empire, local materials, whatever they were, became the definitive Roman-period material. In this way, Rome, with its variety of imported marbles, is the exception, and the northwest provinces are the rule. In the end, despite any judgments or misgivings modernday viewers (or even ancient ones) might have about the quality of artistic execution in the northwest provinces, it was effective for the patrons: they spent their money on essentially symbolic items, which were, at their core, offerings to the gods and contributions to their communities.

Style A wide variety of styles existed in the northwest provinces, ranging from high-quality, Hellenizing sculpture, rivaling the best sculpture in Rome, to lowquality schematic works, some of which appear to have been carved without any training. The latter does not appear true for any of the monuments from the core sixteen sites, but much of it was schematic. Many patrons of sculpture from the northwest provinces were indigenous to the northwest provinces, making their primary frame of reference, particularly in regard to the visual world, the region of the northwest provinces. Schematic sculpture occurred, however, not only in the Northwest but also North Africa, as we have seen, and even Rome. In this regard, schematic sculpture from the Northwest is clearly a part of the sculptural language of the Roman Empire.

Form In the northwest provinces, disparate design schemes were used on sacred and civic monuments. By comparing these design schemes with those of funerary monuments, it becomes clear that they were used to attract attention and effectively communicate the message of the monument. The direct approach, or the striking excerpt, could tell a whole story at a glance: on a triumphal monument this meant telling of the victory of good over evil using only a pair of captives; on a sacred monument it meant displaying the power of the deity with only his image; on a funerary monument, it meant summing up the distinguished career of a soldier by proud display of award medals. The repetition of such motifs, both in the same sanctuary or cemetery and across the region, in addition to creating a powerful visual environment, increased the immediacy of the images.

Such stylistic discrepancies were largely a product of cost-to-quality ratio: no matter the region of the Empire, if you were willing to pay you could have whatever you wanted. The people of the northwest provinces were not particularly wealthy, and the region did not generate the same competitive markets as Rome or the East or even coastal North Africa. Moreover, the best artisans were not attracted to the area. Sculptors did travel, however, and so patrons who wanted something different than what was available locally, could have it. Without the influx of marble, as occurred in the coastal North African provinces, marble carvers from the East were not required in the Northwest. Furthermore, it seems that a large majority of northwestern patrons felt no need to introduce such highly skilled stoneworkers because the cost of doing so exceeded their desire to have this type of sculpture. Sculptures could also have been imported already carved, again, if patrons so desired. Most, however, weighed what they could afford or were willing to expend against the cost of procuring a higher quality work, and most chose what was available locally.

In the northwest provinces, design complexity increased in the second century, evident from monuments such as the sanctuaries at Champlieu and Genainville and the arch at Besançon. In addition to presenting dazzling arrays of images, these more complicated schemes also assisted the viewer in understanding their messages: all three were decorated with mythological and allegorical iconography. Iconography What is clear from the iconography of sacred and civic monuments is that it was thoughtfully chosen, and if style was not the overriding concern of most patrons, iconography was. The funerary monuments, which often sacrificed style for the iconography, confirm the notion. At sacred sites, this meant orchestrating iconographic programs that considered both Greco-Roman mythology and cult activity, sometimes even selecting well-known myths that rarely appeared in sculpture but suited the overall theme of the program (e.g., Medea and the ram at Genainville). This is not to imply, however, that all iconography from the Northwest, particularly on sacred monuments, derived from the Greco-Roman cannon as

In a way, the choice of material confirms the notion: while for large projects such as elaborate temple complexes or the largest of stone arches, local material 107

S.L. McGowen exceptions, such as Sucellus, with his hammer,1 or Cenunnos, the antlered god,2 attest. Such regional deities existed, however, in a visual world largely populated by familiar figures from Greco-Roman mythology. By tracing the iconography celebrating victory and the emperor over more than two centuries, it is evident that patrons of these monuments, in most instances member of the upper echelons of provincial society, were aware of what was happening in the center. Careful alignments of historical, mythological, and allegorical iconography were used, but the degree to which each was used changed over time: the earliest monuments relied heavily on the historical, and the mythological and allegorical were used only sparingly; as time progressed, the mythological and allegorical grew in importance, eventually superseding the historical altogether. Comparisons, particularly with such iconography from the East, are revealing in this regard. Mythological and particularly allegorical iconography was used earlier in the East; after all, such iconography had been used for generations preceding the incorporation of this region into the Empire. The people of the Northwest had no such tradition nor much familiarity with Greco-Roman mythology at all prior to incorporation. Therefore, it seems possible that it took some time for the people of the Northwest to familiarize themselves with GrecoRoman mythology to a sufficient degree for its use and specifically its allegorical connections to be effective. The Eastern comparanda also confirm that regional considerations of the emperor’s role could and did, in fact, drive the choice of iconography. The sculpture from the northwest Roman provinces has been largely understudied partially because of its poor state of preservation, but due in large part to its presumed inferiority. It is true that Roman sculpture from the Northwest did have local and regional peculiarities, which might appear to some as deficiencies. But as gifts for the gods and benefactions to their communities, they served the purposes of their patrons, who almost certainly would not have publically erected something they deemed substandard. Moreover, the individualities apparent in northwestern Roman sculpture developed in much the same way that local and regional trends developed in other parts of the Empire. Upon careful consideration of the reasons that sacred and civic sculpture from the Northwest had the appearance it did, one can conclude that it clearly belongs in the diverse corpus of Roman imperial sculpture.

1 2

Green 2004, 124-125. Green 2004, 172-172. 108

Catalogue

Catalogue of Main Sites and Monuments The following is a descriptive catalogue of the core sixteen sites (Cat. I-XVI) and their monuments, presented in the chronological order established in chapter two. The general entry for each site contains information about its Roman province, modern location, the ancient history of the site, and a general description. The description includes information such as the location of the monument or monuments in the site, size of either the arch or the sanctuary with its structural features, the material and its source when known, and the date of the monument(s) along with the criteria for it. It also provides relevant modern history, particularly when events of modern history have affected the state of preservation, and if the monuments have been moved to a secondary location, this information is also included. The general entries also include publication information, including the Espérandieu number, where one exists, and the primary reference, usually the main site report or the major monograph devoted to the monument. Where there is no major monograph, several key references are included.

this thesis are not included. Such information can be found in the primary references listed as part of the general entry. In most cases, only figural sculpture has been included in the catalogue, but non-figural architectural decoration is taken account of when it provides information concerning the context of the figural sculpture. Some undecorated inscribed monuments have also been included when they present evidence about activity at a site, particularly patronage patterns, which the sculpted monuments may not always reveal. Each entry includes as much information as possible from the available sources: Material (where multiple materials appear at the same site), state of preservation, dimensions, form, iconography and identification, date (where sculptures of differing dates exist at the same site), epigraphy, and photographic or pictorial reference. In most instances, the photographic or pictorial references are taken from the primary reference or Espérandieu. Arches are discussed from the interior to the exterior, starting from north and moving clockwise, and from bottom to top. For sanctuaries, the major monuments, including architectural decoration, are described first, followed by the smaller votive monuments when present. Votive monuments, stelai, and inscriptions are presented together in descending order by size.

Following this general information are catalogue entries for the monuments. Although it is intended for reference, it is not meant to be an exhaustive treatment. The sculptures at many sites are badly damaged, and the fragments that do little to further the core arguments of

109

S.L. McGowen inscription on the northern façade. The letters have been interpreted as P(ater) P(atriae), but Augustus did not receive this title until 2 B.C., six to seven years after the arch was supposedly dedicated. It seems most likely that after Augustus was given the title in 2 B.C. the letters were added to the north face where sufficient space permitted.8

I. Arch of Augustus, Segusio (Susa) Province: Alpes Cottiae Location: Northwest Italy in the Piedmont region, 51km west of Turin Ancient History of the Site: Segusio is located on the edge of the Alps and is situated along the La Doire Ripaire River and on an important road from Gaul to Italy running through the pass at Mont Genèvre.1 The city had a long history of habitation before its incorporation into the Roman Empire in the first century B.C. During the Augustan period, likely between 14 and 12 B.C., clientking Cottius along with fourteen of the Alpine tribes seem to have allied with Rome.2 At the time, Cottius gave up his royal status and became a Roman citizen and praefectus, the town was granted colonial status and made capital of the newly-created province.

Modern History: During the Middle Ages the arch was built into a castle, and a wall and windows were added to the attic storey. In 1838, the building was removed leaving the arch, and in 1856 and again from 1857 to 1859 repairs were undertaken. At some time later, the east side was badly damaged by fire.9 Primary Publication(s): Espérandieu, I.16; J. Prieur 1982, 442-478; Fogliato 1992. Monument(s):

Description: The arch stands on the side of a hill, spanning the road from Gaul to Italy through the pass at Mont Genèvre.3 When viewed from the south, it frames the summit of Rochemelon, the highest peak in the area and perhaps the home of an ancient local cult.4 The arch also seems to have been situated near the palace of Cottius, the political and administrative center of the city. This area also seems to have had some religious importance into the late fourth century, and it is possible that the arch served as the entranceway to a sacred precinct.

I.1. North Façade. 13.3m in height, 11.9m in width. Espérandieu, I.16. I.1a. (Fig. 2.2-2.4). Frieze. H. 0.52m, W. 10.75m. Low relief. Suovetaurilia. From left to right: Five armed infantry men; two horsemen; five horn players and lictors; a bull attended by two victimarii; two attendants and a capite velato male sacrificing; central altar; an attendant; two men; a pig led by two victimarii; two lictors and two horn players; a sheep with one victimarius; two horsemen; five infantrymen. Espérandieu, I.16, nos. 4-5; J. Prieur 1982, VI-IX, nos. 3-10.

The arch is made of marble taken from the nearby quarry at Foresto, some 6km away from Susa.5 It is a single bay arch, measuring 13.3m in height, 11.9m in width, and 7.30m in depth (Fig. 2.1).6 The bay of the arch measures 5.86m in width and 8.85m in height. The archivolt, decorated only with three plain bands, springs from a pair of unfluted Corinthian pilasters. The entablature rests on four engaged Corinthian columns which sit on a socle enclosing the exterior ends of the piers. Above the architrave runs a frieze adorned with sculptural decoration, topped by a cornice. An attic storey containing a four line inscription sits on top of the entire monument.

I.1b. Dedicatory Inscription. Only countersunk letters survive. Imp(eratori) Caesari Augusto Divi F(ilio) Pontifici Maxumo Tribunic(ia) Potestate XV Imp(eratori) XIII P(atri) P(atriae) / M(arcus) Iulius Regis Donni F(ilius) Cottius Praefectus ceivitatium quae subscriptae sunt Segoviorum Segusinorum / Belacorum Caturigum Medullorum Tebaviorum Adanatium Sauincatium Egdiniorum Veaminiorum / Venisamorum Iemeriorum Vesubianiorum Quariatium et ceivitates quae sub eo praefecto fuerunt

The first line of the inscription (Cat. I.1b and I.3b) mentions the fifteenth tribunate of Augustus, indicating that the arch was dedicated in 9/8 B.C.7 Somewhat problematic for this interpretation is the appearance of two badly worn letters at the end of the first line of the

CIL V.7231; Vota 2004, 41. I.2. East Frieze. H. 0.52m, W. 5.85m. Only two unidentifiable figures survive. Almost certainly mirrors west frieze. J. Prieur 1982, plate XIV, no. 8.

1

Hyde 1935, 50-55; Prieur 1982, 451. Pauli 1984, 31. 3 Prieur 1982, 451-453; Kleiner 1985, 32; Fogliato 1992, 21-25; Manino 2004, 63-74. 4 Fogliato 1992, 21. 5 Prieur 1982, 453; Kleiner 1985, 32; Kleiner 1992, 110. 6 On the dimensions and architecture of the arch, see Prieur 1982, 453-454; Kleiner 1985, 32-33. 7 Prieur 1982, 455; Kleiner 1985, 32; Fogliato 1992, 13; Kleiner 1992, 110. 2

I.3. (Fig. 2.1). South Façade. 13.3m in height, 11.9m in width. Espérandieu, I.16. I.3a. (Figs. 2.5). Frieze. H. 0.52m, W. 10.75m. Low relief. From left to right: Nude male holding the reigns of a horse, perhaps a Dioscurus; three 8 9

110

Prieur 1978, 455. Prieur 1982, 453.

Catalogue infantrymen; two cavalrymen; two horn players and two lictors; victimarius with a pig; bull with two victimarii; victimarii or lictors carrying axes; togate male offering a sacrifice; central altar; upright male; four lictors or victimarii carrying axes; bull with victimarius; sheep with victimarii; two cavalrymen; five infantrymen; nude male holding the reigns of a horse, perhaps a Dioscurus. Espérandieu, I.16, nos. 23; J. Prieur 1982, plate XV, nos. 1-2. I.3b. Dedicatory Inscription. Only countersunk letters survive. Imp(eratori) Caesari Augusto Divi F(ilio) Pontifici Maxumo Tribunic(ia) Potestate XV Imp(eratori) XIII / M(arcus) Iulius Regis Donni F(ilius) Cottius Praefectus ceivitatium quae subscriptae sunt Segoviorum Segusinorum / Belacorum Caturigum Medullorum Tebaviorum Adanatium Sauincatium Egdiniorum Veaminiorum / Venisamorum Iemeriorum Vesubianiorum Quariatium et ceivitates quae sub eo praefecto fuerunt CIL V.7231; Vota 2004, 41. I.4. (Figs. 2.6 and 2.7). West Frieze. H. 0.52m, W. 5.85m. Low relief. From left to right: Two standing males; figure seated behind a table; three standing males; three lictors carrying fasces; standing male; male seated on a sella curulis; central table or altar with single figure behind; male seated on a sella curulis; standing male; three lictors carrying fasces; three standing males; figure seated at a table; three standing males. Espérandieu, I.16, nos. 1-2; J. Prieur 1982, plates XII-XIII, nos. 3-6. I.5. Modillion Intervals. Ring the arch above the frieze. Low relief. All contain rosettes except for two on the south side, one of which contains an eagle and the other a lizard. Espérandieu I.16.

111

S.L. McGowen Primary Publication(s): Espérandieu, I.243; G. Picard 1960, 13-16.

II. Arch, Carpentoracte (Carpentras) Province: Gallia Narbonensis

Monument(s): Location: Southern France in the department of Vaucluse, 25km southeast of Orange

II.1. (Fig. 2.10). East Façade. W. c. 4.25m. Top of trophy missing; right figure partially destroyed by insertion of a door. Right: Male wearing a tunic, chlamys, and a diadem; object of uncertain identification, possibly a situla, to the left at the level of the legs. Center: A trophy consisting of a fur helmet, a tunic belted at the waist and a mantle, topped by oval and hexagonal shields and spears. Left: Figure wearing tunic belted at the waist with a cloak hanging down from his shoulders; hair knotted to the left. Not apparent whether chains linked the figures to the trophy. Küpper-Böhm 1996, plate 6, fig. 1.

Ancient History of the Site: An indigenous settlement, whose inhabitants belonged to the Memini tribe, seems to have existed in the area from at least the sixth century B.C.10 After the Romans took control of the region, however, the residents were forced to vacate the settlement, and a new colony, which came to dominate an important thoroughfare through the Rhône valley, was founded nearby. The official name, Colonia Julia Meminorum Carpentoracte, is preserved in an inscription found at Orange (CIL XXII.1239). It was also called Carpentoracte Meminorum by Pliny11 and Forum Neronis by Ptolemy the Geographer.12 Because Ptolemy, the Geographer, refers to the town as Forum Neronis, it seems likely that the colony was founded by Tiberius Claudius Nero, the father of the emperor Tiberius, and it is known from Suetonius that Ti. Claudius Nero did establish colonies for the veterans of Caesar’s legions in 46-45 B.C.13

II.2. (Fig. 2.9). West Façade. W. c. 4.25m. Trophy partially preserved. Right: Bearded male wearing a heavy fur cloak, chained to a trophy; to the left at the level of the legs is an inscribed sword. Center: A trophy made up of a cuirass placed upon a hairy helmet framed by two horns; quivers extend to the right and the left, from the ends of which hang two helmets; two swords hang down the trunk. Left: Male, chained to a trophy, wearing a Phrygian cap and loose trousers underneath a knee-length tunic belted at the waist and a fringed cloak; to the right at the level of the legs is an inscribed double bladed axe. Espérandieu, I.243.

Description: The north-south facing arch stood in the middle of the Roman city, perhaps marking an entrance The narrowness of the to a religious precinct.14 passageway indicates that it did not function as a major entranceway.15 It is made of soft local limestone, and its remains measure some 10m in height above the keystone, 7.80m in width, and 4.53m in depth (Fig. 2.8). The attic storey, including any inscription, has been lost, and the corner Corinthian columns have lost the top portions of their shafts as well as their capitals. The arch has been dated to the early years of the first century A.D. because of architectural similarities with the arch at Susa, specifically the simplicity of its structure.16 The arch shares several decorative elements, particularly the vegetal motifs of the archivolt, with the arch at Cavaillon which is also dated to the first decade A.D.17 Modern History: The arch is now at the Place d’Inguimbert within the courtyard of the Palais de Justice, which had been the porch of the bishop’s palace prior to the revolution.18 10

Bromwich 1996, 161; Cleere 2001, 122. Pliny, Historia Naturalis III.36. 12 Ptolemy, Geographia II.10.8. 13 Suetonius, Tiberius 4, 2. See also Drinkwater 1983, 1719; Turcan 1984, 815; Bromwich 1996, 161; KüpperBöhm 1996, 40-41. 14 Küpper-Böhm 1996, 36-37. 15 Küpper-Böhm 1996, 37. 16 Picard 1960, 14; Gros 1979, 83; Turcan 1984, 811; Küpper-Böhm 1996, 38; Cleere 2001, 122. 17 Gros 1979, 82. 18 Bromwich 1996, 161; Küpper-Böhm 1996, 28. 11

112

Catalogue III. Large Stone Arch, Glanum Modern History: During the eighteenth century slanting roof-tiles were added, destroying much of the architrave and badly damaging the east and west façades. No sculptural decoration survives on the north and south facades.

Province: Gallia Narbonensis Location: Southern France in the department of Bouches-du-Rhone just south of St.-Rémy-de-Provence and approximately 20km south of Avignon

Primary Publication(s): Espérandieu, I.111; Rolland 1977.

Ancient History of the Site: Evidence suggests ritual activity focused on a sacred spring occurred regularly in this area from the sixth century B.C.19 The town itself developed to the north of the spring and was located just off the only route through the Alpilles between Italy and Provence. During the third and second centuries B.C., an increasing Greek influence is evident at Glanum from the appearance of certain Greek features such as an agora and peristyle houses.20 After the fall of Massalia in 49 B.C., Glanum came under Roman control, and in the Augustan and early Tiberian periods, the Hellenistic buildings were replaced by traditional Roman structures, including two fora, two prostyle temples, and baths. The precise status of Glanum is uncertain, but Pliny suggests that the town had Latin rights.21

Monument(s): III.1. Arched Entranceway. H. 6.85m, W. 5.2m. III.1a. Vault. 110 hexagonal coffers. L. 16.58m, D. c.3.5m. Begins at the top of the pilasters c. 5m above ground level. Low relief. Each contains one of 28 different varieties of flower. Rolland 1977, plate 72. III.1b. Vault Voussoirs. W. c. 0.2m. Begins at the top of the pilasters c. 5m above ground level. Low relief. Vegetal candelabra. East side shows greater patterning and less fruit. West side shows more disorganization and more bunches of fruit and bouquets of foliage. Rolland 1977, plate 72.

Description: The arch was built on the town’s northwest edge at the junction of the road through the Alpilles and the road into Glanum. It stands next to the Mausoleum of the Julii, which is also adorned with elaborate sculptural decoration.22 The arch is made of limestone almost certainly from the nearby quarries exploited since at least the fifth century B.C.23 The arch currently measures 8.30m in height (with an estimated restored height of 9.3m), 12.425m in width, and 4.44m in depth, and the entranceway measures 6.85m in height and 5.2m in width (Fig. 2.11).24 The arch has been dated stylistically to first two decades of the first century A.D. It was perhaps associated with the late-Augustan/early-Tiberian building in the city, including the construction of the Mausoleum of the Julii.25

III.1c. Impost Frieze. H. 0.95 to 1.0m, W. c. 5m (inside the arch) plus pilaster capitals. c. 4.7m above ground level. Low relief. Musical instruments (trumpets, cymbals, pipes), thyrsi, shepherds’ crooks, large knives, offering plates holding rhytons, fruit, and knucklebones. Interior of the vault and below capitals of exterior pilasters. Rolland 1977, plate 6, 7, 13, 16 52, and 53. III.2. (Fig. 2.11). East Façade. H. 8.30m, W. 12.425m. Rolland 1977, plate 30. III.2a. Archivolts. L. 9.12m (at outer edge), W. c. 0.54m. Begins c. 5m above ground level. Low relief. Garlands: From bottom to top oak, fig, grapevine, mulberry, pine, pomegranate, and olive. Fruits not yet developed. Rolland 1977, plate 52.

19

Rolland 1960, 15-40; Ward-Perkins 1970, 2-4; MacKendrick 1971, 21-25; Clavel-Lévêque and Lévêque 1982, 675; Bromwich 1996, 202-204; Küpper-Böhm 1996, 80-81; Hodge 1998, 151-158; Cleere 2001, 158159. 20 Ebel 1976, 36; King 1990, 68; Bromwich 1996, 203204; Küpper-Böhm 1996, 80; Woolf 1998, 109; Cleere 2001, 158; Knight 2001, 167. 21 Pliny, Historia Naturalis III.37. 22 Espérandieu, I.114. The standard work on the Mausoleum of the Julii is Rolland 1969. See also Kleiner 1980, 105-126; Gros 1986a, 65-80; Nerzic 1989, 32-35; Kleiner 1992, 112-113; Bromwich 1996, 217-219; Roth Congès 2004, 21-25. 23 Rolland 1977, 13; Bedon, et al. 1988a, 181; Nerzic 1989, 37. On the use of stone at Glanum, see Bessac and Lambert 1989, 8-12. On the quarries, see Bedon, et al. 1988a, 67. 24 Rolland 1977, 13-24 and 47; Bedon, et al. 1988a, 180; Nerzic 1989, 37. 25 The most detailed analysis of the stylistic elements for dating the arch are presented in Gros 1979, 55-83. See

III.2b. Spandrels. Partially destroyed. H. c. 1.4m, W. c. 2.8m. Begins c. 6.25m above ground level. Low relief. Outstretched winged Victories with vexilla. Rolland 1977, plate 18-19 and 52. III.2c. (Fig. 2.12). North Panel. Trophy mostly destroyed; faces of figures badly damaged. H. c. 2m, W. c. 1.4m. Pedestal c. 4m above ground level. High relief. Right: Male wearing trousers and a fringed cloak. Left: Female in a torn garment. Figures are chained to a trophy. Rolland 1977, plates 23 and 30. III.2d. South Panel. Figures preserved to shoulder level; trophy lost. H. c. 2m, W. c. 1.4m. Pedestal c. also Bedon, et al. 1988a, 180; Nerzic 1989, 35; Bromwich 1996, 217; Küpper-Böhm 1996, 81; Cleere 2001, 159; Knight 2001, 167. 113

S.L. McGowen 4m above ground level. High relief. Right: Male wearing trousers, fringed tunic and cloak with hands bound behind his back. Left: Female wearing a long, untied dress. Figures are chained to a trophy. Rolland 1977, plates 22 and 30. III.3. West Façade. H. 8.30m, W. 12.425m. Rolland 1977, plate 34. III.3a. Archivolts. L. 9.12m (at outer edge), W. c. 0.54m. Begins c. 5m above ground level. Low relief. Garlands: From bottom to top oak, fig, grapevine, mulberry, pine, pomegranate, and olive. Abundant and fully developed. Rolland 1977, plate 53. III.3b. Spandrels. Partially destroyed. H. c. 1.4m, W. c. 2.8m. Begins c. 6.25m above ground level. Low relief. Outstretched winged Victories with laurel branches. Rolland 1977, plates 16-17 and 53. III.3c. (Fig. 2.13). North Panel. Right figure badly damaged, above shoulder level is lost; top of trophy lost. H. c. 2m, W. c. 1.4m. Pedestal c. 4m above ground level. High relief. Right: Male wearing only trousers, fringed cloak hanging over one of his shoulders, hands bound behind his back. Left: Male wearing long-sleeved tunic and fringed cloak touches right male on the arm. Figures flank a trophy. Rolland 1977, plate 24 and 34. III.3d. South Panel. Figures preserved to shoulder level; trophy lost. H. c. 2m, W. c. 1.4m. Pedestal c. 4m above ground level. High relief. Right: Nude male with hand tied behind his back. Left: Draped female seated on a pile of weapons. Figures flank a trophy. Rolland 1977, plate 25 and 34.

114

Catalogue date the arch to at least the middle of the second century or as late as the early third century.35

IV. Arch of Tiberius(?), Arausio (Orange) Province: Gallia Narbonensis

Modern History: The west façade was reconstructed in the nineteenth century.

Location of the Monument(s): Southern France in the department of Vaucluse, approximately 21km north of Avignon

Primary Publication(s): Espérandieu, I.260; Amy et al. 1962.

Ancient History of the Site: In the second and first centuries B.C., Arausio was an important settlement in the territory of the Cavares.26 A Roman veteran colony, officially named Colonia Firma Julia Secundanorum Arausio, was founded on the site at the end of the first century, supplanting this settlement.27 Based on the names recorded in the first century B.C. land registry, the settlers seem to have had varied origins; Italic names such as Attius, Tittus, and Pontius appear alongside Greek names like Agathropus and Bacchis and Gallic ones such as Careius and Duvius.28 The remnants of the Augustan city wall measure some 3.5km in circumference and enclose a space of 70ha,29 suggesting that the colony was sizeable. Nevertheless, it does not seem to have been particularly wealthy.30

Monument(s): IV.1. Arched Entranceways. Central – H. 8.87m, W. 5.81m. East – H., 6.48m, W. 3.57m. West – H. 6.48m, W. 3.53m. IV.1a. Vaults. Under east, central, and west bays. Central bay – L. c. 8m, D. c. 7.3m. Begins c. 6.2 m above ground level. Small bays – L. c. 4.6m, D. c. 7.3m. Begins c. 5m above ground level. High relief. Hexagonal coffers filled with rosettes. Amy et al. 1962, plates 15 and 72-73. IV.1b. Vault Voussoirs. Undersides of all three bays. W. c. 0.6m. Begins at the top of the pilasters, c. 5.6m for the central bay and c. 4.4m for the side bays above ground level. High relief. Four-sided coffers filled with small flowers. Amy et al. 1962, plates 72-73.

Description: The arch spanned the Via Agrippa, a major artery linking Lugdunum (Lyon) and Arelate (Arles).31 It stood to the north of the city at the point where the cardo crossed the town’s boundary, which the presence of a necropolis to the north of the arch confirms. It is made of large unmortared blocks and measures 19.21m in height, 19.57m in width, and 8.40m in depth (Fig. 2.14).32 The central entranceway measures 8.87m in height and 5.81m in width, while the east measures 6.48m in height and 3.57m in width and the west also 6.48m in height but 3.53m in width. The arch is made of limestone from quarries at Courthezon, some 7km from the site.33 Based on a reconstruction from the inscription’s clamp holes (IV.2d), most date the arch to between A.D. 20 and 26.34 The restoration is somewhat speculative, and the arch admittedly has several unusual features for one built during this early period. Based on the triple-bay form, the presence of the second attic, and the style and technique of the figural and architectural decoration, some would

IV.1c. Impost Frieze. Begins at the top of the pilasters, c. 5.6m for the central bay and c. 4.4m for the side bays above ground level. Low relief. Garlands of fruits and nuts; tragic masks, medusa heads, cocks, decorate pilaster capitals. Amy et al. 1962, plates 1415. IV.2. North Façade. H. 19.21m, W. 19.57. Amy et al. 1962, plate 4. IV.2a. Archivolts. Central bay – L. c. 8m, W. c. 0.68m. Begins at the top of the pilasters, c. 5.6m. Side bays – L. c. 4.6m, W. 0.57m. Begins c. 4.4m above ground level. Low relief. Central bay: Garlands of fruit and flowers. East and west bays: Oak branches. Tragic masks and cocks decorate two pilaster capitals on the north façade. Amy et al. 1962, plate 67.

26

IV.2b. Pilasters. Flanking archways. Central bay – H. c. 5.6m, W. 0.68m. Side bays – H. c. 4.4m, W. 0.57m. Low relief. Scrolls of foliage. Amy et al. 1962, plate 71.

Bellet 1991, 12-13; Bromwich 1996, 181; Cleere 2001, 149. 27 Gros 1986b, 193-194; Bedon, et al. 1988b, 189-191; King 1990, 69; Bellet 1991, 13-14; Cleere 2001, 149-150. 28 Bellet 1991, 17-19. 29 Bedon, et al. 1988b, 189; Bromwich 1996, 181. 30 Goudineau 1980, 386-390; King 1990, 87. 31 Bedon, et al. 1988a, 184; Bedon, et al. 1988b, 189; Küpper-Böhm 1996, 107-108; Cleere 2001, 150. 32 On the architecture of the arch, see Amy, et al. 1962, 17-19; Bedon, et al. 1988a, 184-185; Kleiner 1992, 154; Cleere 2001, 151. 33 Bedon 1984, 39. 34 MacKendrick 1971, 101; Gros 1979, 82; Kleiner 1985, 47; Bedon, et al. 1988a, 184; Nerzic 1989, 37; Kleiner 1992, 154; Bromwich 1996, 186; Cleere 2001, 150.

IV.2c. (Fig. 2.15). Over East and West Bays. H. c. 5m from top of pilaster to architrave, narrowing to c. 3.5m above the keystone, W. c. 4.4m. Begins c. 4.96m above ground level. Low relief. Gallic spoils including highly-detailed shields, spears, swords, 35

Mingazzini 1968, 163-167; Anderson 1987, 159-192. Although she accepts a date for the original construction of the arch in the Augustan period, Küpper-Böhm (1996, 109) proposes that the second attic was added in the second century A.D. 115

S.L. McGowen and insignia, including the Gallic wild boar standards. Low relief. Amy et al. 1962, plates 20 and 82.

cuirasses, wild boar insignia, carnyces, etc.; some shields inscribed with personal names. Amy et al. 1962, plate 75 and 77.

IV.3b. Frieze. H. c. 0.56m, W. 8.33m. Begins c. 10.6m above ground level. Low relief. Pairs of helmeted Romans carrying shields and weapons battle nude, hairy Gauls, protected only with shields; in each pair the Roman is always victorious. Amy et al. 1962, plate 11, 21, and 68.

IV.2d. Dedicatory Inscription. On fasciae of architrave. H. 1.72m. c. 10m from ancient ground level. Restored from clamp holes: Ti(berio) Caesari divi Augusti f(ilio) Divi Iuli nepoti Augusto pontifici maximo tribunicia / potestate XXVIII imperatori IIX co(n)s(uli) IIII restitutori coloniae

IV.3c. First Attic Storey. H. c. 2.18m, W. 8.48m. Begins c. 11.7m above ground level. Low relief. Pediment broken by a half-circle niche containing a head wearing a radiate crown, presumably Sol; flanking the niche are cornucopias; a pair of tritons above the pediment (Fig. 2.18). Amy et al. 1962, plate 21.

This restoration identifies Tiberius in his twentyeighth tribunate, which would date the inscription to A.D. 26/27, supplying a terminus ante quem for the arch. Therefore, most would date the construction of the arch from A.D. 20-26.36

IV.4. (Fig. 2.14) South Façade. H. 19.21m, W. 19.57. Sculpture poorly preserved. Amy et al. 1962, plate 5.

CIL XII.1230-1231=AE 1962.400; Amy et al. 1962, plate 53.

IV.4a. Archivolts. Central bay – L. c. 8m, W. c. 0.68m. Begins at the top of the pilasters, c. 5.6m. Side bays – L. c. 4.6m, W. 0.57m. Begins c. 4.4m above ground level. Low relief. Central bay: Garlands of fruit and flowers. East and west bays: Oak branches. Amy et al. 1962, plate 67.

IV.2e. (Fig. 2.15). First Attic Storey, over East and West Bays. Right side of west relief partially damaged. H. 2.18m, W. c. 4.4m. Begins c. 11.7m above ground level. Low relief. Naval equipment including masts, ropes, pulleys, three-pronged ramming prows, dragon prows, trident standards, etc. Amy et al. 1962, plate 84.

IV.4b. Pilasters. Flanking archways. Central bay – H. c. 5.6m, W. 0.68m. Side bays – H. c. 4.4m, W. 0.57m. Low relief. Scrolls of foliage. Amy et al. 1962, plate 71.

IV.2f. Second Attic Storey, Small Socles. Above the east and west small bays, but no sculpture survives on the west small socle. H. c. 2.3m, W. c. 2.9m. Begins c. 15m above ground level. Low relief. Sacrificial implements including a patera, a lituus, and a simpulum. Amy et al. 1962, plate 90.

IV.4c. Over East and West Small Bays. H. c. 5m from top of pilaster to architrave, narrowing to c. 3.5m above the keystone, W. c. 4.4m. Begins 4.96m above ground level. Low relief. Panel over west bay does not survive. Gallic spoils including highly-detailed shields, spears, swords, cuirasses, wild boar insignia, carnyces, etc.; some shields inscribed with personal names, including the name Sacrovir. Amy et al. 1962, plate 76.

IV.2g. North Façade, Second Attic Storey, Central Large Socle. H. c. 2.3m, W. c. 7.7m. Begins c. 15m above ground level. High relief. Front: Roman cavalrymen fight bare-chested Gauls wearing trousers and Germans wearing leather helmets and long trousers. Lateral Sides: Roman cavalryman tramples a kneeling barbarian. Amy et al. 1962, plates 28-29 and 94-95.

IV.4d. Dedicatory Inscription. On fasciae of architrave. H. 1.72m. c. 10m from ancient ground level. Clamp holes poorly preserved. Restoration presumably the same as the north façade. Amy et al. 1962, plate 5.

IV.3. East Façade. H. 19.21m, W. 8.40. Amy et al. 1962, plate 6. IV.3a. (Fig. 2.17) Intercolumniations. Three sculpted panels between Corinthian columns. Each panel – H. c. 5.1m, W. from the center of the column 2.40m (left), 2.58m (center), 2.36m (right). Begins c. 4.9m above ground level. In each panel a pair of captives, poorly preserved, is chained to a trophy consisting of a tunic and a cloak on a cruciform frame, topped by a helmet or cap, behind which appear lances, carnyces,

IV.4e. (Fig. 2.16) Frieze. West end is lost, section over central bay is poorly preserved. H. c. 0.56m, W. 19.58m. Begins c. 10.6m above ground level. Low relief. Pairs of helmeted Romans carrying shields and weapons battle nude, hairy Gauls, protected only with shields; in each pair the Roman is always victorious. Amy et al. 1962, plate 10 and 68. IV.4f. First Attic Storey, over East and West Bays. H. 2.18m, W. c. 4.4m. Begins 11.7m above ground level. Low relief. Naval equipment including masts, ropes, pulleys, three-pronged ramming prows, dragon head

36

MacKendrick 1971, 101; Gros 1979, 82; Kleiner 1985, 47; Bedon, et al. 1988a, 184; Nerzic 1989, 37; Kleiner 1992, 154; Bromwich 1996, 186; Cleere 2001, 150. 116

Catalogue prows, trident standards, etc. Amy et al. 1962, plate 85. IV.4g. Second Attic Storey, Small Socles. Above east and west small bays, but no sculpture survives on the west small socle. H. c. 2.3m, W. c. 2.9m. Begins c. 15m above ground level. Low relief. Female figure with billowing cloak, perhaps a personification of a breeze. Amy et al. 1962, plate 90. IV.4h. Second Attic Storey, Central Large Socle. H. c. 2.3m, W. c. 7.7m. Begins c. 15m above ground level. High relief. Front: Roman cavalrymen fight barechested Gauls wearing trousers and Germans wearing leather helmets and long trousers. Lateral Sides: Roman cavalryman tramples a kneeling barbarian. Amy et al. 1962, plates 28, 30, and 93-94. IV.5. West Façade. H. 19.21m, W. 8.40. Sculpture poorly preserved. Amy et al. 1962, plate 6. IV.5a. West Façade Intercolumniations. Three sculpted panels between Corinthian columns; only the left panel survives. Each panel – H. c. 5.1m, W. from the center of the column 2.36m. Begins c. 4.9m above ground level. Low relief. In each, a pair of captives, poorly preserved, is chained to a trophy consisting of a tunic and a cloak on a cruciform frame, topped by a helmet or cap, behind which appear lances, carnyces, and insignia, including the Gallic wild boar standards. Amy et al. 1962, p. 19. IV.5b. West Façade, Frieze. H. c. 0.56m, W. 8.48m. Begins c. 10.6m above ground level. Low relief. Only a single figure on the far left side survives. A Roman wearing a tunic extends his shield towards, presumably, a second figure. The frieze almost certainly continues the sequence of fighting pairs from the friezes of the east and south façades. Amy et al. 1962, plate 68.

117

S.L. McGowen Modern History: Excavation has been taking place on the site for almost 300 years, most recently by Cunliffe beginning in the 1960s. The finds are housed in the Roman Baths Museum.

V. Sanctuary of Sulis Minerva, Aquae Sulis (Bath) Province: Britannia Location: Southwest England, in the county of Somerset

Primary Publication(s): Cunliffe and Fulford 1982, 6-13 and plates 13-16, 18-10; Cunliffe and Davenport 1985.

Ancient History of the Site: Aquae Sulis was located on a low, broad stretch of blue lias clay, at a spot where the slope to the River Avon was gentle and where the firmer banks facilitated crossing.37 Three hot springs, producing more than a quarter of a million gallons of hot water per day, bubble up through deep cuts in the limestone. Although the areas around Aquae Sulis appear to have been heavily used during the Iron Age, little evidence of pre-Roman activity has been found at Aquae Sulis.38 After the Roman conquest of Britain in A.D. 43, the Romans constructed an important east-west thoroughfare near Aquae Sulis, the Fosse Way, for the movement of troops and provisions.39 After the aggrandizement of the spring, Aquae Sulis became a cultural center, but it never developed into a true town. Based on names from the surviving inscriptions, it is clear that indigenous people, Roman soldiers, Gallic pilgrims, and many others patronized this eminent sacred shrine.40

Monument(s): V.1. The Temple. Dated to the first phase of construction, c. A.D. 65-75. V.1a. (Fig. 2.19). Temple Pediment. Seven of twentyone blocks survive. As restored, H. 2.46m, W. 8.03m, D. 0.43m. Low relief. Two winged victories standing on globes hold a circular shield decorated with a mustached gorgon-Oceanus/Neptune conflation; below the victories, two helmets, one shaped like a dolphin and one topped by an owl; a small fragment of a Triton visible on the right edge of the far right block located on the bottom row indicates that each corner was likely filled with a Triton blowing a conch shell. Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, figs. 11 and 65, plates XXV-XXXIX.

Description: The sanctuary sat adjacent to a large set of baths, and the two structures were linked by the sacred spring located in the southeast corner of the precinct.41 The enclosure surrounding the temple measured 72m east-west by 52m north-south. The temple, with a podium measuring c. 14m east-west by 9m north-south, was positioned in the western half of this precinct and was oriented to the east, on axis with both the altar and the main entrance.42

V.1b. Temple Cornice. Thirteen blocks, ranging in length from 0.91m to 0.20m, survive. Low relief. Acanthus leaves on the cyma, undecorated fascia, and scrolls, floral and vegetal decoration on the cavetto soffit. Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, fig. 12 and plate XL-XLIII. V.1c. Temple Columns. Fourteen fragments, including pieces of fluted shafts, an Attic base, and Corinthian capitals, of four columns survive. As restored, each column measures approximately 8m in height and 0.7m in diameter. Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, fig. 12 and plates XLIV-XLVI.

The style of the column capitals (Cat. V.1c) suggests that the temple was originally constructed in the late Neronian or early Flavian periods, c. A.D. 65-75.43 The date is supported by the architectural style of the baths and the coinage evidence from the spring. Further construction took place in sanctuary during the late second or early third century A.D.44 The temple, its decoration, and all the stone monuments from the sanctuary were made of local oolitic limestone.45

V.2. Altar. As restored, 2.2m square on a limestone platform of 2.86m square. Three of presumably four corners, each sculpted on two adjacent faces, survive. Dated to the first phase of construction, c. A.D. 65-75. Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, 118, fig. 166. V.2a. (Fig. 2.20-2.21). Altar Corner. H. 1.27m, W. 0.55m, D. 0.55m. Low relief. Bacchus holding a thyrsus and feeding a panther from a cup; Spring Goddess holding a cornucopia and an overturned vessel. Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, plate XLIX.

37

Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, 4-8; Cunliffe 1986a, 2-3. 38 Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, 8-9; Cunliffe 1986a, 715. 39 Webster 1980, 161; de la Bédoyère 2002, 70. On the initial Roman settlement at Aquae Sulis, see Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, 9-10; Cunliffe 1986a, 16-19. 40 Green 1995, 98-99; Henig 2000, 128. 41 Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, 24-25. On the baths, see Cunliffe 2000, 82-105. 42 Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, 25-35; Cunliffe 2000, 40-46. 43 Blagg 1979, 107; Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, 65. 44 Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, 43-45 and 49-52; Cunliffe 1986b, 3-4; Cunliffe 2000, 55-56. 45 Kellaway 1985, 5.

V.2b. Altar Corner. H. 1.27m, W. 0.55m, D. 0.55m. Low relief. Apollo with a lyre propped on his knee; Neptune or Venus holding a dolphin in his right hand. Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, plate L. V.2c. (Fig. 2.22-2.23). Altar Corner. H. 1.27m, W. 0.55m, D. 0.55m. Low relief. Hercules resting his right arm on a club and holding a large vessel in his left hand; Jupiter holding a staff in his right arm with an eagle at his feet. Cunliffe and Davenport 1985. 118

Catalogue Aug(ustae) L(ucius) Manius / Dionisias(!) libe(r)t(us) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)

V.3. (Fig. 2.24). Pediment of a Quadrifrons. Eleven fragments survive. As restored, 2.3m from the bottom of the keystone, W. c. 4.6m. Functioned as the main entrance to the sacred spring. Low relief. Two nymphs hold a roundel over a rock out of which water gushes; rays of the sun appear on the upper edge of the roundel. Dated to the second phase of construction in the late second or early third century. Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, plates LI-LIII.

RIB 147=AE 1924.92; Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, LXI, 9A.8. V.8. Votive Altar. Upper right corner is broken. H. 1.27m, W. 0.58m. No sculptural decoration. Inscription below a triangular pediment with flanking scrolls: [D]eae S[uli] / [p]ro salute et / [i]ncolumitate / Aufidi Maximi / [C](enturionis) Leg(ionis) VI Vic(tricis) M(arcus) / Aufidius L[e]mnus / Lebertus v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)

V.4. Sculpted Screen. Fourteen fragments survive. As restored, H. 1.5m, W. c. 7m in length. Consisted of four sculpture niches divided by Corinthian pilasters and a central door; perhaps topped by Small Sculpted Pediment (Cat. V.5). As restored, each niche measures c. 3m in height and 1.2m in width. Low relief. In each of four niches is seated a female figure, above which is a small square frame containing a Cupid holding attributes for the seasons (Fig. 2.25). Dated to the second phase of construction in the late second or early third century A.D. Frieze inscription:

CIL VII.41=RIB 144; Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, plate LX, 9A.3. V.9. Statue Base. Intact. H. 0.90m. Found in situ to the west of the main altar. No sculptural decoration. Inscription: Deae Suli / L(ucius) Marcius Memor / harusp(ex) / d(edit) d(edicavit)

[C]laudius Ligur [- c]ol(l)egio longa seria [-]ae nimia vetus[tate] [- sua pec]un(i)a refici et repingi cur[avit

AE 1966.220; Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, plate LX, 9A.1.

Panel Inscription: V.10. Votive Altar. Top broken. H. 0.76m, W. 0.43m. No sculptural decoration. Inscription:

C(aius) Protacius / [D]eae Sulis M(i)[n-]

Peregrinus / Secundi fil(ius) / civis Trever(orum) / Loucetio / Marti et / Nemetona / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)

CIL VII.39c-e=RIB 141a-d; Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, fig. 70 and plates LV-LVII. V.5. (Fig. 2.26). Small Sculpted Pediment. Five fragments survive. As restored, H. c. 1.52m, W. 5.49m, D. at least 0.50m. Perhaps topped Sculpted Screen. Low relief. In the center, a roundel containing the head and torso of a draped female, likely Luna, with an elaborate hairstyle, holding a riding crop; behind her a crescent moon in low relief. Dated to the second phase of construction in the late second or early third century A.D. Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, plate LVIII.

CIL VII.36=RIB 140; Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, LXI, 9A.9. V.11. (Fig. 3.2). Inscribed Monument. H. 0.59m, W. 0.46m, D. 0.30m. Perhaps a statue base. No sculptural decoration. Inscription: Sulevis / Sulinus / scul(p)tor / Bruceti f(ilius) / sacrum f(ecit) l(ibens) m(erito)

V.6. Votive Altar. Broken into two pieces. As restore, H. 1.52m, W. 0.71m. No sculptural decoration. Inscription below a triangular pediment with flanking scrolls:

CIL VII.37=RIB 151; Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, LXI, 9A.10. V.12. Votive Altar. Top and base are lost. 0.43m by 0.53m by 0.30m. No sculptural decoration. Inscription:

[D]eae Suli / pro salute et / incolumitate / Mar(ci) Aufid[i] / Maximi C(enturionis) Leg(ionis) / VI Vic(tricis) / [A]ufidius Eu / tuches leb(erti) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)

[P]riscu[s] / Touti f(ilius) / lapidariu[s] / civis Car[nu]tenus / S[uli] / deae v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)

CIL VII.40=RIB 143; Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, plate LX, 9A.2.

RIB 149; Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, plate LX, 9A.4. V.7. Votive Altar. Top part badly damaged; volute surviving only on the right side. H. 1.2m, W. 0.63m. No sculptural decoration. Inscription: Dea[e] Suli / [o]b s[alutem] sac(rum) / G(ai) Iav[oleni Sa]tur[n]/[al]is [---] / [i]m[a]g[i]n(iferi) leg(ionis) II /

V.13. Votive Altar. Top and base are lost. H. 0.25m, W. 0.33m. No sculptural decoration. Inscription: Q(uintus) / Pompeiuis / Anicetus / Suli

119

S.L. McGowen RIB 148; Cunliffe and Davenport 1985, plate LXI, 9A.5.

120

Catalogue VI.1a. (Fig. 2.28). Sculpted Panels. Originally three blocks, two now lost. As restored, H. 1.80m, W. 1.55m, D. 0.70m. Low relief. Side A: Upright male wearing a billowing cloak; identified as Mithras, but also may represent Ganymede or Attis. Side B: Nude male, most likely Apollo, with a cloak draped over his shoulders holding a bow; a head appears in lower right corner, identified as Coronis. Espérandieu, V.3806.

VI. Sanctuary, modern Champlieu Province: Gallia Belgica Location: Northern France in the department of Oise, 16km south of Compiègne Ancient History of the Site: This ostensibly rural temple-theater-bath complex was located on the Roman road between Augustomagus Silvanectum (Senlis) and Augusta Suessionum (Soissons).46 Nineteenth-century excavations and more recent aerial photography have produced evidence of a settlement to the north of the complex, but the area does not seem to have been particularly urbanized.

VI.1b. (Fig. 2.27). Sculpted Panels. Three fragmentary blocks. As restored, H. 1.60m. Side A: Draped female dangles an infant by his feet; Thetis dipping Achilles into the river Styx. Side B: Nude male, likely Apollo, wearing a laurel wreath standing next to an altar. Panels framed by bands of foliage. Low relief. Espérandieu, V.3803.

Description: The discovery of several Gallic coins and some evidence of a wooden structure suggests pre-Roman activity occurred on the site,47 but the first monumental temple was constructed in the first century A.D.48 This temple was replaced after A.D. 110 by a larger stone temple, and all of the surviving architectural decoration belongs to this phase.49 The theater was added at the beginning of the second century A.D., followed by the baths and a second temple.50

VI.1c. Sculpted Panels. Two Sculpted Blocks – Helmeted Mars and a dying Niobid (Fig. 2.29). Two of three blocks survive. Side A: Band of foliage framing left side; helmeted, beardless, nude male, Mars, strides right. Side B: Nude female, a Niobid, draped over the knees of a seated figure. Low relief. H. 1.23m. W. c. 1.40m, D. 0.87m. Espérandieu, V.3812.

The square temple, measuring 22.3m per side, was oriented east-west and was situated in the northwest corner of a large polygonal enclosure that measured 100m by 130m. It was surrounded by a rectangular gallery and a peristyle measuring 60m by 45m and was approached from the front by a large central staircase broken at the top by an altar.51 The temple and all the sculptural decoration were made of coarse, fragile limestone.52

VI.1d. Sculpted Panels. Single block of presumably three. Side A: Torso of a nude male carrying an infant, possibly Mercury with the baby Bacchus/Dionysus; a large stylized plant; indications of a third figure (Fig. 2.33). Side B: Figure, possibly horned. Low relief. H. 0.61m, W. 1.02m, D. 0.64m. Espérandieu, V.3815. VI.1e. (Fig. 2.30-2.31). Sculpted Panels. Only a single fragmentary block survives. H. 0.37m, W. 1.10m, D. 0.68m. Low relief. Side A: Wing of an eagle, most likely Ganymede and the Eagle. Side B: Bearded male with head resting on the right shoulder and chained to a rock, presumably Prometheus. Espérandieu, V.3804.

Modern History: The site has been known and plundered over the last two centuries or more. As a result, much of the sculpture is now lost, making the nineteenthcentury records essential.53 The surviving sculpture is now located in Musée Vivinel in Compiègne. Primary Publication(s): Espérandieu, V.3803-3846; Woimant 1993, 63-198.

VI.1f. Sculpted Panels. Only a single fragmentary block survives. H. 0.46m, W. 0.86m, D. 0.43m. Low relief. Side A: Nude upright female holding bird in her hands; Leda and the Swan (Fig. 2.32). Side B: A disc or oscillum with a pierced by a rectilinear object. Espérandieu, V.3805.

Monument(s): VI.1. Entranceway to the Temple. Each side of the doorframe consisted of nine superimposed blocks, which were decorated on two faces. As restored, H. c. 5m. Woimant 1993, 193, plate IV.

VI.2. Sculpted Frieze. Highly fragmentary, more than twenty fragments survive. Encircled the temple. Largest fragment – H. 0.59m, W. 1.10m, D. 0.62m. Low relief. Nereids, cupids, and sea monsters, including Tritons and griffins. Espérandieu, V.3810, 3813, 3814, 3818-3833, 3836, 3838, 3843.

46

Woimant 1993, 66-68; Bromwich 2003, 58. Bromwich 2003, 58. 48 Woimant 1993, 127. 49 Woimant 1993, 128. 50 Nerzic 1989, 159; Woimant 1993, 68; Bromwich 2003, 58-60. 51 Woimant 1993, 71. 52 Woimant 1993, 135. 53 Woimant 1993, 68-71. 47

VI.3. Fragment of Frieze and Cornice. Now lost. H. 0.90m, W. 1.30m, D. 0.60m. Low relief. Bearded Atlas, preserved from the torso up, holding an entablature. Espérandieu, V.3808.

121

S.L. McGowen VI.4. Corinthian Capital. H. 0.37m, W. 0.48m (of the abacus). Low relief. Bearded face appears between volutes. Espérandieu, V.3839. VI.5.Corinthian Capital. Low relief. Beardless face appears between volutes. Espérandieu, V.3839. VI.6. Modillion. H. 0.32m, W. 0.44m, D. 0.13m. Low relief. Leafy mask. Espérandieu, V.3837. VI.7. Rectangular Block. Possibly part of the cornice. Low relief. Sea lion facing right with the hand of a Cupid or Nereid on his head. Espérandieu, V.3817. VI.8. Fragmentary Polygonal Block. H. 0.63m, W. 1.12m, D. c. 0.45m. Low relief. Sculpted on three faces. Side A: Mercury, nude with a cloak draped over his left shoulder, seen from behind, wings apparent in his hair, holds a caduceus in his left hand. Side B: Stylized foliage. Side C: Shoulder and left arm of a nude figure wearing two bracelets. Espérandieu, V.3807.

122

Catalogue VII.3. (Fig. 2.34). Statue of a Nude Youth. Limestone. H. 1.75m. In the round. Nude male standing frontally, advancing on the right foot; strap across his chest; right arm bent over the right shoulder; left arm wrapped in drapery covering a rectangular pillar. Youthful Mars. Espérandieu, III.2238; Rolley 1978, 170, fig. 174.

VII. Sanctuary of Mars(?), modern Montmarte Province: Gallia Lugdunensis Location: Central France in the Yonne department in Burgundy, on a hill called Montmarte near Vault-deLugny and 7km north of Avallon

VII.4. Cult Statue(?). Limestone. Two fragments survive. Larger than life-size. In the round.

Ancient History of the Site: This apparently rural sanctuary was located not far from the road from Augustodunum (Autun) and Lutetia (Paris) to the north coast at Juliobona Caletorum (Lillebonne) as well as the road connecting Augustodunum with Durocortorum (Reims).

VII.4a. Fragment of a Staff. Broken at both ends. L. 1.64m. No photographic or pictorial reference available. VII.4b. Fragment of a Knee. Marcadé 1982, 42. fig. 17.

Description: During the Roman period, a large terrace with a pair of retaining walls was constructed on the west side of the hill, and on this terrace a roughly square temple was constructed near a pair of springs. This fairly standard Gallo-Roman temple consisted of a square cella measuring 8.60m by 7.80m lit by high windows and surrounded by a gallery measuring 16.10m by 16.90m.54 A second structure of unknown function was built parallel to the north retaining wall, but no direct connection between it and the temple has been detected.55 From the remains, it does not seem that the temple had any architectural decoration, but it did contain a series of freestanding sculpture, some made of marble, likely from Morvan some 40km away, and others made of limestone of unknown origin.56 Although some date the sculpture to the Domitianic period on stylistic grounds,57 the earliest coinage found at the site dates to the Trajanic period (A.D. 97-117).58

VII.5. (Fig. 2.35). Fragmentary Statue. Marble. In the round. Youthful Mars. Marcadé 1982, 40, fig. 49. VII.5a. Torso with Arm Extended. Nude upper torso with right arm extended. VII.5b. Head of Helmeted Youth. Only a plaster cast survives. H. 0.26m. Youthful, beardless male wearing a helmet pushed back over his head. Espérandieu, III.2236; Rolley 1978, 171, fig. 175. VII.5c. Pelvis. Marble. Nude pelvis. Partially preserved hip indicates weight supported on left leg. VII.6. Fragmentary Statue of a Male. Marble. In the round. Pair of legs, right leg surviving up to the middle of the thigh, with support strut behind; left leg, partially covered by drapery, preserved up to the level of the hip. Contrapposto stance with weight on the right foot. Marcadé 1982, 40, fig. 49.

Modern History: The site was discovered in 1822 and excavated at that time by the architect Caristie and later re-examined by A. Parat in 1907 and A. Olivier and M. Baudeau in 1980-1982. The sculptural remains have been moved to Musée de l’Avallonais.

VII.7. Fragmentary Statue of a Male. Marble. In the round. Right leg with strut behind; left leg partially covered with drapery fall. Contrapposto stance with weight on the right foot. No photographic or pictorial reference available.

Primary Publication(s): Espérandieu, III.2235-2239; Rolley 1978, 169-174; Marcadé 1982, 36-42; Delor 2002, 749-751.

VII.8. Fragmentary Statue of a Male. Marble. In the round. Pair of legs. Right leg from below the knee and foot; large part of left leg partially covered by drapery, foot made of multiple pieces. Contrapposto stance with weight on the left foot. Marcadé 1982, 40, fig. 49 (to the right) and 11.

Monument(s): VII.1. Fragment of Cornice Molding. Marble(?). Sequence of three dentils divided by two floral elements. No photographic or pictorial reference available. VII.2. (Fig. 2.37). Statue of a Draped Male. Limestone. H. 2.10m. In the round. Standing male, holding a patera in his right hand, partially draped by a Greek style cloak pulled over his head; also wearing sandals. Genius figure. Espérandieu, III.2239; Rolley 1978, 170, fig. 173.

VII.9. Fragmentary Statue of a Male. Marble. In the round. Bare torso preserved from the stomach to the shoulders, head and arms are missing; some indications of a right inclination and drapery over the left shoulder. Marcadé 1982, 40, fig. 12.

54

VII.10. Fragments of a Leg. Marble. In the round. Right leg broken into three pieces. Heel and back of foot made of two separate pieces. No photographic or pictorial reference available.

Rolley 1978, 169; Olivier and Baudot 1989, 180. Delor 2002, 749-750. 56 Rolley 2004, 161. 57 Rolley 1978, 174; Rolley 2004, 163. 58 Nerzic 1989, 155. 55

123

S.L. McGowen VII.11. (Fig. 2.36). Head of a Bearded Male. Limestone. H. 0.33m. In the round. Male head with shaggy hair and beard; pathetic or tormented expression. Possibly Laocoon, but most likely a vanquished foe or giant. Espérandieu, III.2237; Rolley 1978, 172, fig. 179. VII.12. Head of Helmeted Youth. Limestone. H. 0.30m. In the round. Youthful beardless male wearing a helmet pushed back over his head. Youthful Mars. Espérandieu, III.2235; Rolley 1978, 171, fig. 176. VII.13. Fragment of a Helmeted Head. Marble. In the round. Fragment of a helmet above remains of hair; face lost; some indication of holes for the insertion of metal decoration. Marcadé 1982, 41, fig. 16. VII.14. Fragmentary Helmeted Youth. Marble. In the round. Head of a beardless male, broken at the bridge of the nose and above the eyebrows; indications of a helmet pushed back over the head. Youthful Mars. Rolley 1978, 171, fig. 177. VII.15. Fragment of the Head of a Male. Limestone. In the round. Top portion of a head with short, curly hair carved in an abstract style. Rolley 1978, 172, fig.111. VII.16. Right Arm and Hand. Marble. Fingers broken off. Ridge on the palm between thumb and index finger suggests it clasped a shaft (sword hilt?) and the break at the wrist suggests an elevated, extended position. Youthful Mars. In the round. No photographic or pictorial reference available. VII.17. Fragment of a Left Arm. Marble. Arm survives from the middle of the bicep; shoulder area covered with drapery. Possibly associated with Fragments of a Sword. In the round. Marcadé 1982, 41, figs. 14 and 15. VII.18. Fragments of a Left Hand and Arm. Limestone. Left forearm wrapped in drapery and hand grasping the hilt of a sword; some indications of fringe suggest it may have belonged to a cuirassed statue. In the round. Marcadé 1982, 42, fig. 19. VII.19. Fragments of a Sword Sheath. Marble. Delor 2002, 751, fig. 1165. VII.20. Fragments of a Sword Sheath. Limestone. Delor 2002, 751, fig. 1165. VII.21. Fragments of Helmet Decoration. Limestone. Fragments from what appear to be the plume of a helmet decorated with a fish-bone pattern. Marcadé 1982, 42, fig. 18. VII.22. (Fig. 2.38). Fragment of an Inscribed Plaque. Marble. Upper left corner and several fragments of middle portion; perhaps a statue base. Inscription: Deo N[.]rc[ - ] / ex stipibu[s-] / curaiv[ - ] CIL XIII.2889; Delor 2002, 751, fig. 1157. 124

Catalogue leaves symmetrically positioned on either side of a stem, each set alternating in direction. Side B (under the arch): Symmetrical leaves growing out of a base at the start of the arch. Side C: Large, perforated leaves. Mitard 1994, 164-165, plates XVI-XVII.

VIII. Sanctuary of Mercury(?), modern Genainville Province: Gallia Lugdunensis Location: Northern France in the department of Vald’Oise, approximately 60km northwest of Paris

VIII.1b. Relief Panel. Badly damaged. H. c. 0.8m, W. 0.9m. Low relief. Decorated on three faces. Side A: Mass of weapons. Side B (under the arch): Diminutive figure holding a long, indistinguishable object. Side C: Mass of weapons. Mitard 1994, 183, plate XXVII.

Ancient History of the Site: This grand temple-theater complex was situated within a verdant valley cut into the soft limestone and located along the road connecting Lutetia (Paris) and Rotomagus (Rouen). The territory once belonged to the Veliocasses Gauls, and some Iron Age activity, consisting primarily of a fifth-century necropolis, is known at the site.59 No evidence has yet been found for habitation in the area dating to the Iron Age or Roman period.60

VIII.1c. Relief Panel. Three blocks survive. Bottom block: H. 0.20m, W. 1.00m (max), D. 0.60m (max). Middle block: H. 0.20m, W. 1.13m (max), D. 0.59m (max). Top block: H. 0.70-0.72m, W. 0.58m, D. 0.59m (max). Side A: Pair of bare legs, a Cupid, and a draped female; possibly Adonis with Eros/Cupid and Aphrodite/Venus. Side B: Medallion or wreath adorned with a ribbon encircling a female head. Mitard 1994, 175, fig. XXI and 176, plate XXIII.

Description: The earliest evidence of formal religious activity in the area dates to the Augustan period, when a temple was built on the site.61 This first temple was replaced by a double-cella temple measuring 27.5m north-south and 29m east-west within a large enclosure measuring 111m by 77m. Coins representing Faustina Mater Diva were found in the foundations of the stonebuilt temple, suggesting a terminus post quem of A.D. 141 for its construction.62 Stylistically the sculpture corresponds with mid-second century monuments from Nijmegen and Trier which supports the dating in the middle of the second century.63 All of the sculpture except for the Small Statue of Seated Figure (Cat. VIII.11) belongs to the period of the second temple, and all were made of local limestone.

VIII.1d. Relief Panel. Two blocks of a possible four survive. Block 1: H. 0.73m, W. 0.93m, D. 0.59m (at the level of the upper border). Block 2: H. 0.46m, W. c. 0.24m, D. 0.59m (max). Side A: Helmeted female; possibly Minerva. Side B: Medallion or wreath adorned with a ribbon encircling a female head (Fig. 2.41). Mitard 1994, 174, plate XXI and 177, plate XXIV. VIII.1e. Relief Panel from. Single badly-damaged block. H. 0.70m, W. 1.14m, D. 0.76m. Draped figure with hand on a small box on an altar, possibly Pandora. Mitard 1994, 179, fig. 155.

Modern History: The site was abandoned in the fourth century and used as a quarry during the fifth and sixth centuries. Thereafter, remains were preserved by 2-3m of alluvial deposit until their discovery in the modern period. Several sculptures were also recovered from one of the pools near the temple. The finds are now housed in the Musée Archéologique Departmental du Val d’Oise in Guiry-en-Vexin.

VIII.2. West Façade. As restored, H. c. 3.2m, W. c. 6.3m. Low relief. A series of sculpted panels, sculpted on both sides. VIII.2a. Relief Panel from West Façade. Two fragmentary pieces. Medallion or wreath adorned with a ribbon encircling a female head. Mitard 1994, 179, fig. 158.

Primary Publication(s): Mitard 1994. Monument(s): VIII.1. (East Facade. As restored, H. c. 3.2m, W. c. 6.3m. Low relief. A series of sculpted panels, sculpted on both sides. Mitard 1994, plate XXVII.

VIII.2b. Relief Panel from West Façade. Fragmentary block. H. 0.7m. Upper register: Bare human foot. Lower register: Human head, possibly female. Mitard 1994, 179, fig. 159.

VIII.1a. Archivolt. As restored, H. c. 0.48m, L. 1.70. Low relief. Carved on three faces. Side A: Groups of

VIII.2c. Relief Panel from West Façade. Two fragments of superimposed decorated panels. Upper register: Winged animal and a griffin. Lower register: Bare left arm raised upward. Mitard 1994, figs. 160161.

59

Jolly 1987, 287; Mitard 1994, 40-41. Jolly 1987, 286; Nerzic 1989, 180. 61 Mitard 1985, 7; Nerzic 1989, 65; Mitard 1994, 415; Bromwich 2003, 66. On the early temple, see Mitard 1994, 43-46. On the necropolis, see Jolly 1987, 287; Mitard 1994, 40-41. 62 Mitard 1985, 8; Nerzic 1989, 180; Mitard 1994, 415. 63 Benoit 1969, 98; Nerzic 1989, 180; Mitard 1994, 213214 and 415. 60

VIII.3. Relief Panel from the Ambulatory. Three fragments. As restored, W. c. 3.4m, D. c. 0.60m. Low relief. Decorated on two faces. Side A: Draped figure standing next to a tripod over a caldron, out of which an animal emerges. Revival of the ram by Medea before 125

S.L. McGowen Pelias (Fig. 2.40). Side B: Cupids and sea creatures. Mitard 1994, 173, plate XX.

VIII.11. Small Statue of a Seated Figure. Head missing. H. 0.35m. Figure seated with legs crossed, holding a small horse in front of his chest. Belongs to the first phase of the site. Mitard 1994, 313, figs. 311a-b.

VIII.4. Frieze. Nine fragments survive from the east side and three from the west. H. 0.58 (max) to 0.51 (min). Low relief. Marine themes, including sea monsters, Tritons, and Cupids riding sea monsters. Mitard 1994, 139, figs. 143-151.

VIII.12. Fragment of an Inscribed Plaque. Bronze. Upper central piece of an inscribed plaque. Possibly a dedication to Mercury. Inscription:

VIII.5. Cornice Fragments. Low relief. Leaf dentils and leafy mask modillions. Mitard 1994, 130-131, figs. 135118.

[D]eo Me[ - ] / [A]LLO[ - ]

VIII.6. (Fig. 2.39). Sculpted Block. W. c. 0.78m, D. c. 0.45m. Decorated on two faces. High relief. Side A: Cyclopes with beards and shaggy hair. Side B: Too badly damaged to determine decoration. Mitard 1994, 199, fig. 214.

VIII.13. Fragmentary Plaque. Bronze. Upper part of a sequence of letters cut out in silhouette. Possibly a dedication to Rosmerta. Lettering:

VIII.7. Statue Group. As restored, W. 3.10m. Perhaps for a small half-pediment over the ambulatory. In the round. Mitard 1994, 192, plate XXIX.

Mitard 1994, 363, fig. 367.

Mitard 1994, 363, fig. 366.

R[o]SM[ - ]

VIII.7a. (Fig. 2.42). Seated Female and Female with an Urn. Made up of three fragmentary blocks. Lower Block: H. 0.74m, W. 1.2. D. 0.73m; Upper Block 1: H. 0.70m, D. 0.33m; Upper Block 2: H. 0.62m, D. 0.30m. Most likely part of a pedimental group. Left: Female, nude from the waist up, leaning on an overturned jug pouring water. Right: Enthroned, draped female, holding a patera, towards which a small child reaches. Mitard 1994, 187, fig. 162. VIII.7b. (Fig. 2.43). Female with a Child. Fragmentary statue, head missing and arm broken. H. 0.77m, W. 1.58m, D. 0.51m. Reclining female, nude except for drapery on her thighs. Small child behind. Mitard 1994, 189, fig. 167. VIII.8. Fragmentary Statue of an Infant with Turtle. Preserved from the middle of the torso; figure’s right arm is also missing. In the round. Nude infant holds a turtle. Possibly young Mercury. Mitard 1994, 191, fig. 171. VIII.9. Sculpted Stele. Broken into three pieces. H. 1.0m, W. 0.43m, D. 0.15-0.18m. Decorated on two faces. Low relief. Side A: Bearded male standing frontally, dressed in a short tunic. Side B: Frontal figure, wearing what seems to be a neck torque. Mitard 1994, 313, figs. 312a-c. VIII.10. Sculpted Stele. Only the lower half survives. W. 0.59m, D. 0.42m. Sculpted on three faces. Low relief. Side A: Pair of bare legs of a presumably male figure, with a cloak falling down behind; possibly a god. Narrow Side: Flat face under which is a semi-circular object, possibly a necklace; badly damaged but apparently a Medusa mask. Side B: Two seated figures, right figure wearing an ankle length garment, left figure wearing a long garment pulled up over the knees; both figures have their hands in their laps; possibly dedicants. Mitard 1994, 313, figs. 313a-c.

126

Catalogue on a sandstone spur, and this local stone was used for all of the sculptures decorating the sanctuary.71

IX. Sanctuary of Hercules, modern Deneuvre Province: Gallia Belgica

Modern History: Periodic excavation took place between 1868 and 1890, but the most important work was done by Moitrieux in 1967-1987.72

Location: Eastern France in the Meurthe-et-Moselle department, approximately 60km southeast of Nancy

Primary Publication(s): Moitrieux 1992.

Ancient History of the Site: Possibly Danobriga, meaning “fortress of Donnos.”64 The ancient spring sanctuary at modern-day Deneuvre was situated on the southern side of the Meurthe River near a small settlement located at a crossing point of the river. It seems that the vicus was inhabited by the Leuci at least Numerous roads from the first century B.C.65 crisscrossed the area, and during the Roman period it appears as though the town had facilities for making both pottery and tile. Quarrying and forestry activities may also have occurred nearby,66 which would have given the town some economic importance. Its primary significance was, however, as a site for religious activity.

Monument(s): IX.1. Fragment of a Keystone. H. 0.13m, W. 0.49m. Perhaps from the vault in a colonnade on the east side of one of the basins. Possibly a dedication to the waters. Inscription: Div[ini?]s aq[uis] AE 1992.1259; Moitrieux 1992, 254, plate XXXIII, I.227. IX.2. Stele. Complete. H. 2.01m., W. 0.73m, D. 0.36m. Low relief. Figure stands inside a rectangular niche with rounded end. Hercules at rest. Well executed sculpture; lion skin hangs down from his left hand; his right hand rests on the top of the club. Dated stylistically to the fourth century. Inscription on the upper edge of stele:

Description: The sanctuary had no imposing monumental edifices, and instead religious activity centered on a series of pools.67 The first pools were made of wood, eventually replaced by stone constructions which were either open to the air or covered by simple shelters. No temenos wall defined the sacred space, but the east side was delimited by a line of stelai and altars. The sanctuary measures c. 17m square. The west basin measures 0.96m in diameter and 0.40m in depth and was situated in the center of a roughly square platform measuring about 4m per side with columns at the four corners. The semicircular east basin measures approximately 1m. The south basin measuring 0.61m by 0.66m was located in the middle of a platform measuring 1.39m on the north side and 1.90m on the east side, with columns at the four corners.68

[D]eo Herc[uli] / [---]inius Verus / ex voto AE 1980.649; Moitrieux 1992, 245, plate XIV, S.E. 286. IX.3. Stele. Complete. H. 1.94m, W. 0.75m, D. 0.24m. Low relief with details incised. Figure stands frontally; holds the lion skin against the left side of his body with the lion head in the bend of the elbow; his right hand holds his club behind his head. Hercules combatant. Dated stylistically to the fourth century. Moitrieux 1992, 232, plate XI, S.A. 210.

Based on numismatic evidence and carbon-14 dating, it seems that the sanctuary site with the wooden basins was set up in A.D. 150-170. The sanctuary also experienced a major period of development at the end of the second century.69 Five coins of Valentinian I (364-375) were also found, and so it appears that activity took place on the site into the late fourth century.70 The town is located

IX.4. (Fig. 2.47). Stele. Broken into 59 pieces but only the upper left corner missing. As restored, H. 1.85m, W. 0.59m, D. 0.34m. Base found in situ to the north of the large west basin. Low relief. Female figure stands frontally, holding a pitcher in her right hand, out of which water pours. Goddess of the Spring. Dated stylistically to the end of the second century. Moitrieux 1992, 235, plate XIV, S.A. 252.

64

IX.5. (Fig. 3.6). Stele. Complete. H. 1.75m, W. 0.650.66m, D. 0.32-0.25m. Low relief. Figure stands in a niche decorated with scrolls. Hercules at rest. Indications of a lion skin tied around the neck, but the head of the animal lacks realism; club hangs down from unclenched right hand; large head, poorly proportioned body and not well executed musculature. Dated stylistically to the middle of the third century. Moitrieux 1992, 234, plate XIII, S.A. 223.

Moitrieux 1981, 65-67. Fleury-Alcaraz 1997, 51. 66 Moitrieux 1981, 67 and 85; Moitrieux 1986, 226; Moitrieux 1992, 146; Bromwich 2003, 276. 67 On the layout of the sanctuary, see Moitrieux 1981, 7982; Moitrieux 1992, 210; Fleury-Alcaraz 1997, 52-54; Bromwich 2003, 276. On the chronology of these changes, see Moitrieux 1992, 193-207. 68 Moitrieux 1992, 23-31. 69 Moitrieux 1992, 193-196; Fleury-Alcaraz 1997, 51-52. 70 Moitrieux (HS, 202) notes that five coins of Valentinian I (364-375) were found on the site, and thus the sanctuaries destruction would be contemporary with or postdate his reign. 65

71

Moitrieux 1981, 65. For the analysis of the stone’s characteristics, see Moitrieux 1992, 145-146. 72 Moitrieux 1981, 69-79. 127

S.L. McGowen IX.6. Altar. Complete. H. 1.63m, W. 0.33m, D. 0.18m. Part of the alignment of reliefs to the east of the center of the sanctuary. Low relief. Hercules at rest. Figure holds a simple, undecorated club in his right hand; the lion skin is wrapped around his right arm with the lion head near the left hand. Dated stylistically to the second quarter of the second century. Moitrieux 1992, 248 plate XXVII, A.A. 359.

IX.13. Stele. Badly damaged with upper part missing. H. 1.36m, W. 0.52m, D. 0.14m. High relief, left shoulder. Low relief. Hercules at rest; lion skin, highly schematized, hangs on the figure’s left arm; his right arm rests on his club. Dated stylistically to the middle of the third century. Moitrieux 1992, 237, plate XVI, S.A. 266. IX.14. Stele. Complete, but the figure is preserved only from the knees to the feet. H. 1.36, W. 0.42m, D. 0.34m. High relief. Hercules of undetermined type. Figure holds a patera in his right hand over an altar. Dated stylistically to the middle of the third century. Moitrieux 1992, 241, plate XX, S.A. 129.

IX.7. (Fig. 2.44). Altar. Complete. H. 1.52m, W. 0.41m, D. 0.34m. Low relief. In alignment with other reliefs in the east part of the sanctuary. Hercules at rest. Lion skin draped over figure’s left forearm; club, under the figure’s right hand, presses down on a human head on the ground. Dated stylistically to the middle of the third century. Moitrieux 1992, 248 plate XXVII, A.A. 355.

IX.15. Altar. Left side completely destroyed. H. 1.35m, W. 0.43m, D. 0.53m. Low relief. Draped female figure, holding a thin baton in her left hand. Dated stylistically to the middle of the third century. Moitrieux 1992, 247, plate XXVI, A.A. 336.

IX.8. (Fig. 2.45). Altar. Complete but broken into three pieces. As restored, H. 1.48m, W. 0.43m, D. 0.27m. Figure under a pediment decorated with palmettes. Hercules combatant. Club held behind his head with his right hand; lion skin hangs down from his left. Low relief. Dated stylistically to the fourth century. Moitrieux 1992, 245, plate XXIV, A.A. 296.

IX.16. Altar. Complete. H. 1.35m, W. 0.35m, D. 0.31m. In alignment with other reliefs in the east part of the sanctuary. Figure stands under a small pediment decorated with scrolls. Low relief. Hercules at rest; lion skin draped over his left arm; his right hand rests on his club which sits atop a bearded and mustached human head. Dated stylistically to the middle of the third century. Moitrieux 1992, 248, plate XXVII, A.A. 356.

IX.9. Altar. Sixteen fragments recovered. As restored, H. 1.44m, W. 0.34m. Part of the alignment of reliefs on the east side of the sanctuary. Low relief. Hercules striding; club apparent in figure’s right hand. Dated stylistically to the fourth century. Moitrieux 1992, 248, plate XXVII, A.A. 361.

IX.17. Altar. Complete, but the figure is poorly preserved. H. 1.34m, W. 0.38m, D. 0.29m. Hercules at rest. Low relief. Date uncertain. Moitrieux 1992, 241, plate XX, A.A. 134.

IX.10. Altar. Complete but badly eroded. H. 1.40m, W. 0.45m, D. 0.25m. Low relief, and only contours of figure remain. Hercules at rest. Moitrieux 1992, plate XIV, A.A. 60.

IX.18. (Fig. 3.8). Altar. Missing only small fragments from above the head of the figure. H. 1.30m, W. 0.455m, D. 0.30m. Part of an alignment of reliefs to the east of the sanctuary. Low relief. Hercules combatant. Lion skin, in his left hand, hangs all the way down to the base; right hand holds the club behind his head; a small rectangle behind his right shoulder implies a quiver. Dated stylistically to the middle of the third century. Moitrieux 1992, 244, plate XXIII, S.A. 267.

IX.11. Stele. Fragmentary with figure complete only from the feet to the middle of the chest; head survives separately. H. 1.38m, W. 0.70m, D. 0.33m. Low relief, anatomical detail added with incision. Hercules at rest. Hands very large in respect to the rest of the body; lion skin draped over his left arm hangs down to the left leg; right hand rests on the club without any detail. Dated stylistically to the middle of the third century. Moitrieux 1992, 238, plate XVII, S.A. 279.

IX.19. Altar. Complete apart from the right corner. H. 1.25m, W. 0.37m, D. 0.34m. Part of the alignment of reliefs in the east part of the sanctuary. Low relief. Hercules at rest. Figure holds club down to his right side; lion skin is draped on his left forearm, left hand holds two apples. Dated stylistically to the beginning of the second or the middle of the third century. Moitrieux 1992, 246 plate XXV, A.A. 302.

IX.12. Stele. Complete but part of the head, part of the right arm, and the club missing; base carrying feet has been restored. H. 1.37m, W. 0.73m, D. 0.13m. Part of an alignment of sculptures to the east of the sanctuary. High relief, with figure’s right shoulder in the round. Hercules at rest. Lion skin hangs on the figure’s left forearm and down his leg and left hand holds an apple; a strap for a quiver crosses his chest; a small human head appears to the side of his right foot. Dated stylistically to the middle of the third century. Inscription at the top of the stele:

IX.20. Altar. Complete. H. 1.22m, W. 0.43m, D. 0.31m. Found in place in the alignment enclosing the center of the sanctuary. Low relief. Hercules at rest; lion skin, badly rendered, hangs over his left forearm; right arm rests on his club. Date uncertain. Moitrieux 1992, 244, plate XXIII, A.A. 276.

Deo Hercul[i] AE 1992.1252; Moitrieux 1992, 244, plate XXIII, S.E. 268. 128

Catalogue IX.21. Altar. Left side missing. H. 1.22m, W. 0.26m, D. 0.38m. Low relief. Hercules combatant; lion skin rests on his left arm; right arm holds his club behind his head. Dated stylistically to the end of the second century. Moitrieux 1992, 232, plate XI, A.A. 237.

schematized, is flowing. Dated stylistically to the middle of the second century. Moitrieux 1992, 246, plate XXV, S.A. 330. IX.30. Altar. Complete but badly eroded. H. 1.10m, W. 0.40m, D. 0.33m. Low relief. Hercules at rest; body is badly proportioned with an especially small head and very thin arms; lion skin rests on his left arm, left hand holds an apple; and in his right is his club. Dated stylistically to the fourth century. Moitrieux 1992, 247 plate XXVI, A.A. 338.

IX.22. Altar. Upper right corner missing. H. 1.22m, W. 0.39m, D. 0.29m. Low relief. Hercules combatant. Simplified figure under a triangular pediment; lion skin, schematized, covers left shoulder and arm; club held behind his head with his right hand. Dated stylistically to the middle of the third century. Moitrieux 1992, 236, plate XV, A.A. 265. IX.23. Altar. Left side missing. H. 1.22m, W. 0.38m, D. 0.38m. Low relief. Hercules combatant. Lion head rests on the figure’s left shoulder and the skin wraps around the rest of the arm; right hand raises his club behind his head. Dated stylistically to the second half of the second century. Moitrieux 1992, 232, plate XI, A.A. 237.

IX.31. Altar. Complete. H. 1.01m, W. 0.39m, D. 0.25m. Discovered to the north of the large west basin. Sculpted on two narrow faces. Low relief. Side A: Mercury, wearing a petasos, holds a purse in his left hand. Side B: Female missing face and part of the left arm, holds a cornucopia in her right arm. Dated stylistically to the end of the second century. Moitrieux 1992, 231, plate X, A.A. 232.

IX.24. Altar. Poorly preserved. Right half missing. H. 1.22m, D. 0.25m. Low relief. Hercules at rest. Only left side of the figure with traces of the club survive. Date uncertain. Moitrieux 1992, 243, plate XXII, A.A. 263.

IX.32. Altar. Poorly preserved. H. 0.96m, W. 0.35m, D. 0.30m. Low relief. Hercules at rest. Only the lower legs and the lion skin to the left of the figure survive. Date uncertain. Moitrieux 1992, 241, plate XX, A.A. 135.

IX.25. Votive Plaque. H. 1.21m, W. 0.89m, D. 0.12m. No sculptural decoration. First line inscribed on the upper border; remainder contained in a rectilinear cartouche:

IX.33. Stele. Only lower half survives. H. 0.95m, W. 0.73m, D. 0.21-0.18m. Low relief. Hercules at rest. Figure survives up to the thighs. Dated stylistically to the end of the second century. Moitrieux 1992, 233, plate XII, S.A. 211.

Deo H[erculi] / M(arcus) C[---]/us Pr[---] / LAVX [---] / saltu(?)[---] / REFIL [---] / v(otum) [s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)]

IX.34. Octagonal Base. Badly damaged. H. 0.92m, Diam. 0.48m. No sculptural decoration survives. Inscription on the upper portion:

AE 1976.472; Moitrieux 1992, 254, plate XXXIII, I.290.

Herculi

IX.26. Altar. Complete but badly eroded. H. 1.20m, W. 0.35m, D. 0.26m. Low relief. Hercules combatant. Club held behind his head with the right hand is apparent. Date uncertain. Moitrieux 1992, 232, plate XI, A.A. 239.

AE 1992.1253; Moitrieux 1992, 255, plate XXXIV, I.335. IX.35. Stele. Complete. H. 0.91m, W. 0.43m, D. 0.18m. Low relief. Hercules at rest. Lion skin draped over his left arm, holding a serpent in his left hand; right arm resting on the club. Dated stylistically to the end of the second century. Moitrieux 1992, 232, plate XVI, S.A. 238.

IX.27. Altar. Complete. H. 1.17m, W. 0.49m, D. 0.30m. Still in place to the south of the southern basin. Low relief. Hercules combatant. Anatomy not precisely rendered, very pronounced stomach; lion skin on figure’s left arm, very rigid with no ornamentation; club held behind the back of the head with the right hand. Dated stylistically to the middle of the third century. Moitrieux 1992, 247, plate XXVI, A.A. 345.

IX.36. Stele. Only upper right corner survives. H. 0.91m, D. 0.24m. Low relief. Hercules Combatant; right arm holding the club behind his head. Dated stylistically to the fourth century. Inscription around the edge of the niche:

IX.28. Altar. Poorly preserved. Lower right corner missing. H. 1.14m, W. 0.39m, D. 0.28m. Low relief. Hercules combatant; well detailed musculature; lion head rests on his left shoulder, skin wraps around rest of arm; right hand raises club behind head. Dated stylistically to the second half of the second century. Moitrieux 1992, 232, plate XI, A.A. 236.

Deo Herculi e(x) vot(o) Ialus D[---] AE 1992.1251; Moitrieux 1992, 243, plate XXII, S.E. 253. IX.37. (Fig. 3.4). Freestanding Figure. Preserved from the neck to the knees, left arm broken. H. 0.90m, W. 0.32m, D. 0.22m. Hercules at rest. Head of the lion rests on figure’s left forearm. Visible strut joining arm to flank.

IX.29. Stele. Lower half preserved. H. 1.13m, W. 0.67m, D. 0.32m. Low relief. Goddess of the Spring. Anatomy of the figure visible through the drapery; she holds in her right hand the neck of a jug, out of which water, very 129

S.L. McGowen Dated stylistically to the middle of the third century. Moitrieux 1992, 241, plate XX, S. 138.

IX.46. (Fig. 2.46). Stele. Broken into two pieces. Figure survives from the feet to the neck. As restored, H. 0.69m, W. 0.34m, D. 0.11m. High relief. Hercules striding; the lion skin and his club in his left arm. Musculature well rendered. Dated stylistically to the middle of the second century. Moitrieux 1992, 233, plate XII, S.A. 215.

IX.38. Altar. Preserved from the base to the neck of the figure. H. 0.88m, W. 0.44m, D. 0.43m. Low relief. Anatomical details added with incision. Hercules at rest. Figure’s right hand rests on his club, broken, and his left is wrapped in the lion skin. Dated stylistically to the end of the second century. Moitrieux 1992, 242, plate XXI, A.A. 252.

IX.47. Votive Cippus. Left side damaged. H. 0.67m, W. 0.76m, D. 0.33m. Triangular pediment decorated with vegetal motifs. Inscription in a cartouche below the pediment:

IX.39. (Fig. 3.5). Stele. Complete with the figure surviving from the middle of the shins to the neck. H. 0.81m, W. 0.46m, D. 0.16m. High relief. Hercules at rest. Anatomy well rendered; the lion skin, elaborately sculpted, covers his left shoulder and arm like drapery; his right hand rests on the club. Dated stylistically to the second half of the second century. Moitrieux 1992, 240, plate XIX, S.A. 120.

Caratula IMVI / Communis / (H?)erculi IIIN(?) AE 1992.1254; Moitrieux 1992, 255, plate XXXIV, I.346. IX.48. Stele. Top and bottom missing. H. 0.66m, W. 0.43m, D 0.10m. High relief, in the round from the height of the shoulders. Hercules at rest; right hand rests on the club and his lion skin is draped over his left forearm. Dated stylistically to the third century. Moitrieux 1992, 231, plate X, S.A. 234.

IX.40. Altar. Discovered in at least three pieces; restored on a base of colored cement; figure survives from ankles to shoulders. Pediment: H. 0.16m, W, 0.33m; base: H. 0.20m, W. 0.27m; figure: H. 0.45m, W. 0.23m. Low relief. Hercules combatant. Poorly rendered lion skin hangs on figure’s left arm. Dated stylistically to the middle of the third century. Moitrieux 1992, 239, plate XVIII, A.A. 285.

IX.49. Top of a Stele. H. 0.61m, W. 0.71m, D. 0.25m. Inscription on the upper edge of a rounded niche: Deo Herculi / Silvester / Saturnini / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)

IX.41. Altar. Badly eroded. Only the contour of a figure is visible. H. 0.78m, W. 0.41m, D. 0.33m. Part of the alignment of reliefs on the east side of the sanctuary. Hercules at rest. A club appears next to the figure’s right leg. Date uncertain. No photographic or pictorial reference available.

AE 1976.470; Moitrieux 1992, 254, plate XXXIII, I.251. IX.50. Stele. Fragmentary. Figure survives from the knees to the shoulders. H. 0.60m, W. 0.38m, D. 0.14m. Hercules at rest. Club appears to hang down from his left hand. Dated stylistically to the fourth century. Moitrieux 1992, 239, plate XVIII, S.A. 289.

IX.42. Stele. Only lower part preserved. H. 0.76m, W. 0.50m. Low relief, with details added by incision. Goddess. Lower half of a draped female; some indications of anatomy visible underneath drapery. Dated stylistically to the fourth century. Moitrieux 1992, 246, plate XXV, S.A. 309.

IX.51. Stele. Top missing and some erosion evident. H. 0.60m, W. 0.37m, D. 0.11m. High relief. Hercules at rest. Bearded Hercules holding a round object, possibly a vase, in his left hand; lion skin draped over his left forearm. Dated stylistically to the end of the second century. Moitrieux 1992, plate X, S.A. 5.

IX.43. Altar. Poorly preserved; figure survives from midthigh to shoulder. H. 0.74m, W. 0.29m, D. 0.30m. Low relief. Hercules of undetermined type; traces of lion skin survive on figure’s left shoulder. Date uncertain. Moitrieux 1992, 243, plate XXII, A.A. 266.

IX.52. Altar. Lower part of an altar, preserved up to the level of the knees. H. 0.54m, W. 0.30m, D. 0.40m. Low relief, but the side of the lion skin is in the round. Hercules striding. Lion skin hangs down along figure’s left side. Dated stylistically to the middle of the second century. Moitrieux 1992, 242, plate XXI, A.A. 251.

IX.44. Stele. Only lower third survives. H. 0.71m, W. 0.61m, D. 0.25m. Goddess. Female figure, wearing a long garment, preserved up to the middle of the thighs. Low relief. Dated stylistically to the middle of the third century. Moitrieux 1992, 237, plate XVI, S.A. 267.

IX.53. Altar. Discovered in two pieces; figure survives only from knees to neck. H. 0.52m, W. 0.30m, D. 0.25m. Low relief. Hercules striding. Club appears in the figure’s right hand. Dated stylistically to the end of the second century. Moitrieux 1992, 236, plate XV, A.A. 264.

IX.45. Stele. Fragmentary. Right arm, shoulder, and club missing; head found separately. H. 0.70m, W. 0.30m, D. 0.23m. High relief with some parts in the round. Hercules at rest. Bearded figure stands frontally with the lion skin hanging down from his left arm. Dated stylistically to the end of the second century. Moitrieux 1992, 233, plate XII, S.A. 219.

IX.54. Stele. Lower part survives; figure survives up to the level of the thighs. H. 0.47m, W. 0.42m, D. 0.22m. Low relief. Hercules at rest. End of the lion skin hangs down to the figure’s left, and the club to his right. Dated 130

Catalogue stylistically to the second half of the second century. Inscription on the frame: In ho(norem) [d(omus) d(ivinae) ---] // v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito) AE 1992.1250; Moitrieux 1992, 240, plate XIX, S.E. 115. IX.55. Stele. Complete with the exception of the figure’s head. H. 0.43m, W. 0.24m, D. 0.15m. High relief and partially in the round. Genius or Mercury sacrificing. Figure holds a cornucopia in his left arm; figure holds in his right hand an object, most likely a purse, over an altar. Dated stylistically to the end of the second century. Moitrieux 1992, 239, plate XVIII, S.A. 297. IX.56. Altar. Poorly preserved. H. 0.38m, W. 0.34m, D. 0.26m. Part of the alignment of reliefs on the east side of the sanctuary. Low relief. Hercules at rest; right arm rests on a club. Date uncertain. No photographic or pictorial reference available. IX.57. Relief. Highly fragmentary; only the torso and part of the arm survive. H. 0.33m, W. 0.33m, D. 0.9m. Relief; details added with incision. Draped torso of a goddess. Moitrieux 1992, 234, late XIII, D. 238 IX.58. Socle of a Statue. H. 0.20m, W. 0.46m, D. 0.36m. No sculptural decoration. Inscription: Taluppa pro / [s]alute Tatu/[---] fil(i) ex v(oto) AE 1976.471; Moitrieux 1992, 254, plate XXXIII, I.213. IX.59. Fragment of an Altar. H. 0.31m, W. 0.19m, D. 0.21m. No sculptural decoration survives. Inscription: [Deo] Herculi / Magiso / [v(otum)] / s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito) AE 1989.531; Moitrieux 1992, 255, plate XXXIV, I.332. IX.60. Lower Part of a Stele. H. 0.10-0.16m, W. 0.31m, D. 0.13m. Possible a line of text appeared above the first surviving line. Inscription: [He]rculi / Maternus / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito) AE 1976.469; Moitrieux 1992, 254, plate XXXIII, I.228.

131

S.L. McGowen X. Sanctuary of Apollo and Sirona, modern Hochscheid

to late second century. Binsfeld et al. 1988, plate 4, no. 12.

Province: Gallia Belgica

X.2. (Fig. 2.50). Relief of Sirona. Broken at knee level. H. 1.26m, W. 0.61m, D. 0.22m. High relief. Upright female wearing a long tunic and a diadem, holding in her left hand a patera containing possibly fruit or eggs and a serpent in her right; identified as Sirona based on epigraphy. Dated stylistically to the middle or late second century based on the hairstyle. Binsfeld et al. 1988, plate 76, no. 317.

Location: Western Germany in approximately 100km east of Trier

Rheinland-Pfalz,

Ancient History of the Site: This rural sanctuary is located on a hilltop in the Moselle valley and is situated along the road continuing on to Mainz and the Rhine. The basin was located at the end of a canal leading to a spring. The small, square temple built over a spring was one of four buildings discovered in the area, and despite all efforts, no temenos wall has yet been identified. No evidence of any sizeable settlement has been discovered in the area of the sanctuary. Instead it seems that a local landowner or landowners may have funded its construction, something which occurred regularly in the area.73

X.3. (Fig. 2.48). Freestanding Apollo. H. 1.36m (with plinth), W. 0.30m, D. 0.39m. In the round. Upright nude male wearing a laurel wreath and leaning on a lyre, which rests on the head of a griffin. Dated stylistically to the late Antonine period. Binsfeld et al. 1988, plate 4, no. 13. X.4. Votive Altar. Broken in two pieces; front face of the socle is missing. H. 0.89m, W. 0.44m, D. 0.28m. Top decorated with two scrolls on the right and left sides. No figural sculpture. Inscription:

Description: The traditional Gallo-Roman temple consisted of two concentric squares, the cella with its surrounding portico, surrounding a basin.74 The roughly square cella measures approximately 6.25m east-west and 6.0m north-south.75 The basin itself measures less than one meter square and was about 0.90m deep.76 Evidence suggests that the structure had at least two building phases. Three coins dating to the first half of the second century A.D. were found in the cella, but archaeological evidence suggests activity occurred as early as the first century B.C.77 It seems, however, that the major period of activity occurred in the second century, when the sculptures were set up, and continued well into third century.78 The three sculptures and the three inscribed altars were made of yellowish sandstone, a local stone from the area around Hochscheid. 79

[-] Ap[o]llin(i) / Ti(berius) Claudi/u[s] Cinii[-] / libertus / Reburrus / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito) AE 1978.516; Weisgerber 1975, plate 40, no. 42. X.5. Three-part Socle. Intact except for a portion of the lower right corner of the inscription. H. 0.69m, W. 0.565m, D. 0.44m. Inscription: Deo Apollini / Sex(tus) Similius / Severus ELOG[-]S / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito) AE 1941.88; Binsfeld et al. 1988, plate6, no. 20.

Modern History: Female relief and fragments of large male relief found in the cella.

X.6. Votive Altar. Top two-thirds survive. H. 0.57m, W. 0.43m, D. 0.08m. Top decorated with two larger scrolls flanking two smaller ones. No sculptural decoration. Inscription:

Primary Publication(s): Espérandieu, XI.8433-5=CSIR IV.3.12, 13, and 317; Weisgerber 1975.

Deo Apolli/ni et sanc/t(a)e Siron(a)e / R(---) C(---) pro co/n[iu]ge I [---] / [-

Monument(s): X.1. (Fig. 2.49). Relief of a Male. Highly fragmentary. As restored, H. 1.70m, as restored. High relief. Fragments include: right hand holding a laurel wreath; pieces of drapery; arm and clamping bar of a five-string lyre; fragments of the right thigh and foot; beaked head of a griffin. Almost certainly Apollo. Likely companion piece to the female, who has been dated stylistically to the mid

AE 1941.89; Binsfeld et al. 1988, plate 6, no. 19.

73

Green 1995, 102; Woolf 2003b, 143-145. Thevenot 1968, 108. 75 Thevenot 1968, 108; Weisgerber 1975, 14. 76 Thevenot 1968, 108; Weisgerber 1975, 13. 77 Weisgerber 1975, 66-67. 78 Nerzic 1989, 162-163. 79 Polaschek 1975, 56. 74

132

Catalogue XI. Arch, Vesontio (Besançon) Modern History: The arch is embedded between two houses, and more than one meter of the lower level is underground. In addition, the west side and the vault were entirely reconstructed during a restoration in 1825.91

Province: Germania Superior Location: Eastern France in the Franche-Comté region and the Doubs department, close to the border with Switzerland

Primary Publication(s): Espérandieu, VII.5270; Walter 1986a.

Ancient History of the Site: Vesontio sat on the edge of a hilly ridge and was surrounded on its three other sides by a loop of the river Doubs, giving the site excellent natural protection.80 In the Iron Age, the town was the principal fortified settlement of the Sequani. During the civil wars of A.D. 69, Vesontio supported Galba,81 who gave the town special honors, but it likely suffered after later backing Vindex. It is possible that refusal of the Sequani to join a revolt in A.D. 69/7082 led to the Vesontio’s upgrade to a colony shortly thereafter.83 The town most likely did not become a colony until A.D. 167 or later following Marcus Aurelius’ victory over the Gauls.84 Around this time, Marcus Aurelius also seems to have settled some unknown dispute among the Sequani around A.D. 172.85

Monument(s): XI.1. Arched Entranceway. H. 11.20m in height, W. 5.60m. Walter 1986b, fig. 41. XI.1a. Vault. Heavily restored and highly fragmentary. L. 8.85m, D. 2.10m. Begins 8.31m above ancient ground level. Low relief. Octagons and half octagons separated by squares; putti, some holding weapons. Walter 1986b, fig. 46 and plate LXVII. XI.1b. East Relief Panels. Three superimposed panels. Each panel – H. 1.2m, W. 1.9m. Low relief. Bottom: Seated emperor reclines and is presented with captives (Fig. 2.52); divided from the middle relief by a frieze of weapons. Middle: Cavalry engagement; divided from the top panel by a frieze perhaps of weapons. Top: Infantry engagement. Walter 1986b, figs. 41 and 43 and plates LIII-LV.

Description: The arch was located at the south end of the cardo, which joined a route to and from Italy.86 This post-Agrippan road, which ran from Cabillonum to the Rhine, filled the Belfort Gap, serving an important military function.87 The arch was not, however, a city gate, and it is possible that it spanned the via sacra to a temple located at the top of a hill within the town. The arch is made of a local limestone called vergenne, taken from quarries at Avrigney in Haute-Saône some 30km away from Besançon.88 It has a simple, single-bay design with, most likely, a single attic storey, which has unfortunately been lost along with its inscription. From ancient ground level, the arch stands 16.56m tall and was about 12m in width and 2.10m in depth.89 The bay of the arch measures 11.20m in height and 5.60m in width. The arch has been dated stylistically to the second century, likely to between A.D. 172 and 180,90 perhaps in honor of Marcus Aurelius’ victory, his intervention among the Sequani, and / or the city becoming a colony.

XI.1c. West Relief Panels. Three superimposed panels. Each panel – H. 1.2m, W. 1.9m. Low relief. Bottom: Two captives with hands bound behind their backs; divided from the middle relief by a frieze of weapons. Middle: Diademed figure, holding arrows, looks down from city walls; soldier wearing an eastern costume stands in an arched entranceway (Fig. 2.53); divided from the top panel by a frieze of weapons. Top: Combat scene. Walter 1986b, figs. 41 and 45 and plates LVI-LXVI. XI.2. (Fig. 2.51). North Façade. H. 16.56m, W. 12m. Walter 1986b, fig. 8 and plate I.

80

XI.2a. Spandrels. L. 1.7m, c. 10m from ancient ground level. Low relief. Winged Victories holding palm fronds at the ends of a fruit garland. Walter 1986b, figs. 31-32 and plate XLII.

Lerat 1960, 21; Lerat and Walter 1990, 11; Knight 2001, 136; Bromwich 2003, 162-164; Vexelaire 2003, 187. See also Julius Caesar, De Bello Gallico I.38. 81 Dio, Historiae Romanae LXIII.22.1; Suetonius, Galba IV.3. 82 Tacitus, Historiae IV.55ff. 83 Drinkwater 1983, 40-43, 46-47; Lerat and Walter 1990, 20-21; Carroll 2001, 115-116. 84 Drinkwater 1983, 76-77; Walter 1986a, 424-430; Lerat and Walter 1990, 21-22; Carroll 2001, 43; Bromwich 2003, 167. 85 Historia Augusta, Marcus Aurelius XXII.10. 86 Lerat 1960, 24; Walter 1986a, 11; Lerat and Walter 1990, 40; Bromwich 2003, 164. 87 Drinkwater 1983, 126. 88 Walter 1986a, 11. 89 Walter 1986a, 23 and fig. 25; Bedon, et al. 1988a, 202. 90 Walter 1986a, 316-339; Lerat and Walter 1990, 53.

XI.2b. (Fig. 2.54). Archivolts. L. 10m (at outer edge), H. 0.73m. Low relief. Anguiform Giants struck by the thunderbolts of Jupiter. Walter 1986b, fig. 29 and plates XXXVIII-XLI. XI.2c. (Fig. 2.55). Pilasters Flanking Entranceway. Only the east side survives. Six superimposed panels. H. 7.7m, W. 0.83m. Low relief. From bottom to top: Figure wearing an exomis, possibly Vulcan; Mercury with his moneybag; seated Bacchus holding grapes; unidentifiable male next to a tree; nude male, possibly 91

133

Lerat and Walter 1990, 40-41.

S.L. McGowen Apollo; Hercules and the Lernian Hydra. Walter 1986b, fig. 24 and plates XXX-XXXVII. XI.2d. (Fig. 2.55). Columns Flanking Lower Intercolumniation. Only the right column survives. H. 4.4m, W. 0.48m. Low relief. Five superimposed panels From bottom to top: Enchained female, perhaps Andromeda, and a sea monster; Hercules at rest; Theseus and the Minotaur; Ajax killing the sheep; Daedalus attaching wings on Icarus. Walter 1986b, fig. 15 and plates X-XIV.

XI.4a. (Fig. 2.56). East Pier, Columns Flanking Lower Intercolumniation. Only left column survives. H. 4.41m, W. 0.48m. Low relief. Six superimposed scenes (from bottom to top): Minerva battling a Giant; Bacchus with two Maenads; Ajax after the massacre of the sheep and a female, perhaps a personification of madness; a drunk Silenus being lifted by two Satyrs; Bacchus with a panther, Maenad, and Satyr; Hercules rescuing Deianira from Nessus. Walter 1986b, fig. 6 and plates LXXII-LXXIII and LXXV-LXXVIII.

XI.2e. (Fig. 2.55). Lower Intercolumniation. H. c. 4.3m, W. 1.25m. High relief. Two superimposed figures on a plinth (now missing). Both consisting of a large central figure flanked by smaller figures. Upper: Nude male flanked by small armed figures; possibly Mars. Lower: Female; possibly Venus. Walter 1986b, fig. 13 and plates IV-V.

XI.4b. (Fig. 2.56). East Pier, Lower Intercolumniation. H. c. 3m, W. c. 1.25m. Two superimposed figures. Upper: Nude female enveloped in a billowing garment next to an eagle; almost certainly Hebe. Lower: Seated, draped female holding a cornucopia. Walter 1986b, fig. 6 and plate LXXIXLXXXI.

XI.2f. Columns Flaking Upper Intercolumniation. H. 3.26m, W. 0.43m (average). Low relief. Left: Four superimposed panels, lowest containing Atlases, upper containing Erotes and Bacchantes. Right: Overlapping laurel leaves. Walter 1986b, fig. 19 and plates XXIV-XXV.

XI.4c. West Pier, Columns Flanking Lower Intercolumniation. Only right column survives. H. 4.41m, W. 0.48m. Low relief. Acanthus scrolls filled with small humans and animals. Walter 1986b, fig. 6 and plates LXXXIII-LXXXIV.

XI.2g. Upper Intercolumniations. H. 3.26m, W. 1.25m. High relief. Only small fragment of left figure survives. Nude male beneath a pediment decorated with a gorgoneion; perhaps Dioscuri. Walter 1986b, fig. 17 and plates XXVI-XXVIII. XI.2h. Attic Storey. H. c. 0.70m, W. c. 0.45m. Low relief. Putti (only the left survives) holding a panel, presumably for the now-lost inscription. Walter 1986b, fig. 35 and plate XVIII. XI.3. East Façade. H. 16.56m, W. 2.10m. Known only from eighteenth-century drawings. Walter 1986b, fig. 61. XI.3a. Lower Intercolumniation. H. c. 5m, W. 1.05m. Sculptural panel between two columns. Two superimposed figures standing on a decorated plinth. Lower figure: Male accompanied by an eagle, almost certainly Ganymede. Walter 1986b, fig. 61. XI.3b. Upper Level. H. 3.26m, W. 2.10m. Vertical panel filled with acanthus, flanked by pilasters consisting of four superimposed panels. Right plaster: Hercules in the Farnese pose; all others unrecognizable. Left pilaster (from bottom to top): Atlas holding the vault of the heavens; nude female, pose suggests Diana surprised at her bath; Prometheus enchained; and Hercules killing an Amazon. Walter 1986b, fig. 61. XI.3c. Attic Storey. H. c. 0.9m, W. 2.10m. Putti holding a garland. Walter 1986b, fig. 61. XI.4. South Façade. H. 16.56m, W. 12m. Walter 1986b, fig. 6 134

Catalogue XII. Arch, Durocortorum (Reims) XII.1. (Fig. 2.62). Central Entranceway. H. 10.5m, W. 4.5m.

Province: Gallia Belgica

XII.1a. Vault. Low relief. Lower half preserved. Central panel contains nude, seated figure with draped legs holding a cornucopia, surrounded by four putti; perhaps Tellus or Annus and representations of the four seasons. Surrounded by a calendar, showing scenes of events associated with the last seven months of the year: June – breeding of horses; July – haymaking; August – gathering of apples and reaping with a Gallic reaper; September – hunting and plowing; October – harvesting and pressing of grapes; November – slaughtering of pigs; and December – possibly hitching of an ox to a wagon. Espérandieu, V.3681.

Location: Northern France in the Champagne-Ardenne region and the Marne department Ancient Location: During the Iron Age, the city and its environs were controlled by the Remi, a nondominant Gallic tribe.92 At the start of the Caesarean conquest of Gaul, the Remi allied with the Romans, and they remained loyal for the duration of the Roman period.93 During the first century B.C., Durocortorum was constructed on what seems to have been new ground not far from an earlier habitation.94 The site was particularly advantageous because it was located on a navigable river, now called the Vesle, and at an important hub for the local road network. During the Augustan period, Durocortorum was made the capital of the province of Gallia Belgica, and in the third century the city was made the capital of the new province of Belgica Secunda.

XII.1b. Impost Frieze. Low relief. Winged figures hold draperies covered with flowers above which are thyrsi, fruit baskets, and birds. Espérandieu, V.3681.

Description: The arch was located in the northwest part of the city and is the sole survivor of four, which stood at the four cardinal entrances to the city. It spanned the cardo maximus which eventually became the road to Laon.95 It was made of Lutetian limestone from quarries located c. 15km from Reims.96 As preserved, the arch measures 11.20 in height to the top of the column capitals (estimated height H. 17m), 32.35m in width, 6.45m in depth, making it the largest known monumental arch in the Roman world (Fig. 2.57).97 The attic storey along with any dedicatory inscription and any statuary which may have stood on top has been lost. It has three bays of almost identical height. The central passage measures 10.5m in height and 4.5m in width, while the flanking passages measure 9.7m in height and 2.7m in width. It has some architectural similarity to the Arch of Hadrian at Antalya, and some have linked its iconography to the Hadrianic period.98 Most, however, accept a date for the arch in the late second or early third century A.D.99

XII.2. (Fig. 2.60). Vault of East Entranceway. Low relief. Central panel contains two men watching a she-wolf suckle two infants, certainly Romulus and Remus. Surrounded by a frieze of weapons. In the corners sit Victories inscribing shields. Espérandieu, V.3681. XII.3. (Fig. 2.61). Vault of West Entranceway. Low relief. Lower two-thirds preserved. Central panel contains a partially draped female and a bird, certainly Leda and the swan. Surrounded by a frieze of weapons. In the corners sit Victories inscribing shields. Espérandieu, V.3681. XII.4. North Façade. H. 11.20, W. 32.35m. Four piers flanked by Corinthian pilasters. On each pier (from bottom to top): a sculpture niche; two putti holding a clipeus (diam. c. 1.25m) decorated with a head; crossed caducei; two putti pulling back a curtain. Lefèvre 1987, 148, fig. 141. XII.4a. Sculpture Niche, Pier West of Center. H. 1.95m, W. 0.7m. Low relief. Based on eighteenthcentury drawings and photogrammetric photography, contains three males, one seated, one kneeling, one standing; possibly Aeneas, Ascanius, and Anchises. Lefèvre 1987, 150, fig. 153.

Modern History: Very poorly preserved. Northwest end heavily restored in the middle of the nineteenth century. Primary Publication(s): Espérandieu, V.3681; G. Picard 1974, 59-73; Lefèvre 1987, 149-160.

XII.4b. (Fig. 2.58). Sculpture Niche, Easternmost Pier. H. 1.95m, W. 0.7m. Low relief. Based on eighteenth-century drawings and photogrammetric photography, pedimented niche contained nude or partially draped female; possibly Mars and Rhea Silvia. Lefèvre 1987, 151, figs. 154 and 155.

Monument(s): 92

Wightman 1985, 26-28; Bromwich 2003, 313. Drinkwater 1983, 120; Wightman 1985, 28-29, 34-34, 38-40, 44-52; King 1990, 44, 48, and 72; Bromwich 2003, 313-314. 94 Wightman 1985, 75; King 1990, 72; Berthelot and Neiss 1994, 52-56; Bromwich 2003, 313-315. 95 Picard 1974, 60; Bedon, et al. 1988a, 197. 96 Lefèvre 1987, 154; Blanc, et al. 2002, 103-109. 97 Picard 1974, 60-61; Lefèvre 1987, 149; Bedon, et al. 1988a, 197; Bromwich 2003, 317. 98 Picard 1974, 68-69 and 72; Lefèvre 1987, 156. 99 Berthelot and Neiss 1994, 56; Bromwich 2003, 314. 93

XII.5. Eastern Pier. H. 11.20, W. 6.45m. Piers flanked by Corinthian pilasters (from bottom to top): Sculpture niche; two putti holding a clipeus (diam. c. 1.75m) decorated with a human head; crossed caducei; two putti pulling back a curtain. Badly damaged, but some sculpture survives. Niche (H. 1.5m, W. 1.15) contains a seated male with a bare torso, resting his hand on the 135

S.L. McGowen shoulder of a standing youth, possibly Dionysus and a Satyr; on flanking uprights appear standing, nude males holding large vessels. Lefèvre 1987, 152, fig. 158. XII.6. Southern Façade. H. 11.20, W. 32.35m. Four piers flanked by Corinthian pilasters. On each pier (from bottom to top): Sculpture niche; two putti holding a clipeus (diam. c. 1.25m) decorated with a human head; crossed caducei; two putti pulling back a curtain. Nerzic 1989, 277. XII.6a. Sculpture Niche, Easternmost Pier. H. 1.95m, W. 0.7m. Low relief. Based on eighteenth-century drawings and photogrammetric photography, pedimented niche contained two figures, one seated figure wearing a bonnet or helmet and carrying an oval shield; possibly Roma. No photographic or pictorial reference available. XII.6b. Sculpture Niche, Westernmost Pier. H. 1.95m, W. 0.7m. Low relief. Based on eighteenth-century drawings and photogrammetric photography, pedimented niche contained nude, crouching female (portion of the leg is still visible); almost certainly Venus. Lefèvre 1987, 151, fig. 157.

136

Catalogue XIII. Sanctuary of the Matronae Aufaniae, modern Nettersheim

Modern History: The finds have been moved to the Rheinisches Landes Museum, Bonn. Casts of three of the votive dedications have been re-erected on the site.

Province: Germania Inferior

Primary Publication(s): Lehner 1910, 301-321; Lehner 1918, 130-143.

Location: On the Görresburg, a hilltop near Nettersheim in western Germany in Nordrhein-Westfalen, approximately 50km southwest of Bonn

Monument(s): Ancient History of the Site: The village of Nettersheim is located along the Urft River, 4km northeast of Marmagen. During the Roman period, Marmagen was located at an important intersection of three roads (two leading to Cologne and the third to Bonn and points east) and the ancient town of modern-day Nettersheim was situated on the road to Bonn.100 A hill now called the Görresburg, north of which runs a stream called the Schlessbach, overlooked the ancient town at Nettersheim. On this hill, the small sanctuary was constructed. In addition, it seems that the sanctuary was not far from a small village of undetermined nature.101

XIII.1 Building Inscription. Complete block with some evidence of weathering. H. 0.4m, W. 0.53m, D. 0.44m. Likely belonged to the main temple. No sculptural decoration. Inscription: Matronis / Aufaniabus / vicani / [-]I[.]ECC CIL XIII.11983=AE 1911.160; Lehner 1910, plate XXV, no. 4. XIII.2. (Fig. 2.64). Votive Altar. Complete. H. 1.10m, W. 0.68m, D. 0.31m. Front: Three goddesses, wearing typical long garments as well as torques, sit on a bench; left, wearing a large bonnet, holds a fruit basket; middle, without a bonnet, holds a box; right wearing a large bonnet, holds two rounded fruits. Left: Cornucopia with pinecones and fruit. Right: Three-legged table over which are a garland with a bird. Inscription:

Description: The sanctuary consisted of an enclosure containing three small structures.102 The polygonal enclosure measures approximately 26m along the north and south sides, 24.67m on the west side and 26.90m on the east side. The largest of the three buildings, the main temple, had a square cella measuring 6m per side and was bounded on all four sides by a wall measuring 8.6m per side. On the east side of the surrounding wall to the south of the temple’s entrance was a wall measuring 2.80m in length and 0.7m in width, which served structural purpose. South of this porticoed temple stood a second smaller structure, with internal measurements of 2.10m per side. The third building, located south-west of the other two, measures 2.15m in width and 2.45m in length. Along with these structure, inside the enclosure were also the numerous votive altars, all made of a red sandstone common in the Voreifel.103

Matronis / Aufaniabus / M(arcus) Pettronius Pat/roclus b(ene)f(iciarius) co(n)s(ularis) itera/ta statione v(otum) / s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito) CIL XIII.11989=AE 1911.153; Lehner 1910, plate XXV, no. 2. XIII.3. Votive Altar. Complete. H. 0.97m, W. 0.66m, D. 0.28m. Gabled niche with shell shaped decoration, flanked by two Corinthian pilasters. Front: Three goddesses on a bench wearing dresses, mantels closed at the breast with pins, and torques, holding baskets. Left: A tree. Right: Scale decoration. Dated epigraphically to between A.D. 212 and 222. Inscription:

Despite evidence from epigraphy, coinage, and pottery, the sanctuary has proven difficult to date.104 All of the inscribed monuments containing names of consuls date to between A.D. 197 and 227, and so it seems that the peak of sculptural activity occurred during the late second and third centuries.

Deabus Aufani[s] / pro salute Invicti / Antonini Aug(usti) / M(arcus) Aurelius Agripinus / b(ene)f(iciarius) co(n)s(ularis) // v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)

100

Grenier 1960, 902. Lehner 1910, 305; Grenier 1960, 903; FollmannSchulz 1986, 752. 102 On the precinct wall and the layout of the sanctuary see, see Lehner 1910, 301 and 306; Grenier 1960, 902; Follmann-Schulz 1986, 750; von Elbe 1995, 103; Bechert 2003, 332. Derks (1998, 202) notes similar layouts at Dhronecken, Gusenburg, Trier-‘Altbachtal,’ Kontich, and Empel. On the three structures, see Lehner 1910, 302305; Grenier 1960, 903; Follmann-Schulz 1986, 750-752; Bechert 2003, 332. 103 Derks 1998, 231. 104 On the evidence for dating the sanctuary, see Lehner 1910, 317; Grenier 1960, 906; Follmann-Schulz 1986, 753; von Elbe 1995, 103. 101

CIL XIII.11984=AE 1911.156; Lehner 1910, plate XXV, no. 1. XIII.4. Fragmentary Votive Altar. H. 0.85m, W. 0.50m, D. 0.38m. Front: Feet of the middle and right Matronae to the left of a column marking the edge of the aedicule. Right: Two superimposed fields, with an acanthus in the lower and five fruits, three nuts, and a pinecone in the upper. Inscription: [Matronis Aufan]is / ? -]onius [- / -]nus l / -] v i [Lehner 1918, 138, no. 295.

137

S.L. McGowen XIII.5. (Fig. 2.63). Votive Altar. Top missing, bottom corners broken. H. 0.78m, W. 0.62m, D. 0.27m. Front: Three goddesses, wearing usual long garments with neck torques, sitting on a bench; left, wearing a large bonnet, holds a small box; middle, head missing, holds a flower and a fruit basket; right, head missing, holds a barrel shaped object. Left: Nude female draped with a cloak, perhaps Venus. Right: Nude male draped with a cloak, likely Hercules. Inscription:

the narrow side, vegetal ornamentation above a dressed, standing female figure preserved up to the hip. Fragment 2: Right corner of the inscription with cornice and trace of the feet of a Matrona. Fragment 3: Middle of the inscription, very weathered. Dated epigraphically to A.D. 218. Inscription: In h(onorem) d(omus) [d(ivinae) deab]us Aufanis / M(arcus) Ma[ssonius V]italis / b(ene)f(iciarius) [co(n)s(ularis)] pro [se et s]ui[s] / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) [m(erito) I]mp(eratore) [Macrino] / et A[dve]nto [co(n)s(ulibus)]

Ma(tronis) Aufaniabu[s] / G(aius) Lucretiu[s] / [S?]tatius b(ene)f(icarius) / co(n)[s(ularis)] / [v(otum) s(olvit)] l(ibens) m(erito)

CIL XIII.11987=AE 1911.155; Lehner 1918, 133, no. 281.

CIL XIII.11986; Lehner 1910, plate XXV, no. 3.

XIII.10. Votive Altar. Fragmentary. H. 0.42m, W. 0.40m, D. 0.19m. Front: Plate with fruits. Left: Damaged decoration. Right: Cornucopia. Dated epigraphically to the mid to late second century A.D. Inscription (last line(s) missing):

XIII.6. Votive Altar. Six fragments from the right corner of the monument. As restored, 0.75m, W. 0.50m, D. 0.10m. Front: In a circular medallion, a very badly damaged image of the three goddesses. Right: Leaf divided in two. Dated epigraphically to A.D. 196. Inscription:

Matroni[s] / Aufaniabus / C(aius) Summius Ag/restis b(ene)f(icarius) Nov[i] / Prisci leg(ati) A[ug(usti)?] / [-

Matronis / [Auf]anis / [---]inius / [Can]didus / [mil(es) le]g(ionis) I M(inerviae) p(iae) f(idelis) b(ene)f(iciarius) / [co(n)s(ularis) pr]o se et suis v(otum) s(olvit) / [l(ibens) m(erito) Dextr]o II et Prisco co(n)[s(ulibus)]

CIL XIII.11990=AE 1911.154; Lehner 1918, 135, no. 284. XIII.11. Votive Altar. Only the right corner survives. H. 0.39m, W. 0.22m, D. 0.14m. Decorated with a volute and a piece of fruit. Inscription (lines below missing):

CIL XIII.11991=AE 1911.158; Lehner 1918, 135, no. 285. XIII.7. Votive Altar. Only the lower part of the monument survives. H. 0.57m, W. 0.57m, D 0.24m. Front: Niche above an inscription, only the feet of the Matronae survive. Left: Acanthus. Right: Cornucopia. Dated epigraphically to A.D. 227. Inscription:

[Mat]ronis / [Aufa]nis / [Cla]udiu[s -- --] CIL XIII.11993; Lehner 1918, 136, no. 287. XIII.12. Votive Inscription. Only the left half survives. H. 0.29m, W. 0.24m, D. 0.14m. Possibly a building for one of the smaller temples. No sculptural decoration. Inscription:

Matribus Auf(a)nis / Nepotinius / Nepotianus / b(ene)f(iciarius) co(n)s(ularis) pro se et / suis v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito) / Albino et Maxi/mo co(n)s(ulibus)

Mat[ronis] / Aufan[iabus] / Claud(ius) Iu[stus? ---] CIL XIII.11988=AE 1911.157; Lehner 1918, 134, no. 282.

CIL XIII.11992; Lehner 1918, 136, no. 286.

XIII.8. Votive Inscription. Only the left side survives. H. 0.57m, W. 0.34m, 0.17m. No sculptural decoration. Dated epigraphically to either A.D. 205 or 208. Inscription:

XIII.13. Votive Altar. Lower portion preserved up to a socle. H. 0.25m, W. 0.60m, D. 0.30m. Left: Possibly some branches. Dated epigraphically to A.D. 206. Right: Part of a tree. Inscription (lines above missing):

M[a]tr[onis] / [Aufa]niab[us] / ingenu[us?] / [b(ene)f(iciarius) co(n)]s(ularis) pro s[e et] / [s]uis v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) [m(erito)] / A[nt]oni[no et Ge] / ta imp(eratoribus) [-

su[i]s v(otum) [s(olvit)] [l(ibens) m(erito) / Albino et Aemili(a)n(o) / co(n)s(ulibus)

CIL XIII.11985; Lehner 1918, 132, no. 279.

XIII.14. Votive Altar. Lower left corner, below the edge of a socle. H. 0.23m, W. 0.28m, D. 0.08m. No sculptural decoration. Inscription (lines above are missing): Claudis [- / Panio[-

CIL XIII.11998; Lehner 1918, 137, no. 292.

XIII.9. Votive Altar. Three fragments survive. Fragment 1: H. 0.51m, W. 0.34m, D. 0.23m; fragment 2: H. 0.29m, W. 0.30m, D. 0.10m; fragment 3: H. 0.27m. W. 0.22m, D. 0.05m. Fragment 1: Left side of an inscription above the side pilaster of a niche and the legs of a Matrona; on

CIL XIII.11999; Lehner 1918, 137, no. 293.

138

Catalogue XIII.15. Votive Altar. Left corner of an inscription below the remains of a aedicule. H. 0.22m, W. 0.16m, D. 0.08m. No sculptural decoration survives. Inscription (last line or lines missing): Auf[aniabus] / Leoniu[s – / -] T [CIL XIII.11994; Lehner 1918, 136, no. 288. XIII.16. Votive Altar. Only upper part survives. H. 0.15m, W. 0.22m, D. 0.12m. Left: Fragment of a rosette. Right: Fragment of a tree. Inscription, last line or lines are missing: [M]atro(nis) / [A]ufanis CIL XIII.11995; Lehner 1918, 136, no. 289.

139

S.L. McGowen period and most likely Severan.113 It has also been proposed that the construction of the arch may have coincided with Septimius Severus’ visit to Britain in A.D. 208-211.114

XIV. Arch, Londinium (London) Province: Britannia Location: Southeast England on the river Thames

The arch was made of Lincolnshire limestone, and curiously, the size of the masonry courses differed on all four sides.115 Despite its fragmentary condition, a width of 7.57m and a depth of 1.18m have been established.116 Based on the angle of the voussoirs, the diameter of the entranceway has been estimated at 3.56m. Because no parts of the piers nor any of the attic storey has survived, the height can only be estimated to have been around 8m.

Ancient History of the Site: It seems that Londinium was founded by the Romans during the first century A.D.105 The city developed rapidly, becoming the most important commercial center in Britain106 and eventually replacing Colchester (Camulodunum) as the provincial capital. Major building activity occurred during the Flavian period, but by the last half of the second century the city was experiencing a period of marked decline.107 It is possible that Londinium obtained official colonial status in the early third century, but no evidence has survived to support the notion. By c. A.D. 300 the city had again experienced a period of decline, despite which, a wall enclosing the east, north, and west sides of the city was constructed.108 During the late third or fourth century, the circuit was completed with the construction of a wall along the River Thames, some of which was built from blocks of several monuments including the arch.109

Modern History: In 1975 twenty-nine fragments of twenty-seven blocks were found reused in a fourthcentury wall on the north bank of the Thames.117 Also found with the remains of the arch were pieces of a monumental sculpted screen and seven other pieces of sculpted stonework. The remains are held in the Museum of London. Primary Publication(s): CSIR I.10.142-147 and 154157; Blagg 1980b, 124-157.

Description: Because of its discovery in a secondary context, the precise location of the arch remains uncertain. Some evidence suggests that an area containing public buildings and temples existed in the southwest part of the city. Since the fragments of the arch were found in the riverside wall near this zone, it seems possible that the arch once stood here and functioned as the monumental entrance to a religious precinct.110

Monument(s): XIV.1. Vault Voussoirs. Four surviving; average size, H. 0.63m, W. 0.29m, D. 1.16m. Low relief. Concentric bands of decoration, from interior to exterior: Foliage; bead-and-reel; a guilloche; bead-and-reel; acanthus scroll; bead-and-reel. Blagg 1980b, fig. 58-61 and plates 18-21. XIV.2. (Fig. 2.65). Main Façade A. H. c. 8m, W. 7.57m. Hill et al. 1980, fig. 84.

Because the blocks were reused in the wall, the wall provides a terminus ante quem for the construction of the arch. Some parts of the riverside wall were constructed on timber piles which dendrochronological testing dates to between A.D. 255 and 270 and radiocarbon testing to between A.D. 240 to 450.111 Unfortunately, no timber piles were found in the section of the wall with the reused blocks. It seems the wall was constructed in at least two phases, with one in the middle of the third century and a second around A.D. 300, which employed the reused blocks.112 Based on stylistic criteria, it has been suggested that the arch is no earlier than the late Antonine

XIV.2a. Block from the Outer Edge of Archway and the Spandrel. H. 0.46m narrowing to 0.37m, W. 0.34m, D. 1.17m. Low relief. Decorative bands mirroring outer edges of voussoirs above which are fragment of a fins. Blagg 1980b, fig. 62 and plates 2223. XIV.2b. Left Niche. Six blocks surviving. Niche as restored, H. 2.51m, W. 0.90m. Low relief. Part of a club; part of a left arm and bare torso. Hercules. Blagg 1980b, figs. 65, 70-72, 75, and 77 and plates 29, 31, 32, and 34.

105

Scullard 1979, 53; Marsden 1980, 11 and 17-19; Milne 1995, 41-43; Wilson 2002, 604; Mattingly 2006, 265 and 273-265. 106 Tacitus, Annales XIV.33. 107 Marsden 1980, 110; Milne 1993, 12-13 and 73-77; Milne 1995, 52-70; Wilson 2002, 608. 108 Marsden 1980, 119; Milne 1993, 12; Milne 1995, 7778; Wilson 2002, 609; Mattingly 2006, 275. 109 Perring 1991, 106-107; de la Bédoyère 2001, 118-119. 110 Milne 1995, 170. 111 On the dendrochronoligcal testing, see Sheldon and Tyers 1983, 358-360; Hillam and Morgan 1986, 75-86. For a date of A.D. 225-270, see Perring 1991, 107. For a 330 date, see de la Bédoyère 2001, 119. 112 Sheldon and Tyers 1983, 359.

XIV.2c. Right Niche. Two blocks surviving. Niche as restored, H. 2.51m, W. 0.90m. Low relief. Fragment of a staff on the left side; perhaps Jupiter, Juno, or Neptune. Blagg 1980b, figs. 66 and 73 and plates 25 and 35. XIV.2d. Attic Frieze. One block (far right) surviving. Frieze as restored, H. 0.86m, W. 7.57m. Low relief. 113

Blagg 1980b, 126. Merrifield 1983, 170-171. 115 Blagg 1980b, 157. 116 Blagg 1980b, 142, block no. 119. 117 Blagg 1980b, 127. 114

140

Catalogue Winged Cupid with outstretched arm carrying a torch. Right border: Fluted pilaster. Blagg 1980b, fig. 81 and plates 39-40.

XIV.5b. Attic Frieze. One block survives. H. 0.6m, W. 0.29m. Low relief. No figural decoration survives. Blagg 1980b, fig. 81 and plate 40.

XIV.3. Left Narrow Façade. H. c. 8m, W. 1.18m. Hill et al. 1980, fig. 84. XIV.3a. Lower Niche. As restored, H. 2.51, W. 1.18m. Low relief. From bottom to top: Kantharos decorated with acanthus; small figure dressed in a short tunic belted at the waist, holding a basket; vine scroll with a bunch of grapes and a small bird. Blagg 1980b, fig. 70-72 and 75 and plates 30, 33, and 36. XIV.3b. (Fig. 2.66). Attic Frieze. As restored, H. 0.86m, W. 1.18m. Low relief. Bust of a long-haired male wearing a cloak pinned over his right shoulder; curved object appears in the background, perhaps a quiver. Likely Apollo. Blagg 1980b, figs. 79-80 and plates 37-38. XIV.4.Main Façade B. H. c. 8m, W. 7.57m. Hill et al. 1980, fig. 84. XIV.4a. Left Niche. Three blocks surviving. Niche as restored, H. 2.51m, W. 0.83m. Low relief. Part of a staff and the waist of a draped female; left hand holding the top of a staff and top of a helmeted head. Minerva. Blagg 1980b, fig. 68 and plates 28-29. XIV.4b. Right Niche. Four blocks surviving. Niche as restored, H. 2.51m, W. 0.83m. Low relief. Nothing survives of the central figure. Blagg 1980b, figs. 64 and 75 and plates 24 and 36. XIV.4c. Right Spandrel. Two blocks surviving. H. 0.35m, W. 1.55m, D. 0.41m (on average). Low relief. Upper half of a roundel (diameter 0.86m) containing a head, whose hair is decorated with vine leaves, fruit, grapes, and corn. Perhaps a Season or Abundantia. Blagg 1980b, fig. 67 and plate 26. XIV.4d. (Figs. 2.67-2.68). Attic Frieze. Four blocks survive. Frieze as restored, H. 0.86m, W. 7.57m. Low relief. From left to right: Bust of a beardless figure with shoulder length hair, garment apparent over both shoulders; nude beardless male with strap over the left shoulder; money bag and left shoulder with cloak; top of the head and right shoulder of a female figure wearing a diadem. Possibly Luna, Mars, Mercury, and Venus representing the days of the week. Blagg 1980b, fig. 79-80 and 82-83 and plates 37 and 41-42. XIV.5. Right Narrow Façade. H. c. 8m, W. 1.18m. Hill et al. 1980, fig. 84. XIV.5a. Lower Niche. Four blocks surviving. As restored, H. 2.51m, W. 0.83m (both as restored). Low relief. On the left side, possibly a small figure wearing a tunic carrying a basket over the handle of a kantharos. Blagg 1980b, figs. 66, 68-69, and 73 and plate 35. 141

S.L. McGowen Modern History: The blocks were discovered in 18981911 built into the foundations of the late-Roman city wall near Gautor-Martin Strasse. A cast currently stands in Ernst-Ludwig-Platz, and the surviving original blocks are re-erected in the Landesmuseum Mainz.

XV. Arch of Dativius Victor, Mogontiacum (Mainz) Province: Germania Superior Location: Western Germany in Rheinland-Pfalz on the river Rhine

Primary Publication(s): Espérandieu, VII.5726=CSIR II.3.94; von Gall 1968, 98-119; Frenz 1981, 219-260.

Ancient History of the Site: The ancient name of Mainz, Mogontiacum, seems to derive from the name of a preRoman god Mogon, and so activity in the area likely predates the Roman period. After the Roman conquest, a double-legionary fortress was constructed near the Rhine and along an important road paralleling the river to serve as a military base for military activity in Germany.118 Not long after, a civilian settlement grew up between the fort and the Rhine. After the construction of the limes under Domitian, one of the legions was removed from the base, and it became a garrison, armory, and supply station. After the province of Germania Superior was established in A.D. 85, Mogontiacum became its capital but legally remained only a vicus until it promotion to municipium in the fourth century.119

Monument(s): XV.1. Right and Left Interior Pilasters. Low relief. Climbing vines with floral motifs; capitals decorated with human faces. Frenz 1981, 239. XV.2. (Fig. 2.69). Front Façade. H. 6.5m, W. 4.5m. XV.2a. Inner Pilasters. Climbing vine with leaf motifs; capitals decorated with human faces. Low relief. Frenz 1981, 239. XV.2b. Panels between Inner and Outer Pilasters. Low relief. Right side shows a fish scale pattern to the level of the capitals of the inner pilasters. Frenz 1981, 239.

Description: According to the inscription, Dativius Victor, a municipal official of civitas Taunensium with its capital at Nida, set up the arch and a portico.120 The unsculpted narrow sides and reverse suggest that the arch adjoined another structure, most likely this portico.121 Because the blocks of the arch were discovered reused in part of the late-Roman city wall near Gautor-Martin Strasse, where traces of a porticoed street were found in the nineteenth century, it is possible that it once stood in area O of the Fichteplatzes.

XV.2c. Outer Pilasters. Climbing vine pattern; capitals do not survive. Low relief. Frenz 1981, 239. XV.2d. Archivolts. Low relief. Each block is decorated with one of the twelve signs of the zodiac within a sculpted stone border. Those surviving include: Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Virgo, Scorpio, and Sagittarius. Bauchhenss 1984, figs. 128a and b.

The arch is made of coarse limestone, has only a single bay, and is small in size, measuring only 6.5m in height, 4.5m in width, and 0.7m in depth.122 The size of the passageway is also limited, measuring only 2.50m wide and 3.90m tall. Thus, it seems unlikely that arch spanned a major roadway.

XV.2e. Keystone. Low relief. On the left sits a draped female figure holding a staff or scepter; on the right sits a male figure with a bare chest holding a scepter or thunderbolt. Jupiter and Juno enthroned. Bauchhenss 1984, fig. 127b.

The dedicatory inscription has survived (Cat. XV.2i), but it provides no direct evidence in regard to the arch’s precise date. The formula in honorem domus divinae, which appears in the inscription, was not used until the middle of the second century. This, in conjunction with the letter forms, suggests that the arch was dedicated in the late second century at the earliest.123 Use of this dedication did not become firmly established until the middle of the third century, but based on rates of construction of such large-scale monuments, the arch was almost certainly constructed before c. A.D. 225.

XV.2f. Lower Panels Between Archivolts and Outer Pilasters. Low relief. Left: Nude male striding right, with a basket over his shoulder; personification of Autumn. Right: Nude male, preserved up to the waist, striding left; perhaps a personification of Spring. Bauchhenss 1984, figs. 128a and b. XV.2g. Spandrels. Low relief. Left (from left to right): Male figure wearing a short tunic (camillus) holding a sacrificial pitcher; male figure wearing a toga; small altar; single leg of a third figure, now lost. Right (from right to left): Male figure wearing a short tunic (camillus) holding an acerra; the lower half of a male figure wearing a toga; the leg of a figure wearing a short tunic (camillus) carved only in outline; an altar with indications of a flame above; head, front legs, and torso of an animal, possibly a cow. In between, four seated figures. Bauchhenss 1984, fig. 128b.

118

Baatz 1962, 68; King 1990, 59; Carroll 2001, 34-36. von Elbe 1977; Carroll 2001, 43-44. 120 von Elbe 1977, 259; Cüppers 1990, 465. 121 Selzer, et al. 1988, 92; Cüppers 1990, 466. 122 On the architecture and dimensions of the arch, see von Gall 1968, 98; Bauchhenss 1984, 79; Selzer, et al. 1988, 92; Cüppers 1990, 465. 123 Wamser, et al. 2000, 251. 119

142

Catalogue XV.2h. Attic Inscription. Dated to the late second or early third century. Inside a panel held by a pair of putti: In h(onorem) d(omus) d(ivinae) I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) Conservatori arcum et porticus / quos Dativius Victor dec(urio) civit(atis) Taun(ensium) sacerdotalis Mo/gontiacensibus [p]romisit Victorii Ursus frum(entarius) et Lupus / filii et heredes consummaverunt CIL XIII.6705=AE 1899.14; Bauchhenss 1984, fig. 127a. XV.3. Rear Façade. Low relief. Traces of vine decoration on one block of the left exterior pilaster; traces of fishbone pattern on two blocks between external and internal pilaster on the left side; capital decorated with human face survives on left interior pilaster. Most other surviving blocks show no traces of decoration.

143

S.L. McGowen Modern History: The temple was discovered in 1954.136 After much public debate, it was moved 70m northwest of it original location to its current site on Queen Victoria Street. The finds are now housed in the Museum of London.

XVI. Mithraeum, Londinium (London) Province: Britannia Location: Southeast England on the River Thames Ancient History of the Site: Few signs of pre-Roman activity have been found at Londinium, but following the conquest of A.D. 43, the town became an important commercial center.124 This was due in part to its function as a hub in the road network and its location at the navigable end of the Thames.125 During the late first century, it replaced Colchester (Camulodunum) as the capital of the province.126 After a boom during the Flavian period, the city saw a period of decline in the late second century,127 and a second decline in fortunes occurred in the mid to late third century.

Primary Publication(s): CSIR I.10.4-7, 13-16, 69 and 71; Shepherd 1998.

Description: The Mithraeum was located on the west bank of a stream now called the Wallbrook in the southcentral part of the city. Although the precise nature of the area around the temple may never be determined because of the modern city, it seems possible that it was built in a preexisting religious precinct and/or as part of a private The original building extending to the east.128 excavations also revealed evidence for a road running parallel to the east side.129 The temple was constructed in c. A.D. 240-250,130 and an inscription dated to A.D. 307308 indicates that it functioned as a Mithraeum into at least the fourth century.131

XVI.2. Genius Figure. Imported marble. H. 0.59m, W. 0.26m, D. 0.18m. In the round. Standing half-draped male figure holding a cornucopia; head missing. Dated stylistically to the middle of the second century. Shepherd 1998, 173, figs. 194-195.

Monument(s): XVI.1. (Fig. 2.72). Relief of Cautopates. Limestone. Broken just above the waist. H. 0.92m, W. 0.58m (across the base), D. 0.27m. Low relief. Crossed legs of Cautopates with torch down to his right side. Dated stylistically to the late second or early third century. Shepherd 1998, 182, fig. 213.

XVI.3. (Fig. 2.71). Relief of Mithras Tauroctonos. Marble. Corners broken. H. 0.43m, W. 0.51m, D. 0.11m. Low relief. Mithras Tauroctonos within a roundel, surrounded by the signs of the zodiac and flanked by Cautes and Cautopates. In the upper corners, to the left appears Sol in his chariot and to the right, Luna with her bull. In the lower corners are busts of two males, one bearded, one beardless, possibly wind gods. Low relief. Tentatively dated to the late second or early third century. Inscription around the roundel:

The temple had a relatively standard layout for a Mithraeum, though it did have several atypical features, such as the apse and podium opposite the door.132 At 18.3m in length and 7.6m in width, it was also unusually large.133 The Mithraeum contained both marble and limestone sculptures. Isotope analysis has confirmed that at least two of the marble sculptures were made of Carrara marble, and it seems likely the others were as well.134 The limestone almost certainly came from the Cotswold area.135

Ulpi / us / Silva / nus // Emeri / tus Leg(ionis) / II Aug(ustae) / votum / solvit Factus // Arausione RIB 3; Shepherd 1998, 174, fig. 196-200. XVI.4. (Fig. 2.73). Head of Serapis. Imported marble. H. 0.43m (including modius), W. 0.22m (at the base of the neck). In the round. Head of a bearded Serapis wearing a modius decorated with olive trees. Dated stylistically to the second century. Shepherd 1998, 168, figs. 186-187.

124

Tacitus, Annales XIV.33. Scullard 1979, 53; Marsden 1980, 11 and 17-19; Millett 1992, 88-89; Milne 1995, 41-43; Wilson 2002, 604; Mattingly 2006, 265, 273-275, and 511. 126 Marsden 1980, 23 and 39; Milne 1995, 48-52; Wilson 2002, 607-608. 127 Marsden 1980, 110; Milne 1993, 12-13; Milne 1995, 52-77; Wilson 2002, 608. 128 Shepherd 1998, 221. 129 Grimes and Sorrell, as cited in Shepherd 1998, 220221 and fig. 246. 130 Shepherd 1998, 221-222. On the pottery, see Bird 1998, 106-107; Groves 1998, 102-105. 131 Wilson 2002, 618. 132 Toynbee 1986, 9. 133 Henig 1989, 108; Wilson 2002, 618. 134 Shepherd 1998, 108-110. 135 Shepherd 1998, 171 and 182. 125

XVI.5. (Fig. 2.70). Head of Mithras. Marble. H. 0.37m, W. 0.17m (at the base of the neck). In the round, ends with an iron tenon. Capped head of Mithras with eyes looking up and right. Dated stylistically to c. A.D. 180200. Shepherd 1998, 166, figs. 181-183. XVI.6. Top Half of a Male Figure. Marble. Only torso and head survive. H. 0.34m, W. 0.27m, D. 0.14m. In the round. Older, bearded male, likely a water deity. Dated stylistically to the early to mid second century. Shepherd 1998, 171, figs. 192-193.

136

144

Shepherd 1998, 13-26.

Catalogue XVI.7. Hand. Marble. H. 0.15m (with the hilt held vertically), L. 0.26m, W. 0.13m (across back of hand). In the round, ends with an iron tenon. Hand of Mithras holding the handle of a knife, now lost. Dated stylistically to the second century. Shepherd 1998, 170, fig. 190. XVI.8. Mercury Figurine. Marble. H. 0.25m with a 0.20m base, D. 0.11m. In the round. Nude Mercury with wings sprouting from his hair sits on a rock, with his moneybag, a tortoise, and a ram. Dated stylistically to the second century. Shepherd 1998, 169, figs. 188-189. XVI.9. Head of Minerva. Marble. H. 0.25m, W. 0.15m (at the base of the neck). In the round, ends with an iron tenon. Head of the goddess missing her helmet. Stylistically dated to c. 130-190. Shepherd 1998, 167, figs. 184-185. XVI.10. Left Hand and Forearm. Limestone. L. 0.19m, W. 0.70m. In the round. Hand and forearm of Mithras. Dated to the late second or early third century. Shepherd 1998, 171, fig. 191. XVI.11. Inscribed Panel. Marble. Only right edge survives. Dated to A.D. 307/308. Molded marble panel reused for the inscription: [Pro salute dddd(ominorum) nnnn(ostrorum) Au]gggg(ustorum) / [------] / [--- et Soli] Invicto / [ab oriente] ad [occid]entem RIB 4=AE 1956.115; Shepherd 1998, 176, figs. 201 and 202.

145

146

References

References Amy, R., P.-M. Duval, J. Formigé, J.-J. Hatt, A. Piganiol, C. Picard, and G.-C. Picard. 1962. L'Arc d'Orange. Paris: Centre national de la recherche scientifique.

Bechert, T. 2003. Römische Archäologie in Deutschland. Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam. Bedon, R. 1980. "Villes et carrières en Gaule romaine." Caesarodunum 15: 17-24.

Anderson, A.S. 1984. Roman Military Tombstones. Aylesbury: Shire Publications.

———. 1984. Les carrières et les carriers de la Gaule romaine. Paris: Picard.

Anderson, J.C., Jr. 1987. "The Date of the Arch at Orange." Bonner Jahrbücher 187: 159-192.

Bedon, R., R. Chevallier, and P. Pinon. 1988a. Architecture et urbanisme en Gaule romaine. Vol. 1. Paris: Editions Errance.

Arata, F.P. 1996. "L'arco di Marco Aurelio a Tripoli (Oea). Una nova ipotesi esegetica." In Scritti di antichità in memoria di Sandro Stucchi, Vol. 2, 9-30. Rome: L'Erma di Bretschneider.

———. 1988b. Architecture et urbanisme en Gaule romaine. Vol. 2. Paris: Editions Errance.

Audouin, E. 1902. "La Minerve de Poitiers." Fondation Eugène Piot, monuments et mémoires 9: 43-71.

Beeson, A. 2002. "The Unknown Deity on the Compton Dando Corner Stone." Bulletin of the Association for Roman Archaeology (13): 10-13.

Aurigemma, S. 1970. L'arco quadrifronte di Marco Aurelio e di Lucio Vero in Tripoli. Tripoli: Department of Antiquities, Libyan Arabic Republic.

Bellet, M. 1991. Orange antique: Monuments et musée. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale: Ministère de la culture de la communication et des grands travaux.

Baatz, D. 1962. Mogontiacum: Neue Untersuchungen am römischen Legionslager in Mainz. Berlin: Mann.

Benoit, F. 1969. Art et dieux de la Gaule. Paris: Arthaud. Ball, W. 2000. Rome in the East: The Transformation of an Empire. London: Routledge.

———. 1970. Les symbolisme dans les sanctuaires de la Gaule. Bruxelles: Latomus.

Barpi, S. 2004. "Il fregio dell'arco di Augusto a Susa: Interpretazioni storico artistiche." In Romanità valsusina, 139-160. Susa (Torino): Segusium.

Berthelot, F., and R. Neiss. 1994. "Reims antique et médiéval." Archéologia 300: 50-57.

Bartman, E. 1988. "Decor et Duplicatio: Pendants in Roman Sculptural Display." American Journal of Archaeology 92: 211-225.

Beschaouch, A., R. Hanoune, and Y. Thébert. 1977. Les ruines de Bulla Regia. Rome: École française de Rome. Bessac, J.-C. 1988. "Influences de la conquête romaine sur le travail de la pierre en Gaule méditerranéenne." Journal of Roman Archaeology 1: 57-72.

Bartoccini, R. 1931. "L'arco quadrifronte dei Severi a Leptis Magna." Africa Italiana 4: 32-152. Barton, I.M. 1982. "Capitoline Temples in Italy and the Provinces (especially Africa)." Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.12.I: 259-243.

Bessac, J.-C., and N. Lambert. 1989. "La pierre a Glanum." Dossiers d'archéologie 140: 4-13. Binsfeld, W. 1975. "Inschriftsteine." In Das Pilgerheiligtum des Apollo und der Sirona von Hochscheid im Hunsrük, edited by G. Weisgerber, 55-56. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag.

Bauchhenss, G. 1984. Denkmäler des Iuppiterkultes aus Mainz und Umgebung, Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani: Deutschland, Vol. 2, Bd. 3. Mainz: Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums.

Binsfeld, W., K. Goethert-Polaschek, and L. Schwinden. 1988. Katalog der römischen Steindenkmäler des Rheinischen Landesmuseums Trier, Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani: Deutschland, Vol. IV, Bd. 3. Mainz: Phillip von Zabern.

Bauchhenss, G., and P. Noelke. 1981. Die Iupitersäulen in den germanischen Provinzen. Köln: Rheinland-Verlag. Beal, J.C. 1999. "Remarques sur l'imagerie du pilier funéraire d'Igel." In Imago antiquitatis. Religions et iconographie du monde romain. Mélanges offerts à Robert Turcan, edited by N. Blanc and A. Buisson, 95105. Paris: Boccard.

Bird, J. 1998. "The Samian." In The Temple of Mithras, London: Excavations by W.F. Grimes and A. Williams at the Wallbrook, edited by J. D. Shepherd, 106-107. London: English Heritage.

Beard, M., J.A. North, and S.R.F. Price. 1998. Religions of Rome. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 147

S.L. McGowen Bishop, M.C., and J.C. Coulston. 2006. Roman Military Equipment: From the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxbow.

Brecciaroli Taborelli, L. 2006. Brief Guide to the Museo di Antichità of Turin. Turin, London, Venice, and New York: Umberto Allemandi.

Bisi, A.M. 1978. "A proposito di alcune stele del tipo della Ghorfa al British Museum." Antiquités africaines 12: 21-88.

Brewer, R.J. 1986. Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani Great Britain I. 5 Wales. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Blagg, T.F.C. 1976. "Tools and Techniques of the Roman Stonemason in Britain." Britannia 7: 152-172.

Brogan, O., and D.J. Smith. 1984. Ghirza: A Libyan Settlement in the Roman Period. Tripoli: Department of Antiquities.

———. 1979. "The Date of the Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath." Britannia 10: 101-107.

Bromwich, J. 1996. The Roman Remains of Southern France: A Guidebook. London and New York: Routledge.

———. 1980a. "Roman Civil and Military Architecture in the Province of Britain: Aspects of Patronage, Influence and Craft Organization." World Archaeology 12 (1): 27-42.

———. 2003. The Remains of Northern and Eastern France: A Guidebook. London and New York: Routledge.

———. 1980b. "The Sculptured Stones." In The Roman Riverside Wall and Monumental Arch in London: Excavations at Baynard's Castle, Upper Thames Street, London, 1974-76, edited by T. Dyson, 124-157. London: London and Middlesex Archaeological Society.

Brown, A.L. 1999. "Achilles." In The Oxford Classical Dictionary, edited by S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth, 6-7. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burgess, J.S. 2001. "Coronis Aflame: The Gender of Mortality." Classical Philology 96 (3): 214-227.

———. 1990a. "Architectural Munificence in Britain: The Evidence of Inscriptions." Britannia 21: 13-31. ———. 1990b. "Building Stone in Roman Britain." In Stone: Quarrying and Building in England, AD 43-1525, edited by D. Parsons. Chichester: Phillmore in association with Royal Archaeological Institute.

Burnand, Y. 1974. "La première identification de la moissonneuse gallo-romaine sur la Porte de Mars à Reims par l'architecte Auguste Caristie vers 1829." In Actes du 95e Congrès national des Sociétés savantes, Reims 1970. Section d'archéologie et d'histoire de l'art, 85-92. Paris: Bibliothèque nationale.

Blanc, A., L.L. Holmes, and G. Harbottle. 2002. "Lutetian Limestones in the Paris Region: Petrographic and Compositional Examination." In ASMOSIA 5, Interdisciplinary Studies on Ancient Stone, edited by J. Herrmann, N. Herz and R. Newman, 103-109.

———. 1984. "Informations archéologiques. Circonscription de Lorraine: Deneuvre." Gallia XLII: 360-362. Burrell, B. 2004. Neokoroi: Greek Cities and Roman Emperors. Leiden: Brill.

Bonanno, A. 1977. "Sculpture." In Excavations at Sidi Khrebish Benghazi (Berenice), Vol. II, edited by J. Lloyd, 51-65. Tripoli: Department of Antiquities Ministry of Teaching and Education People's Socialist Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

Byrne, M. 2002. "The Date of the City Gate of Antioch." In Actes du Ier Congrès international sur Antioche de Pisidie, edited by T. Drew-Bear, M. Taslialan and C. M. Thomas, 193-200. Lyon: Université Lumière-Lyon.

Boppert, W. 1992-1993. "Der Blussusstein. Das Grabmal eines einheimischen Aufsteigers." Mainzer Zeitschrift 8788: 345-378.

Calabi Limentani, I. 1958-1966a. "Marmorius." In Enciclopedia dell'arte antica, classica e orientale, Vol. 4, 870-875. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana.

Boschung, D. 2002. Gens Augusta: Untersuchungen zu Aufstellung, Wirkung und Bedeutung der Statuengruppen des julisch-claudischen Kaiserhauses. Mainz am Rhein: P. von Zabern.

———. 1958-1966b. "Sculptor." In Enciclopedia dell'arte antica, classica e orientale, Vol. 7, 144. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana. Carroll, M. 2001. Romans, Celts, and Germans: The German Provinces of Rome. Stroud: Tempus.

Boube, E. 1996. Collections du musée archéologique départemental de Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges. SaintBertrand-de-Comminges: Le Musée.

Carver, E. 2001. The Visibility of Imported Wine and Its Associated Accoutrements in Later Iron Age Britain. Oxford: BAR Publishing.

Boucher, S. 1976. Recherches sur les bronzes figurés de Gaule pré-romaine et romaine. Rome: École française de Rome.

148

References Castagnoli, F. 1979. Il Culto di Minerva a Lavinium. Roma: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei.

———. 2000. Roman Bath Discovered. New ed. Stroud: Tempus.

Cavargna Allemano, A.M. 2004. "Il fregio dell'arco di Susa expressione locale di arte provinciale romana." In Romanità valsusina, 113-138. Susa (Torino): Segusium.

Cunliffe, B.W., and P. Davenport. 1985. The Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath, I: The Site. Contributions by V. Care and R. S. O. Tomlin. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology.

Chaisemartin, N.d. 1987. Les sculptures romaines de Sousse et des sites environnants: Hergla, Henchir Zembra, Sidi Bou Ali, Chott Maria, Aïn Gassa, El Kenissia, Sidi el Hani, Ksiba, Kedime, Knaiss, Lemta, Ras Dimas. Rome: École française de Rome.

Cunliffe, B.W., and M.G. Fulford. 1982. Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani Great Britain I. 2 Bath and the Rest of Wessex. Oxford: Published for the British Academy by the Oxford University Press.

Clarke, J.R. 1991. "The Decor of the House of Jupiter and Ganymede at Ostia Antica: Private Residence Turned Gay Hotel?" In Roman Art in the Private Sphere. New Perspectives on the Architecture and Decor of the Domus, Villa, and Insula, edited by E. K. Gazda and A. E. Haeckl, 89-104. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Cunliffe, B.W., and R. Tomlin. 1988. The Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath, II: The Finds from the Sacred Spring. Contributions by L. Allason-Jones, M. Henig and D. R. Walker. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology. Dalby, A. 2003. Bacchus: A Biography. London: British Museum Press.

Clauss, M. 2000. The Roman Cult of Mithras: The God and His Mysteries. Translated by R. Gordon. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Darblade-Audoin, M.-P., ed. 2006. Nouvel Espérandieu: Recueil général des sculptures sur pierre de la Gaule. Vol. II Lyon. Paris: Académie des inscriptions et belleslettres.

Clavel-Lévêque, M., and P. Lévêque. 1982. "Impérialisme et sémiologie: L'espace urbain à Glanum." Mélanges de l'École française de Rome, Antiquité 94: 675-698.

Dark, K.R. 1993. "Town or 'Temenos'? A Reinterpretation of the Walled Area of 'Aquae Sulis'." Britannia 24: 254-255.

Cleere, H. 2001. Southern France: An Oxford Archaeological Guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

de la Bédoyère, G. 1989. The Finds of Roman Britain. London: Batsford.

Courcelle-Seneuil, J.L. 1910. Les dieux gaulois d'après les monuments figurés. Paris: E. Leroux.

———. 2001. The Buildings of Roman Britain. Updated ed. Stroud: Tempus.

Crawford, M.H. 1974. Roman Republican Coinage. London: Cambridge University Press.

———. 2002. Gods with Thunderbolts: Religion in Roman Britain. Charleston: Tempus Publishing Inc.

Creighton, J. 2006. Britannia: The Creation of a Roman Province. London and New York: Routledge.

DeLaine, J. 1997. The Baths of Caracalla: A Study in the Design, Construction, and Economics of Large-scale Building Projects in Imperial Rome. Portsmouth: Journal of Roman Archaeology.

Cüppers, H., ed. 1990. Die Römer in Rheinland-Pfalz. Contributions by H. Bernhard, W. Boppert, H. Cüppers, K.-V. Decker, H. G. Frenz, M. Grünewald, M. Klee, E. Künzl, O. Roller, G. Rupprecht, W. Selzer and H.-H. Wegner. Stuttgart: Theiss.

Delor, J.-P. 2002. L'Yonne 89/2. Paris: Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres.

Cunliffe, B.W. 1986a. The City of Bath. Gloucester: Sutton.

Densmore, C. 1908. "Roman Monumental Arches." Supplemental Papers of the American School of Classical Studies in Rome II: 26-79.

———. 1986b. "The Sanctuary of Sulis Minerva at Bath: A Brief Review." In Pagan Gods and Shrines of the Roman Empire, edited by M. Henig and A. King, 1-14. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology.

Derks, T. 1991. "The Perception of the Roman Pantheon by a Native Elite: The Example of Votive Inscriptions from Lower Germany." In Images of the Past: Studies on Ancient Societies in Northwestern Europe, edited by N. Roymans and F. Theuws, 235-257. Amsterdam: Instituut voor Pre- en Protohistorische Archeologie.

———. 1988. Greeks, Romans and Barbarians: Spheres of Interaction. London: Batsford. ———. 1997. The Ancient Celts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

———. 1998. Gods, Temples, and Ritual Practices: The Transformation of Religious Ideas and Values in Roman Gaul. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. 149

S.L. McGowen Deyts, S. 1992. Images des dieux de la Gaule. Paris: Errance.

Actes du colloque d'Argentomagus (Argenton-sur-Creuse Saint-Marcel, Indre) 8,9 et 10 octobre 1992. Paris: Errance and Musée d'Argentomagus.

Dodge, H. 1990. "The Architectural Impact of Rome in the East." In Architecture and Architectural Sculpture in the Roman Empire, edited by M. Henig, 108-120. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology.

Fears, J.R. 1981a. "The Theology of Victory at Rome: Approaches and Problems." Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.17.2: 737-826.

Domergue, C. 1966. "La représentation de Saisons sur l'arc de Caracalla à Volubilis." In Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire offerts à André Piganiol, edited by R. Chevallier, 463-472. Paris: S.E.V.P.E.N.

———. 1981b. "The Cult of Virtues and Roman Imperial Ideology." Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.17.2: 828-948. Felletti Maj, B.M. 1963. "I rilievi dell'arco di Susa." In Atti del I congresso internazionale di archeologia dell'Italia settentrionale: Torino 21-24 giugno 1961, edited by G. Giappichelli, 125-127. Torino: Università di Torino.

Dowden, K. 1999. "Leda." In The Oxford Classical Dictionary, edited by S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth, 837. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Drinkwater, J.F. 1983. Roman Gaul: The Three Provinces, 58 B.C.-A.D. 260. London: Croom Helm.

Ferris, I.M. 2003. Enemies of Rome: Barbarians through Roman Eyes. Stroud: Sutton.

———. 2001. "The Gallo-Roman Woollen Industry and the Great Debate: The Igel Column Revisited." In Economies Beyond Agriculture in the Classical World, edited by D. J. Mattingly and J. Salmon, 297-308. London: Routledge.

Fishwick, D. 1987. The Imperial Cult in the Latin West: Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1989. "The Sixty Gallic Tribes and the Altar of the Three Gauls." Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 38 (111-112).

Drogula, F.K. 2005. The Office of Provincial Governor under the Roman Republic and Empire (to A.D. 235): Conception and Tradition. Ph.D. Dissertation, Corcoran Department of History, University of Virginia, Charlottesville. Duncan-Jones, R. 1962. "Costs, Outlays and Summae Honorariae from Roman Africa." Papers of the British School at Rome 30: 47-115.

Fitzpatrick, A.P. 1989. "The Uses of Roman Imperialism by the Celtic Barbarians in the Later Republic." In Barbarians and Romans in North-West Europe from the Later Republic to Late Antiquity, edited by J. C. Barrett, A. P. Fitzpatrick and L. Macinnes, 27-54. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Ebel, C. 1976. Transalpine Gaul: The Emergence of a Roman Province. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Fleury-Alcaraz, K. 1997. "Aux sources d'Hercule." Archéologia 332: 5-55.

el-Sawy, A., J. Bouzek, and L. Vidman. 1980. "New Stelae from the Terenouthis Cemetery in Egypt." Archív Orientální 48: 330-355.

Fogliato, D. 1992. L'Arco di Augusto a Susa. Collegno: Grupppo Archeologico "Ad Quintum". Follmann-Schulz, A.-B. 1986. "Die römischen Tempelanlagen in der Provinz Germania Inferior." Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.1: 672793.

Esmonde-Cleary, S. 2008. Rome in the Pyrenees. Abingdon: Routledge. Espérandieu, E. 1907-1966. Recueil général des basreliefs, statues et bustes de la Gaule romaine. Paris: Imprimerie nationale.

Freedberg, D. 1989. The Power of Images: Studies in the History and Theory of Response. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

Fagan, G.G. 1999. Bathing in Public in the Roman World. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Frenz, H.G. 1981. "Der Ehrenbogen des Dativius Victor zu Mainz und seine neue Rekonstruktion." Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 62: 219-260.

Fauduet, I. 1993. Les temples de tradition celtique en Gaule romaine. Paris: Editions Errance.

Frézouls, E. 1984. "Evergétisme et construction urbaine dans les Trois Gaules et les Germaines." Revue du Nord 66 (260): 27-54.

Fauduet, I., D. Bertin, Y. Cabuy, and V. Rey- Vodoz. 1993. Atlas des sanctuaires romano-celtiques de Gaule: Les fanums. Paris: Editions Errance.

Galinsky, K. 1992. "Venus, Polysemy, and the Ara Pacis Augustae." American Journal of Archaeology 96: 457475.

Fauduet, I., G. Coulon, and C. Goudineau. 1994. Les sanctuaires de tradition indigène en Gaule romaine: 150

References

Ganschow, T. 1981. "Felicitas." In LIMC 8.1, 585-591.

Grenier, A. 1960. Manuel d'archéologie gallo-romaine, IV: Les monuments des eaux. Paris: Picard.

Gazda, E.K. 1995. "Roman Sculpture and the Ethos of Emulation: Reconsidering Repetition." Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 97: 121-156.

Griffiths, E. 2006. Medea. London: Routledge. Gros, P. 1979. "Pour une chronologie des arcs des triomphe de Gaule Narbonnaise." Gallia 37 (1): 55-83.

Geddes, S., and J. Williams. 1996. Estimating for Building and Civil Engineering Works. 9th ed. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

———. 1986a. "Le mausolée des Julii et le statut de Glanum." Revue archéologique: 65-80.

Gell, A. 1998. Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

———. 1986b. "Une hypothèse sur l'arc d'Orange." Gallia 44 (1): 191-201.

Gessert, G. 2004. "Myth as Consolatio: Medea on Roman Sarcophagi." Greece and Rome 51 (2): 217-249.

Groves, J. 1998. "The Pottery: General Discussion." In The Temple of Mithras, London: Excavations by W.F. Grimes and A. Williams at the Walbrook, edited by J. D. Shepherd, 102-105. London: English Heritage.

Girard, J.-L. 1981b. "La Place de Minerve dans la religion au temps du principat." Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.17.1: 233-245.

Halm-Tisserant, M. 1993. Cannibalisme et immortalité: L'enfant dans le chaudron en Grèce ancienne. Paris: Belles Lettres.

Giraud, D. 1989. "The Greater Propylaia at Eleusis, a Copy of Mnesikles' Propylaia." In The Greek Renaissance in the Roman Empire: Papers from the Tenth British Museum ClassicalColloquium, edited by S. Walker, 69-75. London.

Harding, D.W. 2007. The Archaeology of Celtic Art. London and New York: Routledge.

Golfetto, A. 1973. "Die Skulpturengrotte von Slonta." Antike Welt 4 (3): 14-25.

Haywood, K.M.J. 2006. "A Geological Link between the Facilis Monument at Colchester and First-Century Army Tombstones from the Rhineland Frontier." Britannia 37: 359-363.

Gombrich, E.H. 1989. Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation. 2nd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Henig, M. 1980. "Art and Cult in the Temples of Roman Britain." In Temples, Churches, and Religion: Recent Research in Roman Britain, Part I, edited by W. Rodwell, 91-114. Oxford: B.A.R.

Goodman, P.J. 2007. The Roman City and Its Periphery: From Rome to Gaul. London: Routledge. Goudineau, C. 1980. "Les villes de la paix romaine." In Histoire de la France urbaine, edited by G. Duby, 237391. Paris: Seuil.

———. 1984. Religion in Roman Britain. London: Batsford. ———. 1986. "Ita Intellexit Numine Inductus Tuo: Some Personal Interpretations of Deity in Roman Religion." In Pagan Gods and Shrines of the Roman Empire, edited by M. Henig and A. King, 159-169. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology.

Graf, F. 2001. "Athena and Minerva: Two Faces of One Goddess?" In Athena in the Classical World, edited by S. Deacy and A. Villing, 127-139. Leiden: Brill. Grasby, R.D., and R.S.O. Tomlin. 2002. "The Sepulchral Monument of the Procurator C. Julius Classicianus." Britannia 33: 43-75.

———. 1989. "Religion in Roman Britain." In Research on Roman Britain, 1960-1989, edited by M. Todd, 219234. London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies.

Green, M.J. 1995. Celtic Goddesses: Warriors, Virgins and Mothers. London: British Museum Press.

———. 1993. "Votive Objects: Image and Inscriptions." In The Uley Shrines: Excavation of a Ritual Complex on West Hill, Uley, Gloucestershire 1977-9, edited by A. Woodward and P. E. Leach, 89-130. London: English Heritage in association with British Museum Press.

———. 1998. "God in Man's Image: Thoughts on the Genesis and Affiliations of Some Romano-British CultImagery." Britannia 29: 17-30. ———. 2004. The Gods of the Celts. Gloucester: Alan Sutton.

———. 1995. The Art of Roman Britain. London: Batsford.

Gregory, A.P. 1994. "'Powerful Images': Responses to Portraits and the Political Uses of Images in Rome." Journal of Roman Archaeology 7: 80-99.

———. 1996. "Sculptors from the West in Roman London." In Interpreting Roman London: Papers in 151

S.L. McGowen Hope, V.M. 1997. "Words and Pictures: The Interpretation of Romano-British Tombstones." Britannia 28: 245-258.

Memory of Hugh Chapman, edited by J. Bird, M. W. C. Hassall and H. Sheldon, 97-103. Oxford: Oxbow. ———. 1999. "A New Shining Star over Bath." Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18 (4): 419-425.

———. 2000. "Inscription and Sculpture: The Construction of Identity in the Military Tombstones of Roman Mainz." In The Epigraphy of Death: Studies in the History and Society of Greece and Rome, edited by G. J. Oliver, 155-185. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

———. 2000. "From Classical Greece to Roman Britain: Some Hellenic Themes in Provincial Art and Glyptics." In Periplous: Papers on Classical Art and Archaeology Presented to Sir John Boardman, edited by G. R. Tsetskhladze, A. J. N. W. Prag and A. M. Snodgrass, 124-135. London: Thames and Hudson, Ltd.

———. 2001. Constructing Identity: The Roman Funerary Monuments of Aquileia, Mainz and Nimes. Oxford: BAR Publishing.

———. 2002. The Heirs of King Verica: Culture and Politics in Roman Britain. Stroud: Tempus.

Horn, H.G. 1987. "Bilddenkmäler des Matronenkultes im Ubiergebiet." In Matronen und verwandte Gottheiten: Ergebnisse eines Kolloquiums veranstaltet von der Göttinger Akademiekommission für die Altertumskunde Mittel- und Nordeuropas, edited by G. Bauchhenss and G. Neumann, 31-54. Köln: Rheinland-Verlag GMBH.

———. 2003. "The Captains and the Kings Depart." In Roman Imperialism and Provincial Art, edited by S. Scott and J. Webster, 119-138. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Henig, M., T.F.C. Blagg, and G. Webster. 1993. Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani Great Britain I. 7 Roman Sculpture from the Cotswold Region with Devon and Cornwall. Oxford: Published for the British Academy by Oxford University Press.

Hunter Blair, P. 1963. Roman Britain and Early England, 55 B.C.-A.D. 871. Edinburgh: T. Nelson. Huskinson, J. 1994. Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani Great Britain I. 8 Roman Sculpture from Eastern England. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Henig, M., D. Brown, N. Sunter, L. Allason-Jones, and D. Baatz. 1988. "The Small Objects." In The Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath, II: The Finds from the Sacred Spring, edited by B. W. Cunliffe and R. S. O. Tomlin, 554. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology.

Hyde, W.W. 1935. Roman Alpine Routes. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. Jacobsthal, P. 1969. Early Celtic Art. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Henig, M., G. Webster, and T.F.C. Blagg. 2004. Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani Great Britain I. 9 Roman Sculpture from the North West Midlands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Johns, C. 2003a. "Art, Romanisation, and Competence." In Roman Imperialism and Provincial Art, edited by S. Scott and J. Webster, 9-23. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hill, C., M. Millett, T.F.C. Blagg, and T. Dyson. 1980. The Roman Riverside Wall and Monumental Arch in London: Excavations at Baynard's Castle, Upper Thames Street, London, 1974-76. London: London and Middlesex Archaeological Society.

———. 2003b. "Romano-British Sculpture: Intention and Execution." In Romanisation und Resistenz in Plastik, Architektur und Inschriften der Provinzen des Imperium Romanum: Neue Funde und Forschungen: Akten des VII. Internationalen Colloquiums über Probleme des Provinzialrömischen Kunstschaffens, Köln 2. bis 6. Mai 2001, edited by P. Noelke, F. NaumannSteckner and B. Schneider, 27-38. Mainz: Zabern.

Hillam, J., and R.A. Morgan. 1986. "Tree-ring Analysis of the Roman Timbers." In The Roman Quay at St. Magnus House, London: Excavations at New Fresh Wharf, Lower Thames Street, London, 1974-78, edited by T. Dyson, 75-86. London: London & Middlesex Archaeological Society.

Jolly, G. 1987. "Le sanctuaire gallo-romain de Genainville." In Archéologie et médecine, 285-287. Juanles-Pins: Association pour la promotion et la diffusion des connaissances archéologiques.

Hodge, A.T. 1998. Ancient Greek France. London: Duckworth.

Kähler, H. 1970. "Das Grabmal des L. Poblicius in Köln." Antike Welt 1: 14-29.

Hölscher, T. 2006. "The Transformation of Victory into Power: From Event to Structure." In Representations of War in Ancient Rome, edited by S. Dillon and K. E. Welch, 27-48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Karo, J. 1975. Graphic Design: Problems, Methods, Solutions. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Kellaway, G.A. 1985. "The Geomorphology of the Bath Region." In The Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath, I: The 152

References Site, Vol. 1, edited by B. W. Cunliffe and P. Davenport, 4-8. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology.

Leglay, M. 1961. Saturne africain: Monuments. Paris: Arts et métiers graphiques. Lehner, H. 1910. "Das Heiligtum der Matronae Aufaniae bei Nettersheim." Bonner Jahrbücher 119: 301-321.

Kendal, R. 1996. "Transport Logistics Associated with the Building of Hadrian's Wall." Britannia 27: 129-152.

———. 1918. Die antiken Steindenkmäler des Provinzialmuseums in Bonn. Bonn: Kommission der Buchhandlung F. Cohen.

King, A. 1990. Roman Gaul and Germany. London: British Museum. King, J.R. 1998. Kingdoms of the Celts: A History and Guide. London: Blandford.

Lendon, J.E. 2005. Soldiers and Ghosts: A History of Battle in Classical Antiquity. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Kleiner, D.E.E. 1992. Roman Sculpture. New Haven: Yale University Press. Kleiner, F.S. 1980. "The Glanum Cenotaph Reliefs: Greek or Roman?" Bonner Jahrbücher 180: 105-126.

Lenski, N. 1999. "Assimilation and Revolt in the Territory of Isauria, from the 1st Century BC to the 6th Century A.D." Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 42 (4): 413-465.

———. 1985. The Arch of Nero in Rome: A Study of the Roman Honorary Arch Before and Under Nero. Roma: G. Bretschneider.

Lerat, L. 1960. "Vesontio ou Besançon romain." In Congrès archéologique de France, 118e session, Franche-Comté 1960, 18-29. Paris: A. Picard et fils.

Knight, J.K. 2001. Roman France: An Archaeological Field Guide. Stroud: Tempus.

———. 1972. "La décoration sculptée d'un des petits côtés cachés de la Porte Noire de Besançon." Revue archéologique de l'Est et du Centre-Est 23: 435-439.

Koortbojian, M. 1995. Myth, Meaning, and Memory on Roman Sarcophagi. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Lerat, L., and H. Walter. 1990. Besançon antique: Ville gallo-romaine, Musée des beaux-arts et d'Archéeologie, Musée lapidaire. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale Éditions.

Kousser, R. 2006. "Conquest and Desire: Roman Victoria in Public and Provincial Sculpture." In Representations of War in Ancient Rome, edited by S. Dillon and K. E. Welch, 218-243. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lindgren, C. 1980. Classical Art Forms and Celtic Mutations: Figural Art in Roman Britain. Park Ridge, N.J.: Noyes Press.

Krierer, K.R., J. Borchardt, and F. Krinzinger. 2004. Antike Germanenbilder. Wien: Verlag der Òsterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Livadiotti, M., and G. Rocco. 2005. "Il tempio di Roma e Augusto." In I tre templi del lato nord-ovest del Foro Vecchio a Leptis Magna, edited by A. Di Vita and M. Livadiotti, 165-308. Roma: L'Erma di Bretschneider.

Küpper-Böhm, A. 1996. Die römischen Bogenmonumente der Gallia Narbonensis in ihrem urbanen Kontext. Espelkamp: M. Leidorf.

Loughton, M.E. 2003. "The Distribution of Republican Amphorae in France." Oxford Journal of Archaeology 22: 177-207.

Lamuà, M. 2007. L'Arc romà de Carpentras: Anàlisi iconogràfica i estilística del programa escultòric. Masters Dissertation, Departement Geografia, Història i Història de l'Art, Universitat de Girona, Girona.

Luni, M. 2005. "Il Santuario Libyo a Slonta." In Cirene: 'Atene d'Africa', edited by M. Luni, 193-200. Rome: L'Erma di Bretschneider. M'Charek, A. 2002-2003. "Sculptures antiques de Hajeb el-Aioun (Tunisie): De la tradition numide à la romanisation." Antiquités africaines 38-39: 19-38.

Lavagne, H. 1970. "Le nymphée au Polyphème de la Domus Aurea." Mélanges de l'École française de Rome, Antiquité 82 (2): 673-721.

MacKendrick, P. 1971. Roman France. London: G. Bell & Sons.

Lefèvre, F. 1974. "Bref aperçu sur l'historiographie de la Porte de Mars à Reims." In Actes du 95e Congrès national des Sociétés savantes, Reims 1970. Section d'archéologie et d'histoire de l'art, 75-83. Paris: Bibliothèque nationale.

Mackie, C.J. 1998. "Achilles in Fire." Classical Quarterly 48 (2): 329-338. MacMullen, R. 1970. "Market-Days in the Roman Empire." Phoenix 24 (4): 333-341.

———. 1987. "Réflexions à propos des sculptures de la Porte de Mars à Reims." Caesarodunum 23: 149-160.

153

S.L. McGowen ———. 1981. Paganism in the Roman Empire. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Vienne (Isère) and Vol. II Lyon, by D. Terrer and M.-P. Darblade-Audoin." Britannia 39: 412-413.

———. 2000. Romanization in the Time of Augustus. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

McGrail, S. "Romano-Celtic Boats and Ships: Characteristic Features." International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 24 (2): 139-145.

Manderscheid, H. 1981. Die Skulpturenausstattung der kaiserzeitlichen Thermenanlagen. Berlin: Mann.

Meates, G.W. Heinemann.

Manino, L. 2004. "L'arco di Susa nel contesto urbanistico segusino." In Romanità valsusina, 63-74. Susa (Torino): Segusium.

1955.

Lullingstone

Villa.

London:

Megaw, M.R., and J.V.S. Megaw. 2001. Celtic Art: From Its Beginnings to the Book of Kells. London: Thames & Hudson.

Manton, E.L. 1988. Roman North Africa. London: Seaby. Meier-Arendt, W. 1983. Römische Steindenkmäler aus Frankfurt am Main: Auswahlkatalog. Frankfurt am Main: Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte.

Marcadé, J. 1982. "Nouvelles observations sur les sculptures du Montmarte d'Avallon." Revue archéologique de l'Est et du Centre-Est 33 (1): 36-42.

Merrifield, R. 1983. London: City of the Romans. London: Batsford.

March, J.R. 1999. "Niobe." In The Oxford Classical Dictionary, edited by S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth, 1045. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Merritt, F.S., and J.T. Ricketts. 2001. Building Design and Construction Handbook. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Marsden, P.R.V. 1980. Roman London. London: Thames and Hudson.

Meyer, E.A. 1990. "Explaining the Epigraphic Habit in the Roman Empire: The Evidence of Epitaphs." Journal of Roman Studies 80: 74-96.

———. 1994. Ships of the Port of London: First to Eleventh Centuries A.D. London: English Heritage. Mattingly, D.J. 1995. Tripolitania. London: Batsford.

Middleton, G.A.T. 1905. Building Materials: Their Nature, Properties and Manufacture: A Text-book for Students and Others. London: Batsford.

———. 2006. An Imperial Possession: Britain in the Roman Empire, 54 B.C.-A.D. 409. London: Allen Lane.

Millett, M. 1992. The Romanization of Britain: An Essay in Archaeological Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mattingly, D.J., and R.B. Hitchner. 1995. "Roman Africa: An Archaeological Review." Journal of Roman Studies 85: 165-213. Maxey, M. 1938. Occupations of the Lower Classes in Roman Society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Milne, G. 1993. "The Rise and Fall of Roman London." In Roman Towns: The Wheeler Inheritance. A Review of 50 Years' Research, edited by S. J. Greep. York: Council for British Archaeology.

May, R. 1986. Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges (antique Lugdunum Convenarum): Le point sur les connaissances. France: A.P.A.M.P.

———. 1995. English Heritage Book of Roman London: Urban Archaeology in the Nation's Capital. London: Batsford.

McCarty, M. (Forthcoming). "Réseaux d'idées: Routes romaines et géographie religieuse dans l'Africa du nord." L'Africa romana 18.

Mingazzini, P. 1968. "La datazione dell'arco di Orange." Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung. 75: 163-167.

McDonnell, M.A. 2006. Roman Manliness: Virtus and the Roman Republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mitard, P.-H. 1972. "Le site gallo-romain des Vaux-dela-Celle a Genainville." Forum (2): 20-28. ———. 1985. Le site gallo-romain des Vaux-de-la-Celle á Genainville (Val-d'Oise): Notice sur les fouilles á l'usage du visiteur. 9 ed. Guiry-en-Vexin: Centre de Recherches Archéologiques du Vexin Français.

McGowen, S. 2007. "The 'Altar' of Sulis Minerva at Bath: Rethinking the Choice of Deities." In Collectanea Antiqua: Essays in Memory of Sonia Chadwick Hawkes, edited by M. Henig and T. J. Smith, 81-90. Oxford: BAR Publishing.

———. 1994. Le sanctuaire gallo-romain de Genainville (Val-d'Oise). Guiry-en-Vexin: Centre de Recherches Archéologiques du Vexin Français.

———. 2008. "Review of Nouvel Espérandieu: Recueil général des sculptures sur pierre de la Gaule, Vol. I 154

References Mitchell, S. 1993. Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Peacock, D.P.S. 1971. "Roman Amphora in Pre-Roman Britain." In The Iron Age and Its Hill-Forts: Papers Presented to Sir Mortimer Wheeler on the Occasion of his Eightieth Year, at a Conference Held by the Southampton University Archaeological Society, 5th-7th March, 1971, edited by D. Hill and M. Jesson, 161-179. Southampton: Southampton University Archaeological Society.

Mitchell, S., and M. Waelkens. 1998. Pisidian Antioch: The Site and Its Monuments. London: Duckworth. Moitrieux, G. 1981. "Un siècle de recherches archéologiques a Deneuvre." Revue archéologique de l'Est 32: 65-88.

Pearson, A. 2006. The Work of Giants: Stone and Quarrying in Roman Britain. Stroud: Tempus.

———. 1986. "Hercule au serpent au sanctuaire de Deneuvre (Meruthe-et-Moselle)." In Archéologie et médecine, 225-239. Juan-les-Pins: Association pour la promotion et la diffusion des connaissances archéologiques.

Perring, D. 1991. Roman London. London: Seaby. Petersen, L.H. 2006. The Freedman in Roman Art and Art History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

———. 1992. Hercules Salutaris: Hercule au sanctuaire de Deneuvre (Meurthe-et-Moselle). Nancy: Presses universitaires de Nancy.

Pfanner, M. 1983. Der Titusbogen. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Morestin, H. 1980. Le temple B de Volubilis. Paris: Editions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique.

Philips, E.J. 1975. "The Gravestone of M. Favonius Facilis at Colchester." Britannia 6: 102-105.

Musso, L. 2000. "Governare il tempo naturale, provvedere alla felicitas terrena, presidere l'ordine celeste." In Aurea Roma. Della città pagana alla città cristiana, edited by S. Ensoli and E. La Rocca, 373-388. Rome: L'Erma di Bretschneider.

Philips, F.C., Jr. 1973. "Narrative Compression and the Myths of Prometheus in Hesiod." The Classical Journal 68 (4): 289-305. Picard, G. 1957. Les trophées romains: Contribution à l'histoire de la religion et de l'art triomphal de Rome. Paris: Boccard.

Nelis-Clément, J. 2000. Les Beneficiarii: Militaires et administrateurs au service de l'Empire (Ier s. a.C.-VIe s. p.C.). Bordeaux and Paris: Ausonius.

———. 1960. "L'arc de Carpentras." Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres: 13-16.

Nerzic, C. 1989. La sculpture en Gaule romaine. Paris: Editions Errance.

———. 1970. "Les conciliabula de Gaule." Bulletin de la Société nationale des antiquaires de France: 66-68.

Neugebauer, K.A. 1942. "Über einen gallorömischen Typus des Mars." Bonner Jahrbücher 147: 228-236.

———. 1974. "La Porte de Mars à Reims." In Actes du 95e Congrès national des Sociétés savantes, Reims 1970. Section d'archéologie et d'histoire de l'art, 59-73. Paris: Bibliothèque nationale.

Newby, Z. 2007. "Art at the Crossroads? Themes and Styles in Severan Art." In Severan Culture, edited by S. Swain, S. J. Harrison, J. Elsner and E. Bowie, 201-251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Picard, G.C. 1982. "La sculpture dans l'Afrique romaine." In 150-Jahr-Feier Deutsches Archèaologisches Institut Rom : Ansprachen und Vortrèage 4.-7. Dezember 1979 = 150 Anniversario Istituto archeologico germanico di Romaallocuzioni e relazioni 4-7 dicembre 1979, 180-195. Mainz: von Zabern.

Noelke, P. 1974. "Unveröffentliche 'Totenmahlereliefs' aus der Provinz Niedergermanien." Bonner Jahrbücher 174: 545-560. Olivier, A., and M. Baudot. 1989. "Vault-de-Lugny, le Montmarte, plan du fanum." In L'Yonne et son passé: 30 ans d’archéologie, edited by J.-P. Delor and C. Rolley, 180-181. L’Yonne: C.D.R.A. 89, Comité départemental de la recherche archéologique de l'Yonne.

Pobé, M., and J. Roubier. 1961. The Art of Roman Gaul: A Thousand Years of Celtic Art and Culture. London: Galley Press. Polaschek, K. 1975. "Skulpturen." In Das Pilgerheiligtum des Apollo und der Sirona von Hochscheid im Hunsrük, edited by G. Weisgerber, 56-63. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag.

Parker, R.C.T. 1999. "Dioscuri." In The Oxford Classical Dictionary, edited by S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth, 484. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pauli, L. 1984. The Alps: Archaeology and Early History. London: Thames and Hudson.

Precht, G. 1975. Das Grabmal des Lucius Poblicius: Rekonstruktion und Aufbau. Cologne: RömischGermanisches Museum.

155

S.L. McGowen Price, S.R.F. 1984. Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nordeuropas, edited by G. Bauchhenss and G. Neumann, 1-30. Köln: Rheinland-Verlag GMBH. Russell, B. 2009. Sculpted Stone and the Roman Economy, 100 B.C. - A.D. 300. DPhil, School of Archaeology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Prieur, J. 1978. Aix-les-Bains dans l'antiquité: Guide du Musée Archéologique. Aix-les-Bains: Musée archéologique.

Salowey, C. 1994. "Herakles and the Water Works. Mycenaean Dams, Classical Foundations, Roman Aqueducts." In Archaeology in the Peloponnese, edited by K. A. Sheedy, 77-94. Oxford: Oxbow.

———. 1982. "Les arcs monumentaux dans les Alpes occidentales: Aoste, Suse, Aix-les-Bains." Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.1: 442-475. Raeder, J. 1983. Die statuarische Ausstattung der Villa Hadriana bei Tivoli. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Raven, S. 1984. Rome in Africa. New ed. London: Longman.

———. 2002. "Herakles and Healing Cult in the Peloponnesos." In Peloponnesian Sanctuaries and Cults: Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 11-13 June 1994, edited by R. Hägg, 171-177. Stockholm: Svenska institutet i Athen.

Rawson, E. 1991. Roman Culture and Society: Collected Papers. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Salzman, L.F. 1992. Building in England Down to 1540: A Documentary History. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Rea, J.T. 1902. How to Estimate, Being the Analysis of Builders' Prices. London: Batsford.

Sandys, J.E., and S.G. Campbell. 1927. Latin Epigraphy: An Introduction to the Study of Latin Inscriptions. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rémy, B. 1996. Inscriptions latines d'Aquitaine (I.L.A.): Arvernes. Bordeaux: Institut de recherche sur l'antiquité et le moyen âge.

Sauer, E. 1996. "An Inscription from Northern Italy, The Roman Temple Complex in Bath, and Minerva as a Healing Goddess in Gallo-Roman Religion." Oxford Journal of Archaeology 15 (1): 63-93.

Richardson, L. 1992. A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.

———. 1999. "The Augustan Army Spa at Bourbonneles-Bains." In The Roman Army as a Community, edited by A. Goldsworth and I. Haynes. Portsmouth: Journal of Roman Archaeology.

Richmond, I.A. 1963. "Palmyra under the Aegis of Rome." Journal of Roman Studies 53: 43-54. Rolland, H. 1960. Glanum, Saint Rémy de Provence. Paris: Éditions du Temps.

Scheid, J. 2003. An Introduction to Roman Religion. Translated by J. Lloyd. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

———. 1969. Le mausolée de Glanum (Saint-Rémy-deProvence). Paris: Éditions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique.

———. 2003. "Les reliefs du mausolée d'Igel dans le cadre des représentations romaines de l'au-delà." L'antiquité classique 72: 113-140.

———. 1977. L'arc de Glanum, Saint-Rémy-deProvence. Paris: Centre national de la recherche scientifique.

Schilling, R. 1960. "Les 'castores' romains à la lumière des traditions indo européennes." In Hommages à Georges Dumézil, 338-353. Brussels: Latomus.

Rolley, C. 1978. "Le Montmarte d'Avallon." Revue archéologique (1): 169-174.

Schleiermacher, M. 1984. Römische Reitergrabsteine: Die kaiserzeitlichen Reliefs des triumphierenden Reiters. Bonn: Bouvier.

———. 2004. "Des reliefs de la Chancellerie au Montmarte d'Avallon: La politique religieuse de Domitien en Gaule." Revue archéologique (1): 159-163.

Schmidt, M. 2000. "Medea at Work." In Periplous: Papers on Classical Art and Archaeology Presented to Sir John Boardman, edited by G. R. Tsetskhladze, A. J. N. W. Prag, A. M. Snodgrass and J. Boardman, 263-270. London: Thames & Hudson.

Roth Congès, A. 2004. Glanum: From Salluvian oppidum to Roman City. Paris: Editions du patrimone. Rüger, C.B. 1987. "Beobachtungen zu den epigraphischen Belgen der Muttergottheiten in den lateinishcen Provinzen des Imperium Romanum." In Matronen und verwandte Gottheiten: Ergebnisse eines Kolloquiums veranstaltet von der Göttinger Akademiekommission für die Altertumskunde Mittel- und

Schofield, J., and T. Dyson. 1980. Archaeology of the City of London: Recent Discoveries of the Department of Urban Archaeology, Museum of London. London: City of London Archaeological Trust.

156

References Schörner, G. 2007. "New Images for Old Rituals: Stelae of Saturn and Personal Cult in Roman North Africa." In TRAC 2006: Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference at the University of Cambridge, 24-25 March 2006, edited by B. Croxford, 92-102. Oxford: Oxbow.

Stern, H. 1962. "Le cycle des mois de la Porte de Mars à Reims." In Hommages à Albert Grenier, edited by M. Renard, 1441-1446. Bruxelles-Berchem: Latomus, revue d'études latines. Stewart, P. 2003. Statues in Roman Society: Representation and Response. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Scullard, H.H. 1979. Roman Britain: Outpost of the Empire. London: Thames and Hudson.

———. 2008. The Social History of Roman Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Selzer, W., K.-V. Decker, and A. do Paço. 1988. Römische Steindenkmäler: Mainz in römischer Zeit: Katalog der Sammlung in der Steinhalle. Mainz: P. von Zabern.

Stilp, F. 2001. Mariage et suovetaurilia: Étude sur le soidisant 'Autel de Domitius Ahenobarbus'. Roma: Giorgio Bretschneider.

Servais-Soyez, B. 1981. "Adonis." In LIMC 1, 222-229. Zurich and Munich: Artemis.

Stirling, L.M. 2005. The Learned Collector: Mythological Statuettes and Classical Taste in Late Antique Gaul. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Sheldon, H.L., and I. Tyers. 1983. "Recent Dendrochronological Work in London and Its Implications." The London Archaeologist: 355-361.

Stroka, V. 1972. "Beobachtungen an den Attikareliefs des severischen Quadrifrons von Leptis Magna." Antiquités africaines 6: 147-172.

Shepherd, J.D. 1998. The Temple of Mithras, London: Excavations by W.F. Grimes and A. Williams at the Walbrook. London: English Heritage. Sherwin-White, A.N. 1973. The Roman Citizenship. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Terrer, D., ed. 2003. Nouvel Espérandieu: Recueil général des sculptures sur pierre de la Gaule. Vol. I Vienne (Isère). Paris: Académie des inscriptions et belleslettres.

Simms, R.R. 1997. "A Date with Adonis." Antichthon 31: 45-53.

Thevenot, É. 1968. Divinités et sanctuaires de la Gaule. Paris: A. Fayard.

———. 1997-1998. "Mourning and Community: At the Athenian Adonia." Classical Journal 93 (2): 121-141.

Torelli, M. 1982. Typology and Structure of Roman Historical Reliefs. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Slatkin, L.M. 1986. "The Wrath of Thetis." Transactions of the American Philological Association 116: 1-24.

Toynbee, J.M.C. 1951. Some Notes on Artists in the Roman World. Bruxelles: Latomus.

Smith, R.R.R. 1987. "The Imperial Reliefs from the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias." Journal of Roman Studies 77: 88-138.

———. 1962. Art in Roman Britain. London: Published by the Phaidon Press for the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies.

———. 1988. "Simulacra Gentium: The Ethne from the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias." Journal of Roman Studies 78: 50-77.

———. 1964. Art in Britain under the Romans. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

———. 1990. "Myth and Allegory in the Sebasteion." In Aphrodisias Papers: Recent Work on Architecture and Sculpture. Including the Papers Given at the Second International Aphrodisias Colloquium Held at King's College London on 14 November 1987, edited by C. Roueché and K. T. Erim, 89-100. Ann Arbor: Journal of Roman Archaeology.

———. 1986. The Roman Art Treasures from the Temple of Mithras. London: London and Middlesex Archaeological Society.

Solso, R.L. 1994. Cognition and the Visual Arts. Cambridge, Massachusettes: MIT Press.

Turcan, R. 1982. "L'autel de Rome et d'Auguste 'Ad Confluentem'." Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.12.I: 607-644.

Tufi, S.R. 1988. Militari romani sul Reno: L'iconografia degli 'stehende Soldaten' nelle stele funerarie del I secolo D.C. Roma: G. Bretschneider.

Sourvinou-Inwood, C. 1997. "Medea at a Shifting Distance: Images and Euripidean Tragedy." In Medea: Essays on Medea in Myth, Literature, Philosophy, and Art, edited by J. J. Clauss and S. I. Johnston, 253-296. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

———. 1984. "L'arc de Carpentras. Problèmes de datation et d'histoire." In Hommages à Lucien Lerat, edited by H. Walter, 809-819. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

157

S.L. McGowen ———. 1996. The Cults of the Roman Empire. Oxford: Blackwell.

Webb, P.A. 1996. Hellenistic Architectural Sculpture: Figural Motifs in Western Anatolia and the Aegean Islands. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Varner, E.R. 2004. Mutilation and Transformation: Damnatio Memoriae and Roman Imperial Portraiture. Leiden and Boston: Brill.

———. 1998. "The Functions of the Sanctuary of Athena and the Pergamon Altar (the Heroon of Telephos) in the Attalid Building Program." In Stephanos: Studies in Donor of Brunilde Sismondo Ridgway, edited by K. J. Hartswick and M. C. Sturgeon, 241-254. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum for Bryn Mawr College.

Vermeule, C.C. 1968. Roman Imperial Art in Greece and Asia Minor. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Verzone, P. 1959. "Isaura Vetus (Palaia Isaura)." Palladio 9: 1-16.

Webster, G. 1980. The Roman Invasion of Britain. Totowa, N.J.: Barnes & Noble.

Vexelaire, L. 2003. "L'oppidum de Besançon fouilles récentes (1999-2002)." Archaeologia Mosellana 5.

———. 1986b. "What the Britons Required from the Gods as Seen Through the Pairing of Roman and Celtic Deities and the Character of Votive Offerings." In Pagan Gods and Shrines of the Roman Empire, edited by M. Henig and A. King, 57-64. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology.

von Elbe, J. 1977. Roman Germany: A Guide to Sites and Museums. 2d ed. Mainz: P. von Zabern. ———. 1995. The Romans in Cologne and Lower Germany: A Guide to Roman Sites and Museums. Düsseldorf: U. Preis.

Weinstock, S. 1971. Divus Julius. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

von Gall, H. 1968. "Bemerkungen zum Bogen des Dativius Victor in Mainz." Jahrbuch des römischgermanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 15: 98-119.

Weisgerber, G., ed. 1975. Das Pilgerheiligtum des Apollo und der Sirona von Hochscheid im Hunsrück. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag.

Vota, D. 2004. "L'occupazione romana delle Alpi Cozie: Ipotesi sul processo d'intervento." In Romanità valsusina, 15-62. Susa (Torino): Romanità valsusina.

Wells, P.S. 2001. Beyond Celts, Germans and Scythians: Archaeology and Identity in Iron Age Europe. London: Duckworth.

Wacher, J.S. 1998. Roman Britain. Stroud: Sutton. Wightman, E.M. 1985. Gallia Belgica. London: Batsford. Walter, H. 1984. "Les victoires de la 'Porte Noire' de Besançon." In Hommages à Lucien Lerat, edited by H. Walter, 863-866. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

Wilson, A.I. 2001. "Water-Mills at Amida: Ammianus Marcellinus 18.8.11." Classical Quarterly 51 (1): 231236.

———. 1986a. La Porte noire de Besançon: Contribution à l'étude de l'art triomphal des Gaules. 2 vols. Vol. 1. Paris: Belles Lettres.

———. 2005. "Romanizing Baal: The Art of Saturn Worship in North Africa." In Religion and Myth as an Impetus for the Roman Provincial Sculpture: Proceedings of the 8th International Colloquium on Problems of Roman Provincial Art, Zagreb 2003, edited by M. Sanader and A. Rendic-Miocevic, 403-408. Zagreb: Golden marketing-Tehnicka knjiga.

———. 1986b. La Porte noire de Besançon: Contribution à l'étude de l'art triomphal des Gaules. 2 vols. Vol. 2. Paris: Belles Lettres. Wamser, L., C. Flügel, and B. Ziegaus. 2000. Die Römer zwischen Alpen und Nordmeer: Zivilisatorisches Erbe einer europäischen Militärmacht. Mainz: P. von Zabern.

Wilson, D.R. 1975. Romano-Celtic Temple Architecture, Journal of the British Archaeological Association. [Offprint].

Ward-Perkins, J.B. 1948. "Severan Art and Architecture at Leptis Magna." Journal of Roman Studies 38: 59-80.

Wilson, R.J.A. 2002. A Guide to the Roman Remains in Britain. Fourth ed. London: Constable.

———. 1951. "Tripolitania and the Marble Trade." Journal of Roman Studies 41: 89-104.

Wimmer, H., and M. Vilímková. 1963. Roman Art in Africa. London: Paul Hamlyn.

———. 1970. "From Republic to Empire: Reflections on the Early Provincial Architecture." Journal of Roman Studies 60: 1-19.

Wistrand, E.K.H. 1987. Felicitas Imperatoria. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

———. 1981. Roman Imperial Architecture. 2nd ed. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. 158

References Woimant, G.P. 1993. "Le sanctuaire antique de Champlieu." Revue archéologique de Picardie 1-2: 63198.

Zadoks-Josephus Jitta, A.N. 1984. "Athena and Minerva: Two Identifications " Babesch 59 (1): 69-71. Zahn, E. 1968a. Die Igeler Säule bei Trier, Rheinische Kunststätten 6/7. Koln-Deutz: Rheinischer Verein für Denkmalpflege und Heimatschutz.

Woolf, G. 1997. "The Roman Urbanization of the East." In The Early Roman Empire in the East, edited by S. E. Alcock, 1-14. Oxford: Oxbow.

———. 1968b. "Eine neue Rekonstruktionszeichnung der Igeler Säule." Trierer Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Kunst des Trierer Landes und seiner Nachbargebiete 31: 227-234.

———. 1998. Becoming Roman: The Origins of Provincial Civilization in Gaul. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2003a. "Local Cult in Imperial Context: The Matronae Revisited." In Romanisation und Resistenz in Plastik, Architektur und Inschriften der Provinzen des Imperium Romanum: Neue Funde und Forschungen: Akten des VII. Internationalen Colloquiums über Probleme des Provinzialrömischen Kunstschaffens, Köln 2. bis 6. Mai 2001, edited by P. Noelke, F. NaumannSteckner and B. Schneider, 131-138. Mainz: Zabern.

Zanker, P. 1988. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Translated by A. Shapiro. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ———. 1997. "In Search of the Roman Viewer." In The Interpretation of Architectural Sculpture in Greece and Rome, edited by D. Buitron-Oliver, 179-191. Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art.

———. 2003b. "Seeing Apollo in Roman Gaul and Germany." In Roman Imperialism and Provincial Art, edited by S. Scott and J. Webster, 139-152. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

159