Pollak 1

Andrew Pollak

Dr. Kondratieff

Ancient City: Augustan Rome

11/14/2011

Augustus: Mausoleum

The Mausoleum of Augustus was finished in 28 BCE. It was a marvel of the world and

Rome. It demonstrated to the Romans that Augustus was a Roman through and through, and would be a Roman even after he died, unlike Antony who was to be entombed in Alexandria.

Augustus, the master of propaganda, had figured out on his first try how to make both a monument to honor himself and Rome herself. The Mausoleum of Augustus was the first example of Augustus’ new Post-Civil War “authentic Roman” persona. Symbolically, the

Mausoleum was built by “Augustus” and not by “Octavian.”

Today only the interior walls of the Mausoleum exist, therefore we must rely on the ancient sources to explicate exactly what it looked like from the outside. Strabo describes the

Mausoleum as “a great mound near the river on a lofty foundation of white marble, thickly covered with ever-green trees to the very summit. Now on top is a bronze image of Augustus

Caesar.” 1 From that description, one can imagine that above the Mausoleum's tall white base, because of the trees, there was a thick plot of soil ascending to the top; however, because no one can truly know how the Mausoleum looked any reconstructions are purely conjecture. (See Fig. 1-3)

There is some clue as to the outside decoration of the Mausoleum from both ancient authors and modern excavations. Suetonius writes that in Augustus' will, Augustus left instructions for

1 Strab. 5.3.8. Pollak 2 bronze tablets which contained his Res Gestae to be placed near the entrance.2 The outer wall was originally faced with travertine.3 In his Rerum Gestarum, Ammianus Marcellinus mentions two obelisks were placed at the Mausoleum, however he says that they were placed much later and they are absent from Strabo's description, which means Augustus did not raise them.4 As for the interior of the Mausoleum, the concentric rings that make support for the massive conical tumulus were linked with walls “[creating] enclosed spaces that would have been filled with earth, leaving a very limited amount of interior space accessible to the visitor.”5 (See Fig. 4) There is a single path which visitors could enter the Mausoleum, which led to a circular corridor which has a small pathway into a second interior annular hall, which led finally into the burial chamber.6

It is important to ask when the Mausoleum was built because Octavian changed the way he presented himself. Zanker argues that gradually after Philippi, the young Octavian presented himself more as an adherent of Apollo, while Antony took the guise of Dionysus and traced his family back to Hercules.7 Susan Walker proposes that Octavian's early portraiture may have been inspired by Hellenistic royal images.8 After the first settlement in 27 BCE, he needed a new image of himself as to represent his identity as restorer of the Republic and savior from the

Eastern Cleopatra and Antony.9 There is no question that the Mausoleum was completed in 28

2 “an account of what he had accomplished, which he desired to have cut upon bronze tablets and set up at the entrance to the Mausoleum” (Suet. Aug. 101) 3 Johnson, Mark, 'The Mausoleum of Augustus: Etruscan and other Influences on Its Design' in John Franklin Hall (ed.), Etruscan Italy: Etruscan Influences on the Civilization of Italy from Antiquity to the Modern Era, Brigham Young University and the Museum of Art, Provo, Utah, 1996. pp. 218. 4 Amm. 17.4.16. 5 Johnson, pp. 219. 6 Ibid.; Reeder, Jane Clark, 'Typology and Ideology in the Mausoleum of Augustus: Tumulus and Tholos', Classical Antiquity, vol. 11, no. 2, 1992, pp. 298, 27/09/2011, JSTOR. 7 Zanker, Paul. "Rival Images." The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Trans. Alan Shapiro. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1990. 48,45-46. 8 Walker, Susan. Greek and Roman Portraits. British Museum Press, London. 1995. pp. 65-66. 9 Walker, pp. 66. Pollak 3

BCE as this is what Suetonius says.10 This was also the year in which the gardens surrounding the Mausoleum were opened to the public.11 In 27 BCE, Augustus’ reconstruction of the Via

Flaminia to Rimini was completed.12 Reeder has argued that the statue on the top of the

Mausoleum was meant to be a triumphal statue, which means that it must have been built in 29

BCE or later after his triple triumph for his actions in Illyricum, Actium and Alexandria.13 The idea that the Mausoleum was built after 29 BCE does not hold up when one considers that the massive size of the Mausoleum would have warranted several years to build, and since Suetonius says that the Mausoleum was completed in Augustus’ sixth consulship that year would be unacceptable.14 Rehak has argued that it is possible that though there was a statue planned from the beginning, based on the fact that there is a central pier for the statue to stand on, it may have originally been a non-triumphal statue. It could also have been a triumphal statue from an earlier triumph. One of the earlier dates for the start of construction for the Mausoleum is 32 BCE.15 32

BCE is the year that Octavian opened the will of Antony and read it aloud to the senate.16 This could mean that Octavian immediately saw the chance to augment his separation from the increasingly “Eastern,” Dionysian Antony and become the good “Roman.”

The placement of the Mausoleum of Augustus is also an important issue to consider because where one was buried could show how prestigious a Roman was in life. There were several reasons to place the mausoleum in the Northern Campus Martius and in the exact spot

10 “[The Mausoleum] he had built in his sixth consulship [28 B.C.] between the Via Flaminia and the bank of the Tiber, and at the same time opened to the public the groves and walks by which it was surrounded.” (Suet. Aug. 100.) 11 Rehak, Paul ed. by John G. Younger, Imperium and Cosmos: Augustus and the Northern Campus Martius, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin, 2006. pp. 36.; Suet. Aug. 100. 12 Rehak, pp. 36. 13 Reeder, pp. 272 14 Rehak, pp. 36. 15 Rehak, pp. 37. 16 Rehak, pp. 37.; Suet. Aug. 17.; Plut. Ant. 58.3; Dio. 50.1 Pollak 4 where it was located. (See Fig. 5). At this time, the Northern Campus Martius was undeveloped.17

Many of the Augustan building projects were later built in the Northern Campus Martius for this reason.18 The symbolic significance of the Campus Martius was more important than its emptiness. Some have argued that the Northern Campus Martius was a major complex honoring

Augustus.19 Rehak observes that visitors to the Northern Campus Martius in 14 CE, would not see the torrent of people running about attempting to live in the bustling city that they would see in the city proper and newly developed Southern Campus Martius.20 Instead, guests could visit the gardens, and behold the Ara Pacis, Horologium Augusti, and Mausoleum of Augustus.21 Due to the relative closeness of the three sites, some scholars have argued that the entire Northern

Campus Martius was devoted to honoring Augustus22. Johnson however, refutes this claim by noting the eighteen-year gap between the construction of the Mausoleum of Augustus and the

Ara Pacis and Horologium Augusti.23 Over the years, the Northern Campus Martius may have evolved into a monumentalized space honoring Augustus, but it was not one from the beginning.

The majority of Augustus’ undertakings were carefully planned and based on precedent, and the placement of his Mausoleum was no different. The Campus Martius was a place for the monuments and tombs of great Romans: “Tomb of Romulus”24; Sulla the dictator25; the fallen consuls Hirtius and Pansa; 26 Julia, the daughter of Julius Caesar, beloved by the people, were among those who were entombed in the Campus Martius.27 These Romans were either beloved

17 Reeder, pp. 273.; Rehak, pp. 36. 18 Reeder, pp. 273 19 Rehak, pp. 142. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 Johnson, pp. 218. 23 Ibid. 24 Rehak, pp. 36. 25 Johnson, pp. 218.; App. BC 1.106.; Liv. Epit. 90.; Plut. Sulla 38. 26 Rehak, pp. 36.; Zanker, pp. 74.; Liv. Epit. 119.; . 27 Rehak, pp. 36.; Liv. Epit. 106.; Plut. Pomp. 53.; Plut. Caes. 23. Dio 39.64 Pollak 5 or greatly respected by the Roman populace, and thus deserved a place of honor. Octavian believed that he, too, deserved an honorable entombment; because it had been established that no one could be buried within the pomerium, the Campus Martius was the closest and most prestigious areas in which he could be build his tomb.

The design of Augustus’ Mausoleum was also based on precedent. This is very similar to

Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ description of Aeneas’ tomb.28 Was Octavian copying Aeneas’ tomb?

Looking at his obsession with Aeneas, it is an apt hypothesis that Octavian had Aeneas’ tomb in mind when building his own. (See Fig. 6.) As Aeneas was a Trojan and “ancestor of the Romans and most directly of the Julii,” Augustus might have wanted to establish this visual connection to

Aeneas’ tomb.29 The tomb of Aeneas, which is also claimed to be a heroon and not a tomb, “was meant to honor the man and his deeds.”30 Similarly, Augustus, having stated in his will that his

Res Gestae were to be positioned on the Mausoleum, made his Mausoleum a monument to honor his deeds.31 It may be argued that the Mausoleum was a monument to honor his deeds from the beginning of its construction or from a revision; especially if one considers that it was built in the

Campus Martius just opposite the starting area of the triumphs.32 Zanker believes the “shining white cylinder” of the Mausoleum could be viewed as “a monumental base for the statue of

Augustus” situated on the top, which would have been gigantic.33 Rehak suggests other honorific themes in the Mausoleum: The surviving fragments of marble “preserves on the underside the

Egyptian corona atef pattern between two coffers, while one of the coffers carries in relief a type

28 Rehak, pp. 44.; Johnson, pp. 232.; “It is a small mound, round which have been set out in regular rows trees that are well worth seeing.” (DH. 1.64.5.) 29 Favro, Diane. The Urban Image of Augustan Rome. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008. pp. 99-100.; Johnson, pp. 233 30 Johnson (supra n. 15) 31 Ibid. 32 Rehak, pp. 13. 33 Zanker, Paul. "Mausoleum of Augustus." The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Trans. Alan Shapiro. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1990. 75-6. Pollak 6 of lotus flower.”34 (See Fig. 7. cf.. Fig 8.) These suggest the triumph over Cleopatra and the acquisition of Egypt into the empire. Marble reliefs in the shape of laurel trees were placed on either side of the entrance to the Mausoleum.35 The marble reliefs were clearly meant to represent the pair of laurel trees planted next to the door of his house on the Palatine, which were planted during the first settlement of 27 BCE.36 A fragment of a marble copy of the Clipeus Virtutis was found at the Mausoleum and may have adorned it in antiquity,37 which means that because the

Mausoleum was completed in 28 BCE, it must have been in a state of continued revision or was revised at least once after it was finished, thus signifying the changing attitude of Augustus.

Etruscan culture provides more precedents for Augustus in his Mausoleum. Etruscans arrived in Rome between 625-575 BCE.38 When they arrived, they didn't usurp, invade or conquer Rome, overtime, they created “a homogeneous city which blended the different cultural elements into one. 39 Strabo says the Romans took the “fasces, axes, trumpets, sacrificial rites, divination, and all music” from the Etruscans.40 Ogilvie elaborates that the Curule chair and the alphabet were also adopted by the Romans, adapted from Etruscan examples. 41 Etruscan culture became so intertwined with Roman culture that within two hundred years of the foundation of the city, three Etruscan men became king.42 Etruscan tumuli serve as precedents for the

Mausoleum of Augustus. 43 The most common type of Etruscan tomb, as seen in the cemetery at

34 Rehak, pp. 39. 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 37 Rehak, pp. 40. 38 Ogilvie, Robert Maxwell. Early Rome and the Etruscans. Humanities Press Inc. Atlantic Highlands, NJ 1976. 30-31. 39 Ogilvie, pp. 30. 40 Strab. 5.2.2

41 Ogilvie, pp. 49-50. 42 Liv. 1.34-60 43 Johnson, pp. 227. Pollak 7

Cerveteri, consisted of a cylindrical wall with a tumulus on top.44 The Montagnola Tomb at

Quinto Fiorentino and the Tholos tomb of Casal Marittimo are Etruscan tombs and though they are not tumuli, they share a common feature with the mausoleum of Augustus.45 (See Fig. 9.) All three have a central pier within a circular burial chamber46: Johnson explains that for the

Etruscan tombs, the pier may have been built to support the ceiling, but the pier was not actually necessary.47 Johnson also questions whether a pier within a circular room had a symbolic meaning that has not survived from antiquity.48

Roman tombs also offer a precedent to Augustus’ Mausoleum, as numerous Romans built tumulus style tombs for themselves. The tomb of the Horatii was one of the earliest extant

Roman Tumuli.49 (See Fig.10) While the date of the tomb cannot be ascertained exactly, it is possible that it was built in the fifth century BCE.50 Perhaps Augustus took his tumulus design from the tomb of the Horatii. The tomb, being one of the oldest tombs, would show that he had the morals of Rome's past. Prestigious Republican leaders, like Sulla, also adopted the tumulus style for their tombs.51 A tomb called the “Tomb of the Curiatii,” built some time before the fourth century, employed a central tower pier whose main function was to support a statue as seen also in the Mausoleum of Augustus.52 The Vigna Pepoli, built after 55 BCE, tumulus in Rome has a central pier; additionally, the tumulus has an “annular corridor encircling [the] central pier.”53

The tomb was possibly built before the Mausoleum and offered a precedent for Augustus.54 The

44 Ibid. 45 Johnson, pp. 229. 46 Ibid. 47 Ibid. 48 Ibid. 49 Johnson, pp. 222. 50 Ibid. 51 Rehak, pp. 36. 52 Johnson, pp. 224-225. 53 Johnson, pp. 225. 54 Ibid. Pollak 8

Tomb of the Servilii contains a circular outer corridor that surrounds the burial chamber, very similar to the one in the Mausoleum of Augustus.55 (See Fig. 11.) The precedent set in the tomb of the

Servilii of a circular outer corridor that surrounds the burial chamber is a notable issue to consider, as it is not found in many tombs and, as some have suggested, it is possible that this corridor and others like it, such as the one in the Sanctuary of Asclepius at Epidaurus, provide a path for circumambulation.56 Circumambulation played a major role in Roman religion.57 Before a sacrifice, Romans would practice lustratio, and make several turns around an altar as a rite of purification.58 Augustus’ Mausoleum had not one but two concentric corridors.59 Unlike most

Roman tombs, the entrance passageway “does not lead directly to the [burial chamber]…but ends right in front of the second circular wall”60 This forces visitors to follow the corridor until they reach the second corridor, at which point they are again forced to make another circle around the burial chamber.61 Having made two complete circumambulations, visitors are finally allowed to enter.62 This twofold circumambulation forces the purification of those entombed whenever one enters the burial chamber.

Additional precedents for the Mausoleum of Augustus can be found in Hellenistic antecedents. The Mausoleum of Mausolus of Halicarnassus seems to be the most obvious choice in naming a Hellenistic precedent for the Mausoleum of Augustus given the shared name, however if one looks at both of these mausolea, there is not much in common.63 The Mausoleum

55 Johnson, pp. 227. 56 Johnson, pp. 227.; Reeder, pp. 294-5. 57 Reeder, pp. 296. 58 Ibid. 59 Reeder, pp. 298. 60 Ibid. 61 Ibid. 62 Ibid. 63 Johnson, pp. 230. Pollak 9 of Mausolus was a massive rectangular tomb of an Asiatic tyrant.64 The enormity of the mausoleum of Mausolus gave rise to the term “mausoleum” being used for the biggest tombs. It appears the only real connection between the mausolea is the name and the in immense size.65

(See Fig. 12.) Additionally the name Mausoleum was not used by Augustus to describe his own

Mausoleum, it was only Strabo and later writers that used the term mausoleum for Augustus' tomb, so the only link with the Mausoleum of Mausolus is the immense size.66

The Arsinoeion of Samothrace is presented by Reeder as a major potential precedent for

Augustus’ Mausoleum.67 (See Fig. 13.) The Arsinoeion, a rotunda, was a major site for ruler worship in the Hellenistic world from the fourth century BCE on, that appears to have been a temple for the worship of Cybele, the mother goddess.68 Other gods worshiped in Samothrace may also have been related to the Penates, which made it easy for staunch religious conservatives, L.

Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus and M. Terentius Varro to be initiates of the Samothracian

Mysteries.69 One version of the story of Aeneas bringing the Penates to Italy has him stopping in

Samothrace and taking the gods from there70. Vergil’s version of the Aeneid has him stopping

“[to dedicate] the arms taken from the victorious Danaans and [to fix] a shield on the entrance pillars to the Temple of Apollo at Actium.”71 Reeder argues that because of its possible association with the origin of the Penates, it is possible that Augustus used the Arsinoeion as a model for his Mausoleum, as it would not break his conservative Roman outlook.72 A problem

64 Reeder, pp. 271. 65 Johnson, pp 230. 66 Vergil calls the Mausoleum a tumulus in Ver. Aen. 6.874. (“uel quae, Tiberine, uidebis funera, cum tumulum praeterlabere recentem!” 67 Reeder, pp. 277-95. 68 Reeder, pp. 278, 282, 284. 69 Reeder, pp. 289. 70 Reeder, pp. 290-1. 71 Ibid.; Ver. Aen. 3.287. 72 Reeder, pp. 277-294. Pollak 10 with this argument is that there is no mention of the Samothrace connection in the Aeneid. The omission of Aeneas’ travels to Samothrace to obtain the Penates reveals that Vergil either intentionally chose not to include it or that he was simply unaware of the connection. If he were unaware of the connection, then it would also be likely that Augustus did not know about the connection and in that case, it would make little sense to reference the Arsinoeion in the

Mausoleum. It is likely however, that Vergil and Augustus knew of the Arsinoeion and the connection, for the following reasons: the poets of the Augustan age certainly knew the Pisones who continued to live in Macedonia and were, too, probably initiates73; Horace and Maecenas knew of the Pisones connection to the Mysteries, which implies that Vergil knew too74; L.

Calpurnius Piso Caesonius, Julius Caesar’s father in law, became proconsul of Macedonia in 57

BCE, at which time, he became an initiate of the Samothracian Mysteries75; Augustus was initiated in the Eleusian Mysteries of Athens and in antiquity, the two cults were compared to each other.76 It is possible the exclusion of the Penates’ Samothracian connection was due to survivors of Philippi fleeing to Samothrace, and thus associating it with the assassination of

Augustus' father, Divus Julius.77 The main point is that Augustus and Vergil both knew of the

Samothracian connection to the Penates’ origin and still chose not to highlight that part of the mythical history of Rome.

Other Hellenistic temples have been proposed to have been models for the Mausoleum of

Augustus78, but most of those proposals break down when a few things are taken into account.

The next major problem with the Hellenistic precursors is that one cannot argue about the

73 Reeder, pp. 289-90. 74 Ibid. 75 Reeder, pp. 289. 76 Reeder, pp. 292. 77 Reeder, pp. 292.; Nepos. Att. 11.2. 78 Sanctuary of Asclepius at Epidaurus (Reeder, pp. 294-300), The Philippepion (Reeder, pp. 301-2) Pollak 11 exterior form of the Mausoleum because it no longer exists, and most, if not all, of the major design features of the Mausoleum of Augustus can be found in Roman and Etruscan funerary monuments, or in the tomb of Aeneas.79 The functional differences between Hellenistic precursors and the Mausoleum are much more glaring. Firstly, there are no burials at any of the

Hellenistic temples.80 Secondly, the Mausoleum was meant to give honor to Augustus and the imperial family; there are no gods worshiped there, while at the Hellenistic temples many gods were worshiped.81

Another major model that Augustus may have used to design his Mausoleum was the

Sema of Alexander in Alexandria.82 It is possible that Augustus copied the design of Alexander’s

Sema because he emulated Alexander in style and iconography.83 During capture of Alexandria,

Octavian “was hailed as ‘Son of Re’, in the same way Alexander was greeted when he traveled to the oracle of Amun.”84 Augustus used an image of Alexander in his signet ring,85 and early portraiture of Augustus emulated the portraiture of Alexander the Great.86 Alexander’s portraiture showed “long flowing hair” and he was always shown youthful without a beard.87(See

Fig. 14.) Augustus' “hair was windswept, his face animated, even agitated, suggesting tension and energy.”88 (See Fig. 15.) Augustus copied Alexander's ever youthful appearance even after his portraiture changed after 27 BCE.89 (See fig. 16) The Sema of Alexander no longer exists, so there is

79 Johnson, pp. 231. 80 Ibid. 81 Ibid. 82 Rehak, pp. 51.; Favro, Diane, 'Making Rome a World City' in Karl Galinsky (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to The Age of Augustus, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005, pp. 234–263.; Johnson, pp. 230.; Reeder pp. 274-77. 83 Reeder, pp. 274. 84 Reeder, pp. 274. 85 Suet. Aug. 50.1. 86 Walker, pp. 65. 87 Walker, pp. 53-54. 88 Walker, pp. 65-66. 89 Walker, pp. 66. Pollak 12 no way to confirm its size or shape.90 It is possible that Alexander’s Sema was based on the

Macedonian tumulus.91 The Sema was meant for Alexander and his dynastic successors just as

Augustus’ Mausoleum was meant to be for him and his imperial family.92 If the Mausoleum was built just after the capture of Alexandria, the Sema of Alexander would have been fresh in

Augustus’ mind.93 Because of the lack of evidence, one can only make the claim that the tombs

“resembled each other politically and symbolically” if not physically.94

Why did Augustus use the tumulus form for his mausoleum? The tumulus was one of the original Roman tomb designs. It was so popular that it was used from the time of the Etruscans, who were not Roman, but whose culture lent so much to Rome, to at least the time of Augustus and then beyond. The tumulus also made references to the entire Roman world. One of the major reasons that Augustus developed his “Genuine Roman” attitude was to oppose Antony’s

“Eastern god/king” image. The overwhelming Romanity of the tumulus style implies that

Augustus was absolutely Roman. The fact that Augustus built the mausoleum in the Campus

Martius implied his desire to be buried in the city he loved. The Mausoleum connected him to

Rome’s mythic distant past, the time of Aeneas when the Roman people were founded. Along with his later propagandistic projects, the Mausoleum presents the idea that Augustus was making a new founding for the people of Rome.

The Mausoleum of Augustus was the first step of a newly mature conservative leaning

Augustus. The Mausoleum was started by Octavian, but the change from the Hellenistic king reminiscent appearance marks a clear change in the way Octavian wanted to be viewed. Because the Mausoleum was started before 27 BCE one can still see his immaturity in the grandiose size,

90 Johnson, pp. 230.; Reeder, pp. 276.; 91 Reeder, pp. 275.; Rehak, pp. 50. 92 Reeder, pp. 276.; Rehak, pp. 51. 93 Reeder, pp. 277. 94 Rehak, pp. 51. Pollak 13 but the revision of the Mausoleum with the addition of the Clipeus Virtutis and laurel trees show that he was trying to reform his image. Perhaps when he originally devised the Mausoleum he was just trying to show how extraordinary he was, but he had new ideas of Romanity. Many of the precedents of the Mausoleum were Roman. Now it is possible that there were foreign influences, but the Romans always took the best from other cultures adapted it to fit their own needs and then claimed that it was Roman. Therefore, the Mausoleum of Augustus was fundamentally built by Augustus. Pollak 14

Figure 1: Two reconstructions of the Mausoleum of Augustus both missing the trees mentioned by Strabo. Image from Claridge, Amanda, 'Mausoleum of Augustus:' in Rome, An Oxford Archaeological Guide, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010. pp. 205

Pollak 15

Figure 2: Reconstruction of the Mausoleum of Augustus missing the trees, but showing obelisks. Image from Johnson, pg. 221.

Pollak 16

Figure 3: Reconstruction of the Mausoleum of Augustus showing trees and more elaborate two tiered design. Image from Favro, Diane. The Urban Image of Augustan Rome. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008. pp. 258.

Pollak 17

Figure 4: Plan of the Mausoleum of Augustus. Image from Johnson, pp. 219. Fig 2.

Pollak 18

Figure 5: Map of Rome, circa 14 CE. Modified from Favro, Diane, 'Making Rome a World City' in Karl Galinsky (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to The Age of Augustus, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005, pp. 236. Fig. 35.

Pollak 19

Figure 6: Reconstruction of the "Heroon of Aeneas," Lavinium, seventh century BCE. Image from Johnson, pp. 232. Fig. 13.

Pollak 20

Figure 7: Statue of Osiris. 580-550 BCE. Egypt. Bronze. ARTstor. 3 December 2011.

Figure 8: Plan of the Montagnola tomb, Quinto Fiorentino ca. 600 BCE. Image from Johnson, pp. 229. fig 12.

Pollak 21

Figure 10: Reconstruction and plan of the Tomb of the Horatii, Rome, possibly fifth century. Image from Johnson, pp. 223. fig. 4.

Pollak 22

Figure 11: Plan of the Tomb of the Servilii, Rome, First century BCE. Image from Johnson, pp. 226. fig. 8.

Pollak 23

Figure 13: Reconstruction of the Arsinoeion of Samothrace. Image from Reeder, pp. 306. fig. 3.

Figure 16: Portrait Statue of Augustus, togate. ca. 10 CE. In ARTstor [database online]. [cited 4 December 2011]. Available from ARTstor, Inc., New York, New York.