Roman Imperial Statue Bases from Augustus to Commodus

Jakob Munk Højte

Aarhus Universit y Press Aarhus Studies in Mediterranean Antiquity (ASMA)

VII

ASMA is a series which will be published approximately once a year by Th e Centre for the Study of Antiquity, University of Aarhus, Denmark.

The Centre is a network of cooperating departments: Greek and Latin, Classical Archaeology, History, and the Faculty of Th eology. The objective of the series is to advance the interdisciplinary study of Antiquity by publishing articles, e.g., conference papers, or independent monographs, which among other things reflect the current activities of the centre. JA KOB MUNK HØ JTE

ROMAN IMPERIAL STATUE BASES FROM AUGUSTUS TO COMMODUS

Acta Jutlandica LXXX:2 Humanities Series 78

a AARHUS UNIVERSITY PRESS Roman Imperial Statue Bases © Jakob Munk Højte and Aarhus University Press 2005 Cover: Lotte Bruun Rasmussen Photo: Jakob Munk Højte, Caserna dei Vigili, Ostia, Statue bases on a podium in the sacellum.

Typeset with Trajan (cover) and Mignon (body)

ISBN 87 7934 906 4

Aarhus University Press Langelandsgade 177 DK-8200 Aarhus N Fax: (+45) 8942 5380

73 Lime Walk Headington, Oxford OX3 7AD Fax: (+44) 1865 750 079 Box 511 Oakville, CT 06779 Fax: (+1) 860 945 9468

Preface

This book is an altered and revised version of my PhD dissertation defended at the University of Aarhus in May 2001. Due to other obligations and a certain fatigue and nausea at the thought of taking another swing at the large corpora (they do tend to have a rather musty odour), the manuscript was put in the drawer. Earlier this year it would remain hidden no longer. Over the sum- mer and during a stay in Rome in the autumn, the tedious task of checking the entries in the catalogue and editing the text was carried out. Two major changes have been made. First of all, the three separate papers that formed part of the dissertation: The Epigraphic Evidence Concerning Portrait Statues of Hadrian’s Heir L. Aelius Caesar, Imperial Visits as Occasion for the Erection of Portrait Statues?, and The Statue Bases of Claudius. A Reassessment of Th e Portraiture of Claudius by M. Stuart have been published elsewhere, and are therefore not included here (see bibliography). This meant that a good number of cross-references had to be sorted out and text supplied where necessary. Secondly, the catalogue of statue bases has been revised and updated. A number of inscriptions included in the dissertation, as pointed out by the assessment committee, demonstrably did not belong to statue bases, and have consequently been excluded. In addition, a number of inscriptions that seemed too uncertain to include have also been removed. On the other hand, more material has been published in the intervening period. The catalogue has been updated to include the bases mentioned in Supplementum Epigraphicum Grae- cum 2000 and L’Année épigraphique 2001. In the dissertation only a minimum of information about the individual bases went on paper, while the bulk was stored on a CD-ROM. Here I have chosen to include more information in the printed text, which has resulted in a rather voluminous catalogue. It is

Preface · 5 my hope that the expanded format will improve its usefulness and encourage others to make use of the collected data, which I believe holds potential far beyond what has been covered in this book. Since my interest in Roman imperial statue bases was first aroused by reading Meriwether Stuart’s dissertation from 1938 on the portraiture of Claudius, which includes the first attempt at systematically compiling and analysing the epigraphical evidence from statue bases, many friends and colleagues have commented and made valuable suggestions that have greatly improved the outcome. Some require particular mention: Ittai Gradel for inspiration and rewarding discussions. His encouragement is one of the primary reasons why the study has been brought to completion. Niels Hannestad and Lise Hanne- stad, my supervisor, for valuable help and advice both during and aft er my time as a PhD student. Niels’ interest in Roman sculpture and imperial portraiture in particular initially got me started on this project. Robert Fleischer, my external supervisor, for making my much too short stay in Mainz pleasant and rewarding. More importantly for his comments on the part of my original project, which will unfortunately have to stay in the drawer for some time yet, namely an unfinished study of the statue bases for the Hellenistic kings. The external members of the assessment committee Geza Alföldy and Jane Fejfer, who gave precise criticism and good directions for both possible and required improvements far beyond the call of duty. I have tried as best I could to follow their recommendations. Finally and most dearly I want to thank my family, who have tirelessly accompanied me on countless journeys in (oft en futile) search of statue bases.

The book was made possible by generous financial support from the Uni- versity of Aarhus, the University of Aarhus Research Foundation, Elizabeth Munksgaard Fonden, Landsdommer V. Gieses Legat, and the Danish Research Council for Humanities.

Århus, December 2004 Jakob Munk Højte

6 · roman imperial statue bases Contents

Preface ...... 5

List of Figures and Tables ...... 11

Introduction...... 13

Types of Monuments ...... 19 Identification of statue bases...... 19 The language of the inscriptions ...... 25 Types of statue base...... 27 Literary testimony for imperial statue bases and inscriptions ...... 40 Statue types and materials used for imperial statues ...... 43 The cost of imperial statues ...... 52 Damnatio memoriae and the reuse of statue bases...... 56

Dating the Inscriptions from Imperial Statue Bases ...... 65 Imperial nomenclature and honorifi c titles ...... 65 Other dating criteria...... 70 Dating by negative evidence ...... 72 Reliability of the dating criteria ...... 74 Dating accuracy ...... 77 Dates chosen for dedicating imperial statues ...... 78

Contents · 7 The Applicability of the Evidence of the Statue Bases to the Extant Portraits . 81

The Geographical Distribution of Imperial Portrait Statues ...... 85 The geographical distribution of extant imperial portraits ...... 86 The geographical distribution of statue bases ...... 88 The number of sites and the number of bases per site...... 103 Context ...... 109

Statues Dedicated Before and After a Reign . 125 Pre-accessional dedications...... 125 Posthumous dedications...... 132

Occasions for Erecting Imperial Statues ...... 143 Accession ...... 144 Jubilees (decennalia and vicennalia) ...... 157 Imperial visits ...... 159 Patterns of chronological distribution during a reign ...... 165

Dedicators of Roman Imperial Statues...... 167 Statues dedicated by communities or their executive bodies ...... 168 Private dedicators...... 171 Public or private? ...... 179 Corporations as dedicators ...... 181 Military units as dedicators ...... 182 Statue bases without dedicators...... 184 Regional differences and developments...... 185

Conclusion ...... 189

Bibliography ...... 195

8 · roman imperial statue bases Catalogue ...... 215

Introduction to the Catalogue ...... 217 What is included? ...... 217 Sorting system ...... 218 Geography...... 218 Chronology...... 222 Distribution maps ...... 222 Histograms ...... 222

Abbreviations and Bibliography for Catalogue ...... 225

Catalogue of Statue Bases Arranged According to Emperor ...... 229 Augustus 229 · Tiberius 263 · Caligula 288 · Claudius 294 · Nero 319 · Galba 319 · Otho 330 · Vitellius 330 · Vespasian 330 · Titus 344 · Domitian 354 · Nerva 365 · Trajan 373 · Hadrian 404 · Antoninus Pius 466 · Lucius Verus 509 · Marcus Aurelius 531 · Marcus Aurelius or Lucius Verus 569 · Avidius Cassius 571 · Commodus 571

Statistical Analysis, Emperors (Tables SE -) . 591 Augustus 591 · Tiberius 592 · Caligula 593 · Claudius 594 · Nero 595 · Galba · Otho · and Vitellius 596 · Vespasian 597 · Titus 508 · Domitian 509 · Nerva 600 · Trajan 601 · Hadrian 602 · Antoninus Pius 603 · Lucius Verus 604 · Marcus Aurelius 605 · Commodus 606

Statistical Analysis, Geographical (Tables SG -) ...... 607 Italy 607 · Northern provinces 609 · Gaul 611 · Spain 613 · Western North Africa 615 · Greece 617 · Asia Minor 619 · Eastern provinces 621

Contents · 9 Statistical Analysis, C omparative (Tables SC -) ...... 623

Chronolo gical Distribu tion (histo grams) (Figs. C -) ...... 633 Augustus 633 · Tiberius 633 · Caligula 634 · Claudius 634 · Nero 635 · Vespasian 635 · Titus 636 · Domitian 636 · Nerva 637 · Trajan 638 · Hadrian 638 · Antoninus Pius 639 · Lucius Verus 639 · Marcus Aurelius 640 · Commodus 641 · All emperors 642 · East-West comparison 642

Geo graphical Distribu tion (distribu tion maps) (Figs. G -) ...... 643 Augustus 653 · Tiberius 644 · Caligula 645 · Claudius 46 · Nero 647 · Vespasian 648 · Titus 649 · Domitian 650 · Nerva 651 · Trajan 652 · Hadrian 653 · Antoninus Pius 654 · Lucius Verus 655 · Marcus Aurelius 656 · Commodus 657 · All emperors 658

10 · roman imperial statue bases List of Figures and Tables

Fig. 1. Statue base in the National Museum in Athens with oval depression for a marble statue. Fig. 2. Base for a statue of Claudius (Claudius 87) in the Athenian Agora. Fig. 3. Statue base for Trajan in Delphi (Trajan 110). Fig. 4. Built-up bases in a building adjoining the forum in Lucus Feroniae. Fig. 5. Marble slab from a built-up base for Trajan (Trajan 37) in Lucus Feroniae. Fig. 6. Statue base for Marcus Aurelius (Marcus Aurelius 20) from Fidenae. Fig. 7. Exedra opposite the theatre in Emerita Augusta, with statues of the imperial family placed in niches in the wall. Fig. 8. Consoles carrying statues of Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aure- lius and Lucius Verus on the colonnaded street in Apamea ad Orontem. Fig. 9. Comparison between extant portraits and bases according to region. Fig. 10. Damnatio memoriae. Fig. 11. The number of bases per year in Italy. Fig. 12. The relative importance of the statue bases in Italy. Fig. 13. The relative importance of the statue bases in the northern provinces. Fig. 14. The relative importance of the statue bases in Gaul. Fig. 15. The relative importance of the statue bases in Spain.

List of Figures and Tables · 11 Fig. 16. The relative importance of the statue bases in western North Africa. Fig. 17. The relative importance of the statue bases in Greece. Fig. 18. The number of bases per year in Asia Minor. Fig. 19. The relative importance of the statue bases in Asia Minor. Fig. 20. The number of sites according to region and the number of bases per site. Fig. 21. The percentage of sites with statue bases according to region. Fig. 22. The number of sites in relation to the number of bases for individual emperors. Fig. 23. The number of precisely dated bases according to year of reign. Fig. 24. Public and private dedicators. Fig. 25. Map of the Roman Empire. Tables SE 1-SE 48. Statistical analysis according to emperor. Tables SG 1-SG 24. Statistical analysis according to region. Tables SC 1-SC 24. Comparison between emperors and regions. Figs. C 1-C 20. Chronological distribution. Histograms. Figs. G 1-G 16. Geographical distribution. Distribution maps.

12 · roman imperial statue bases Introduction

When the senate voted him [Didius Julianus] a statue of gold, he declined to accept it, saying: “Give me a bronze one, so that it may last; for I observe that the gold and silver statues of the emperors that ruled before me have been destroyed, whereas the bronze ones remain.” In this he was mistaken, for it is virtue that preserves the memory of rulers; and in fact the bronze statue that was granted him was destroyed after his own overthrow. Dio Cass. 74.14.2a

In a short perspective the reflections of Didius Julianus and Dio Cassius on the preservation of one’s memory for posterity were to some extent correct. Until AD 193, the year Didius Julianus for a brief period succeeded in bribing his way to the purple by offering a large sum of money to the praetorians, the Roman Empire had witnessed a long period of stability. Since the murder of Domitian in AD 96 the emperors, even if they were not equally liked, at least had the privileges of choosing their own heir, dying of natural causes and being elevated to divinity. The murder of Commodus some months previously had ended this era and once again brought the Empire to the verge of civil war. It is not entirely clear whether Didius Julianus, in Dio’s rendering of the speech, is supposed to be referring to the statues of his two immediate predecessors, the unfortunate emperors Commodus and Pertinax, or to those of former emperors in general; but being a virtuous ruler was apparently no guarantee against having one’s statues made of precious metals ending up in the melting pot, and such images generally seem to have had a rather short existence.1 Dio

1. Pekáry 1985, 66-67 and below p. 47.

Introduction · 13 Cassius and his audience, knowing the fate of Didius Julianus, could in hind- sight of course see the folly of his argument. In a longer perspective, however, it was not necessarily the kind of virtue advocated by Dio that would preserve the memory of an emperor. Nero, who had been hated with good reason by the senatorial aristocracy to which Dio belonged, seems to have been rather popular in the late fourth century to judge from the frequency of his portrait on the contorniats of the period.2 When it comes to the preservation of the memory of a ruler by means of statues, which was evidently the intention of such monuments to judge from the speech by Didius Julianus, neither bronze nor virtue has proven eff ective. Instead, the single most important factor for preservation of portraits and statues for posterity was whether they were made of stone. Bronze seems to have been the preferred material for honorary statues in most parts of the Roman Empire, but of the countless bronze statues of emperors made in antiquity only a minute fraction have been preserved because their value as commemorative monuments soon fell below the relatively high scrap value of bronze.3 Consequently they were melted down for other uses, the same fate that has overcome practically all portraits in precious metal. To a large extent only bronze statues placed out of human reach by unusual conditions, like those afforded by the eruption of Vesuvius or landslides like that in Boubon (or statues lost at sea or in rivers during transport) have survived.4 Th e scrap value of marble statues was much lower, and they thus stood a larger chance of survival, although lime kilns have taken their share of these too. Th is process of selection has profoundly influenced the study of imperial portraits, which naturally must begin with the preserved specimens i.e. the marble portraits. The issue of how these relate to those originally in existence has unfortunately not received the attention it deserves. The primary aim of nearly all studies of imperial portraits has been to compile the genuine specimens, establish a typology, and date the introduction of new portrait types.5 To this end the numismatic evidence has proven especially useful, since the typology of the coin portraits regularly corresponds to that of the portraits in the round, and

2. Mittag 1999, 128-133. 3. Lahusen & Formigli (2001), in their recent monograph on bronze portraits, include 45 portraits of emperors from the first two centuries AD. In contrast, more than 1,000 marble portraits are known. 4. For the contexts in which bronze portraits have been, see Lahusen & Formigli 2001, 455- 459. 5. Pfanner 1989, 162; Rose 1997b, 108-120; Pollini 1987, 8-17. This approach is prevalent in the series Das römische Herrscherbild and in most museum catalogues.

14 · roman imperial statue bases the coin legends often supply an exact date. Because of the strong focus on the extant portraits, which often have no archaeological context, and because of the remarkable advances made within the field of portrait studies during the last two generations, other archaeological, literary and epigraphical sources related to the dedication of imperial statues have been relegated to a very subordinate position in nearly all studies of imperial portraits. It is the aim of this study of one of these documentary sources – namely the epigraphical evidence from the statue bases6 – to compensate for this lack of research and show that the study of statue bases is relevant if not crucial for the understand- ing of Roman imperial portrait statues. In his signifi cant study The Epigraphic Habit in the Roman Empire, Ramsey McMullen observed that “Papyri and ostraca from Roman Egypt survive in sufficient numbers to invite statistical analysis and thus to teach us something out of the numbers themselves that is not evident in the body of any single text”.7 This applies to the statue bases of Roman emperors as well. By themselves the inscriptions from each individual base yield information about the specific statue once placed on the base, but since these almost invariably have been lost or moved beyond recovery of their original context, the immediate testimony has little direct value for the study of imperial portraits. Of the limited number of portraits that have been found with their accompanying inscriptions, only the relief from Ostia dated AD 160 showing Lucius Verus in the portrait type, thought to have been created on his accession a year later, has modified the chronology of an emperor’s portrait types during the period under consideration here.8 By systematically compiling the statue bases and using them as statistical data, however, they can reveal valuable information about where imperial statues were erected, when, by whom and for what reason; questions that cannot be answered by studying the extant portraits.

6. Th e term “statue base” will be applied below to all types of inscribed monuments intended to carry a sculpted representation of the emperor, see p. 19. In the text, statue bases are referred to as numbers in the catalogue. 7. MacMullen 1982, 234. 8. Fuhrmann 1939, 294-302 = (Lucius Verus 16). Other first and second century portraits of emperors that have been found with accompanying inscriptions: Herculaneum (Tiberius 13 (theatre); Claudius 8 (basilica); Lanuvium (Claudius 9 uncertain); Misenum (Vespasian 8 [augusteum]); Neúilly-le-Real (Augustus 75 [bronze bust]); Lepcis Magna (Augustus 114, Tiberius 76, Claudius 73 [Temple of Roma and Augustus]); Olympia (Antoninus Pius 201, Lucius Verus 108 [Nymphaeum of Herodes Atticus]); Aphrodisias (Claudius 115, Nero 40, 41, [Sebasteion]; Domitian 37 [theatre]); Boubon (Lucius Verus 113); Perge (Hadrian 373 uncertain); Philadelphia (Commodus 87 [relief ]); Cyrene (Tiberius 109 [Strategeion]).

Introduction · 15 The epigraphical evidence from statue bases has been discussed before in connection with imperial portraits. Th e first person to systematically compile the statue bases for an emperor was Meriwether Stuart, who collected all the documentary sources relating to statues of Claudius in 1938.9 Soon aft erwards followed studies along similar lines concerning the other Julio-Claudian em- perors10 and the family of Augustus.11 The statue bases of empresses have been systematically compiled for Sabina12 and Julia Domna,13 and so have those for the emperors from the mid-fourth century AD to the end of antiquity.14 Although the results of these studies were noteworthy, they have had limited impact for two reasons. Firstly, a direct relationship between the chronological distribution of the statue bases and that of the extant portraits has not been established. Secondly, the studies have been too scattered chronologically to offer comparative evidence that could reveal any consistent patterns in frequency and geographical and chronological distribution of the statue bases. It is characteristic that the recent works on the portraits of Augustus,15 Ca- ligula,16 Hadrian17 and the Antonine princes18 that do include investigations of the epigraphical evidence make limited use of it for questions relating to the extant portraits. Other studies have dealt more or less thoroughly with the statue bases relating to portraits in a certain setting or region. Examples of these are the excursus in Inan and Rosenbaum’s study of the portraits from Asia Minor,19 the regional studies of statue bases in Conventus Tarraconensis and in Venetia et Histria,20 and recent works concerning Julio-Claudian statue groups21 and imperial women in the Greek East.22 To overcome the obstacle of lack of comparative material, this study com- piles the imperial statue bases from a long continuous period. It includes all the emperors from Augustus to Commodus, a period of approximately 250

9. Stuart 1938. 10. Stuart 1939, 601-617. 11. Hanson & Johnson 1946, 389-400. 12. Carandini 1969. 13. Fejfer 1985, 129-138. 14. Stichel 1982. 15. Boschung 1993a. 16. Boschung 1989. 17. Evers 1994. 18. Fittschen 1999. 19. Inan & Rosenbaum 1966, 42-53. 20. Alföldy 1979, 177-275; Alföldy 1984. 21. Rose 1997a; Boschung 2002a. 22. Hahn 1994.

16 · roman imperial statue bases years that covers a large part of the principate including the second century AD, when the production of portraits of emperors reached its height. Th e compiled corpus of statue bases comprises 2,300 monuments from nearly 800 different sites throughout the Roman Empire and beyond. The broad chronological perspective of this large sample shows that the statue bases provide a consistent and reliable picture of the geographical and chronological distribution of imperial statues in antiquity which challenges previous assumptions regarding the principles that governed the erection of imperial statues in a number of ways.

Introduction · 17

Types of Monuments

Portrait statues in antiquity were almost invariably placed on some sort of base that acted as a support for the statue, lifting it off the ground or creating an architectural setting for it. The term statue base traditionally describes a free-standing monument consisting of one or more square or round blocks of stone sufficiently large to carry a statue, and erected for this purpose alone. In the following, however, the term will be broadened to signify any monument intended to carry a three-dimensional representation of approximately life size and larger. This wider defi nition may seem awkward when applied to singular monuments, such as an arch or a niche holding a statue, but it may prove useful in describing the function of the variety of monuments, which all served the same purpose despite their different appearance.

Identification of statue bases

All the monuments compiled in the catalogue of imperial statue bases have one common feature. They carry an inscription that identifi es the emperor whose statue was placed on the base. This was, naturally, not a require- ment for a base, but merely the only means by which we can identify them today. Imperial statues could be placed on uninscribed bases, but since imperial portrait statues have only very rarely been found together with their accompanying bases, these are practically impossible to identify. Th e inscriptions as a general rule follow the standardised pattern for tituli hono-

T ypes of Monuments · 19 rarii,23 allowing us with a high degree of probability to identify monuments as statue bases from their inscriptions alone. This is useful because numerous inscribed monuments are inadequately described in publications. In particular, the editors of the early corpora of inscriptions generally showed little or no interest in the physical form of the monuments on which the texts were inscribed, or in the context in which they had been found; and since many of the inscriptions have later disappeared, such information has been irrevocably lost. Even if satisfactorily published, the state of preservation of the monument often does not allow unambiguous identification as a statue base from the physical properties alone; either because the inscription has been removed from the monument and reused in another context, or because only a fragment of the monument without any recognisable features has survived. In his study of the portraits of Claudius, Stuart established two criteria for identifying statue bases: “One, whenever an inscription employs a dative formula in Latin or an accusative in Greek and is cut on a stone reliably described as a statue base or as part of an arch or other monumental pedestal, there can be no doubt of the portrait character of the inscription. Two, whenever a description of the stone on which an inscription is cut is not available, the dative case of the imperial name in Latin, or the accusative in Greek, is presumptive proof of the portrait character of the inscription”.24 Th e fi rst criterion encompasses approximately 1,300 inscriptions, or well over half of the monuments in the catalogue. This criterion is nearly foolproof. It should be noted, however, that for lack of a common terminology for diff erent types of monument, descriptions may be misleading. One example, emphasised by Benjamin and Raubitschek, concerns a number of monuments from Athens described as statue bases by the editors of Inscriptiones Graecae, which on closer examination proved to be altars.25 915 inscriptions in the catalogue (40% of the total) have been identifi ed as being or pertaining to statue bases according to Stuart’s second criterion,

23. For Greek tituli honorarii, see Gerlach 1908; Larfeld 1914, 432-456; Klaff enbach 1966, 65-69. For Latin see Cagnat 1914; Kajanto 1971, 3-19. Tituli honorarii consist of two elements: the name of the honorand and the name of the dedicator. To this basic scheme can be added a variety of information about the nature of the dedication, the date or the dedicator’s reason or motivation for erecting the monument. For an interesting view of the development of Latin honorific inscriptions, see Salomies 1994, 63-106. 24. Stuart 1938, 13-14. 25. Benjamin & Raubitschek 1959, 65-85.

20 · roman imperial bases which as he himself pointed out is not unfailingly accurate.26 Th ese inscriptions fall in two groups. Th e first and largest consists of about 600 monuments that lack description altogether, or are described in terms so vague as to preclude determination of the type of monument involved. Often this is no longer possible because of the present state of the monument; but in many instances, especially with regard to the inscriptions in the older corpora, it is simple negligence on the part of the editors. The other group consists of inscriptions cut on what is described as tabulae or plaques of stone. These may have been deliberately sawn from a larger block of stone for secondary use, even for display in museums as is the case for the inscriptions in the Lapidarium of the Vatican Museum, but normally they were meant to be affi xed to built-up bases or otherwise non-monolithic structures. The problem with the second criterion is that monuments other than statue bases employ inscriptions that follow exactly the same schema. This is especially pronounced for Latin inscriptions, where the dative case for the name of the emperor was used not only for statue bases, but also for altars, milestones and building inscriptions. Statue bases with Greek inscriptions can more easily be detected, because to my knowledge no other types of monument use the accusative formula. Whenever a reliable description of the stone is lacking, it is necessary to take into consideration all the available information concerning dimensions, layout of the inscription on the stone, size of the letters and content of the inscription; and, based on comparison with other monuments identified as statue bases, in each case to judge whether the monument could have served as a statue base.27 This method, of course, is open to mistakes, and a number of entries in the catalogue undoubtedly should not have been included, while some statue bases probably have been unjustly excluded. Given the number of statue bases, however, this inaccuracy should not have any impact on the conclusions drawn from the material unless the figures involved are exceed- ingly small, in which case caution at any rate should be taken.

Aberrant formulations

Whilst close to 90% of the inscriptions in the catalogue follow the standard pattern for honorific inscriptions described above, Stuart’s criteria do not take

26. Stuart 1938, 14. 27. For a discussion of the construction of statue bases, see Alföldy 1984 and Fabre, Mayer & Rodà 1984, 11-21.

T ypes of Monuments · 21 into account the remaining 10% that belong either with certainty, or with a high degree of probability, to monuments that served as statue bases but for a variety of reasons employ aberrant formulations. Since these inscriptions have not been discussed before in the general context of imperial statue bases, it is necessary to present the various types and the reason for their inclusion in the catalogue.

The use of the dative case in Greek

The commonest deviation from the standard formula for honorifi c inscriptions on statue bases is the use of the dative case in Greek for the name formula of the emperor. The 135 examples of this can be divided into three categories. Firstly, the form of the Greek inscriptions could be fl avoured by the Latin practice of using the dative case. This is most obvious in the bilingual inscriptions, where both the Latin and Greek texts normally employ the same case (p. 27). It is also frequently found among dedications with Greek inscriptions erected in predominantly Latin-speaking areas in the West (An- toninus Pius 10, 15; Marcus Aurelius 1, 2, 9), as well as in cities in the East with a strong presence of Latin speakers. Secondly, buildings dedicated in the name of the emperor in Greek inscriptions take the dative case, and monuments that served as statue bases but whose physical form resembles that of buildings, such as arches and city gates, therefore always follow the pattern for building inscriptions and employ the dative case. One monument, an ar- chitrave in Perge with an inscription for Claudius in the accusative case, was long believed to pertain to an arch (Claudius 145).28 New excavations on the site have shown that the arch according to the newly found inscription was instead dedicated to Domitian and the deified Vespasian and Titus (Vespa- sian 70; Titus 61; Domitian 61). The nature of the monument for Claudius remains obscure. Even monuments that were much closer in form to statue bases, and which served no other purpose, like the pillar on the Athenian Agora originally constructed as a monument for Attalos II of Pergamum but later re-dedicated to Tiberius (Tiberius 89),29 could employ the dative case. Finally, the dative case could be used to give the dedication religious overtones and connotations, since the dative case was generally reserved for statues of

28. Merkelbach & ahin 1988, 110, no. 10. 29. Vanderpool 1959, 86-90.

22 · roman imperial statue bases gods as distinguished from honorific statues with inscriptions in the accusative case.30 One particularly interesting example of this is found among the statues erected in the temple consecrated to Vespasian in Kestros in Cilicia. The cult statue of Vespasian placed centrally against the back wall of the cella stood on a base with an inscription in the dative case, as would be expected for a cult statue (Vespasian 76). On both sides of the cult image stood statues of his sons, and later those of successive emperors lined the side walls of the cella; but unlike the original cult statue, all of these were accompanied by inscriptions in the accusative case. In only two instances do we fi nd the influence reversed in the form of the accusative case used in Latin inscriptions (Augustus 194; Antoninus Pius 275). Both bases stem from the interior of Asia Minor, where neither Latin nor Greek inscriptions had long traditions. The inscription for Augustus from Lystra is described as a pedestal, and although consecravit in l. 5-6 is unusual for a statue base, it has parallels in Asia Minor (Antoninus Pius 217). Th e other inscription lacks description. Two further such monuments for Caracalla, Julia Soaemias and Julia Mammaea, which beyond doubt served as statue bases, are attested in Pergamum.31

The use of the nominative case

The name of the emperor in the nominative case could be used both in Latin and in Greek as a label under a statue that formed part of a large ensemble of statues with a common dedicatory inscription. An illustrative example is the numerous bases in Eleusis, which may have been placed on the arches outside the entrance to the sanctuary or, in analogy to the Nymphaeum of Herodes Atticus in Olympia, could have been placed on the nymphaeum identified next to the southern arch (Hadrian 247; Marcus Aurelius 191).32 Other examples are the group of statue bases for deified emperors erected in Thugga in the third century AD (Augustus 118; Vespasian 42-43; Tra- jan 91; Hadrian 160; Marcus Aurelius 170), and the labels under the reliefs placed between the columns in the two upper storeys on the two porticoes

30. Mitford 1947, 224; Veyne 1962, 49-98; Price 1984, 179. 31. Wiegand 1932, 54-55, no. 7 a-b. 32. Clinton (1989, 56-68) proposes two arches with imperial statues. Fittschen (1999, 122- 126) suggests the nymphaeum as a possible location for the bases. For the nymphaeum at Olympia, see Bol 1984.

T ypes of Monuments · 23 flanking the processional way from the propylon to the imperial temple in Aphrodisias (Claudius 115; Nero 40, 41, and possibly 39). 22 further monuments with the emperor’s name in the nominative have been included in the catalogue. These have predominantly been described as statue bases or arches (Trajan 72). The exceptions are inscriptions with the name of Tiberius in Aenona and Chalkis (Tiberius 48, 91), which entirely lack description. The portrait character of the latter is implied by the presence of an identical monument for Gaius Caesar.33 It is not entirely clear why the nominative case was chosen for these bases, but they may originally have belonged to a group of bases such as the one in Eleusis. Naturally, the bases may have supported objects other than statues of the emperors, and the emperor may in fact have been the dedicator. This might be the case for three bases found in the theatre in Lepcis Magna (Hadrian 149-151). Except for the base for Tiberius in Iader (Tiberius 49), erected by the seventh and eleventh legions, none of the statue bases with the name of the emperor in the nominative case mention the name of the dedicator.

The use of the ablative case

The name of the emperor in the ablative case is frequently used in Latin building inscriptions to indicate the date of construction, and this must be its function in the inscription on the city gate erected by Sex. Iulius Frontinus in Hierapolis (Domitian 54). The gate, however, probably also carried a portrait statue of Domitian. The inexplicable use of the ablative case on a base for Caligula in Narbonensis (Caligula 6) might be a simple spelling error.34 Four inscriptions from Thamugadi that employ the ablative case have been included in the catalogue (Antoninus Pius 145-147; Marcus Aurelius 131). All are described as bases, and have been accepted as such by Zimmer in his study of the statues bases from the forum of Th amugadi.35 The three inscriptions for Antoninus Pius mention a paved street constructed from public funds, and we cannot be absolutely certain that the statues placed on the bases were in fact those of the emperor.

33. IG XII, 9, 940. 34. Caesare for Caesari in l. 1. 35. Zimmer & Wesch-Klein 1989, 78, no. T 21; 82-83, T 45.

24 · roman imperial statue bases Inscriptions with deviating compositions

The inscriptions normally begin with the name of either the emperor or the dedicator. There are, however, exceptions to this rule. The most important are the 38 Greek inscriptions headed by the formula ∆Agaqh`i tuv chi. All except one of these – a marble gable with a bust of Commodus that continues with pe;uJr and the genitive case (Commodus 89)36 – otherwise follow the standard pattern for honorary inscriptions. ÔUpe;r and the genitive case is found on six further monuments all described as statue bases (Augustus 175; Tiberius 124, 134; Caligula 26; Vespasian 62). In these instances the bases most probably carried imperial statues, but otherwise the formula most commonly appears in building inscriptions on buildings dedicated on behalf of the emperor.37 Pro salute or the Greek equivalent uJpe;r swthri a~v normally indicates altars, but in a few cases the formulation was employed on arches (Hadrian 411; Marcus Aurelius 133; Lucius Verus 83). One monument described as a base, although it was more likely an altar, carried an inscription specifying that the dedication consisted of both imagines and an ara (Marcus Aurelius 103; Lucius Verus 69). The altar probably carried the inscription, and the statues stood in the immediate vicinity. In Stratonicaea an inscription begins by stat- ing the reason for the dedication – apparently that Hadrian had carried out a successful hunt in the city’s territory (Hadrian 360). Other bases begin with a dedication to a deity in the dative case: Aphrodite at Paphos (Tiberius 148- 150) and Artemis at Ephesus (Trajan 144), or they are joint dedications to one or more gods and the emperor (Hadrian 362; Antoninus Pius 105).

The language of the inscriptions

Latin was the official language of the administration of the Roman Empire. However, thanks to its wide use, Greek attained a status almost equal to that of Latin. Other languages were spoken in various parts of the Empire, and some, like Neo-Punic, found their way into the epigraphical record of the first centuries AD. Hieroglyphs also continued to be used for religious writ- ings until late antiquity, but none of these languages are attested on imperial

36. Premerstein 1911, 45-48. 37. This type is particularly common in Egypt. For example Milne 1905, no. 176.

T ypes of Monuments · 25 statue bases.38 The epigraphical evidence shows that Latin was the predomi- nant language, at least for writing on stone, north and west of a line running approximately from the point on the Adriatic coast where the Via Egnatia begins to the mouth of the Danube and in the landscapes west of Cyrenaica in North Africa. The province of Moesia Inferior is divided evenly between Latin and Greek inscriptions.39 Statue bases with Latin inscriptions, a total of 1,309, completely domi- nate in the western part of the Empire, and in addition 129 bases with Latin inscriptions have been found in provinces where Greek or other languages were otherwise more common. These bases are concentrated in two settings: Roman colonies and areas with a strong military presence. In the province of Iudaea, for example, four out of five attested imperial statue bases are in Latin. A military unit dedicated one in Samaria (Hadrian 408), and the decuriones in Colonia Aelia Capitolina another (Antoninus Pius 288). Likewise, the other provinces in the East had large percentages of statue bases with Latin inscriptions: Syria (54%), Cappadocia (33%), Galatia (45%), and Aegyptus (23%). Apart from these predominantly military dedications, we fi nd statue bases with Latin inscriptions in the provincial capitals of Ephesus and Gortyn, and in the Caesarean and Augustan colonies: Alexandria Troas, Ancyra, Antiochia en Pisidiae, Berytus, Knossos, Comana, Corinthus, Germa, Iconium, Lystra, Olbasa, Parium, and Philippi. In many of these colonies, Latin was persist- ently used for centuries after the original influx of Latin colonists, at least for official documents.40 In Athens the colonies of Caesarea Antiochia and Iulia Diensium (Hadrian 207, 208) employed Latin for their contribution to the statues of Hadrian in the Olympieion. To complete the picture, we fi nd statue bases with Latin inscriptions in the civitas Stektorion in the province of Asia, and in the municipium of Stobi in Macedonia. The use of Greek is almost completely confined to the area east of the language division line. Of the 975 inscriptions in Greek, the only exceptions are eleven bases in Rome and two more in Italy that were dedicated either by Greek cities or in two instances by Greek individuals (Claudius 13; Titus 14).

38. Hieroglyphs are frequently found on statues and bases of the Ptolemaic kings (Stanwick 2002), and also appear in connection with reliefs depicting the emperor as pharaoh, for example at Philae. 39. Marrou 1965, 377 shows a map with an indication of the approximate language bound- ary. 40. Corinth serves as an example. Here the preferred language gradually changes from Latin to Greek throughout the first and second centuries AD (Kent 1966, 18-19). Among the imperial statue bases, 14 of 17 inscriptions are in Latin.

26 · roman imperial statue bases 25 inscriptions, predominantly from Asia Minor and the northeastern provinces, are bilingual. In most instances the Greek text is an exact translation of a Latin original with the emperor’s name in the dative case in both Greek and Latin.41 Only one inscription on a base found in Sagalassos (Claudius 146) translates the meaning of the text and employs the accusative case in the Greek text. Other inscriptions use the Latin formula for the emperor’s name, but have the name of the dedicator, usually a Greek city, in Greek alone or in conjunction with a Latin translation.42 This could indicate that the name formula of the emperor in Latin was readily identifiable even for a Greek- speaking audience,43 while the other elements had to be in Greek to ensure comprehension.

Types of statue base

No typology exists for statue bases from the Roman imperial period like those devised for the statue bases from the Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic peri- ods.44 What follows is not an attempt to produce a typology for statue bases

41. Augustus 191; Tiberius 152; Caligula 20; Claudius 121; Nero 44, 52; Titus 53; Domitian 54 (ablative case in Latin), 57; Nerva 45; Trajan 175; Hadrian 84, 287, 288, 373; Antoni- nus Pius 66, 67. 42. Augustus 6, 167; Tiberius 7; Hadrian 196, 217. 43. Basic knowledge of the imperial nomenclature in Latin could be learned from coins with Latin inscriptions that circulated freely in all parts of the Empire. Even if only a fraction of the population in antiquity was truly literate, the number of people that could read simple formulaic inscriptions must have been many times larger. The content of the inscriptions on imperial statue bases certainly had an audience, and could certainly be understood by the peers of the dedicator, who oft en use the bases for self-glorifi cation, see Eck 1994, 650-662. On epigraphic literacy in general, see Harris 1983, 87-111; Harris 1989 and Franklin 1991, 77-98. 44. Bulle 1898; Jacob-Felsch 1969; Schmidt 1995. Bonneville’s (1984, 117-152) proposal for a system to achieve a uniform description of primarily Latin epigraphical monuments divides inscriptions on stone into 14 different categories, each with a number of subgroups. isTh typology focuses on the form of the monuments rather than their function, and the statue bases in this study fall within four of the fourteen different categories. Type 4 “piédestaux”, for example, only include monolithic bases and bases with a monolithic shaft, either cir- cular or polygonal with a moulded bottom and plinth. Built-up bases with affi xed marble slabs can be found under type 8 and 9 “Pierres et plaques moulurées et non moulurées” which also include a broad range of other types of inscription. The best discussion so far of western Latin statue bases is that of Alföldy (1984, 23-35) concerning the bases from →

T ypes of Monuments · 27 of the Roman imperial period, being rather intended as an introduction to the variety of different types of base that were used for imperial statues, together with an evaluation of their frequency. Given the strict hierarchy that existed for dedications with regard to placement in towns, materials used and monument size, it is reasonable to expect that statue bases for emperors deviated in a number of respects from those erected for persons of lower social standing, and a typology for imperial statue bases does not necessarily apply to statue bases in general or vice versa.

Bases for life-size standing statues

By far the most frequent type employed is a free-standing base for a life-size standing (or sitting) statue. These could be constructed in a variety of ways. The simplest consisted of a square or cylindrical45 monolithic block of marble or sandstone46, on which the plinth of the statue was attached for marble statues (Fig. 1). Bronze statues were normally fastened directly into sockets on top of the base (Fig. 2). Some form of moulding was often carved at the top and bottom of the base (front page). The mouldings were very frequently carved separately and fastened with dowels to a monolithic shaft, in which case we are unfortunately oft en left with nothing but the shaft, and no means of determin- ing the material of the statue (Fig. 3).47 The same is true of orthostat bases in the Hellenistic tradition, which were still used in the Roman period in Greece and Asia Minor. The second large group of bases consists of built-up cores to which marble slabs were fastened (Figs. 4-5). Unless the slab with the dedicatory inscription is found in situ or with great certainty can be associated with

→ Venetia et Histria. Here a differentiation between bases and altars with similar inscriptions is achieved on the basis of the cuttings on top of the monuments, and slabs from built-up bases are identified by their dimensions and the layout of the inscription. 45. The catalogue includes approximately 60 cylindrical bases. This form was particularly popular in Asia Minor and in Achaea, where round bases had a long tradition, but they are also found in Southern Spain and in North Africa. Polygonal base shafts that are common in late antiquity have only been attested in one instance for imperial statue bases from the fist two centuries AD (Commodus 96). 46. The choice of stone naturally depends largely on what was available locally. Granite is reported in Spain (Titus 25; Lucius Verus 59) and in Egypt (Caligula 28). In Syria basalt was used (Lucius Verus 135; Commodus 108). 47. For a number of drawings of the impressions on tops of base shafts without the top moulding, see Alföldy 1984, 167-169.

28 · roman imperial statue bases Fig. 1. Statue base in the National Museum in Athens with oval depression for the plinth of a marble statue (Author’s photo).

Fig. 2. Base for a statue of Claudius (Claudius 87) in the Athenian Agora with typical traces from a bronze statue (Author’s photo).

Types of Monuments · 29 a base-like structure, identifi cation of the type of monument to a large extent rests on the formulation and layout of the inscription. However, the dimensions of the slab with the inscription often correspond to those of the front of the base, i.e. tall and narrow unlike building inscriptions, which are generally wider than they are tall.48 Obviously built-up bases were far more susceptible to damage than monolithic ones, and the slabs are often rather fragmentary. Not all built-up bases were covered with marble slabs. Sometimes bronze sheets were used instead. In areas with a dearth of stone suitable for cutting inscriptions, this would be a particularly attractive solution, but the use may have been more widespread as shown by its occurrence in Rome on a base for Tiberius dedicated by the Aenatores tubicines liticines cornicines Romani (Tiberius 1). Because of the high scrap value of bronze, very few of these monuments have survived. Bronze sheets pertaining to imperial statue bases have been found in Augustomagus in Lugdunensis (Claudius 47),49 Fodinae in Baetica (Nerva 19), and Herculaneum (Claudius 8). Other less durable media for inscriptions may have existed as well – inscriptions painted on stucco, for example. However, in Pompeii and Herculaneum, where such inscriptions have been found in great numbers, none were painted on statue bases.50 In Italy built-up bases covered with stone slabs seem to have been more common than elsewhere judging from the large number of monuments found here described merely as tabulae. These bases are generally taller than they are wide, but depending on the setting, they may also be low and squat, such as the bases on the podium in the Caserma dei Vigili in Ostia (front page). The height of the bases in Italy and the western provinces generally ranges from 0.80 to 1.40 m. The tallest complete bases for a standing statue in Italy, a base in Puteoli (Marcus Aurelius 35), measures 1.74 m, while there are more examples of significantly taller bases in western North Africa. A pair of bases for statues of Marcus Aurelius and the deified Lucius Verus erected in the basilica in Cuicul (Marcus Aurelius 99; Lucius Verus 67) measure about 2.40 m. Bases over 2.00 metres tall are an exception, however.

48. Of course this is only a general rule. Built-up bases had the same variety of form as other bases, and in addition the plaque with the inscription did not necessarily cover the en- tire front of the base. Even busts could stand on built-up bases, as shown by the fi nd of a bust of Cato in Volubilis (Lahusen & Formigli 2001, 42-44). This bronze bust with an inscription on its lower part stood on a tall, very narrow brick base that originally must have been covered in plaster. 49. Piganiol 1959, 450-457; Boon 1980, 117-152. 50. For inscriptions on bronze plaques, see France-Lanord 1960; Eck 1997, 195-207. For the unlikelihood of monumental inscriptions on wood, see Eck 1998, 203-217.

30 · roman imperial statue bases Fig. 3. Statue base for Trajan in Delphi (Trajan 110) with separately sculpted mouldings top and bottom (Author’s photo).

In the Greek East relatively few bases of the built-up type exist.51 Instead, orthostat bases seem to have been used to save expencive building material, especially for large monuments. Throughout the period two diff erent formats of base were in use: the taller narrow type common in the West (Fig. 3), and a much lower type with a height of between 40 and 65 cm (Fig. 2). Although there are a few monuments with a height above 2 m in Asia Minor (Augustus

51. Examples are attested in Pergamum (Trajan 168), Ephesus (Nerva 33) and in Corinth (Nerva 25); all places with a strong Italian presence.

T ypes of Monuments · 31 Fig. 4. Build-up bases in a building (Augusteum?) adjoining the forum in Lucus Feroniae (Author’s photo).

182; Antoninus Pius 263; Marcus Aurelius 248; Lucius Verus 118; Commodus 104), the tall and narrow bases tend to be slightly lower than those encoun- tered in the West. Common for all statue bases used for approximately life-size statues is that their width generally ranges from 50 to 75 cm. Most bases are square, but often material and transport costs could be lowered by making the bases slightly rectangular. The letter size varies according to the language used. Of the 658 monuments described as statue bases with Greek inscriptions, only eight contain letters taller than 7 cm, and on 85% the letters range between 2 and 5 cm. While Greek bases almost always employ a homogeneous letter size throughout the inscription (Fig. 2-3), bases with Latin inscriptions often use very diff erent letter sizes to emphasise important elements in the inscription, typically the

32 · roman imperial statue bases Fig. 5. 10 cm. thick marble slab from the front of a build-up base for Trajan (Trajan 37) from the Augusteum? in Lucus Feroniae (Author’s photo).

names of the emperor and the dedicator (Fig. 6). The less signifi cant elements of the inscriptions are normally written with letters of approximately 4 to 5 cm; the name of the emperor normally appears in letters 6 to 8 cm high.

T ypes of Monuments · 33