Visualising the enemy The visual languages of the columns of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius and their artistic representation of Rome’s barbarian enemies Master Thesis Ancient, Medieval and Renaissance Studies (Track Ancient Studies) Student: Lotte van den Borne (3918025) First supervisor: Dr. Saskia Stevens Second supervisor: Dr. Rolf Strootman August 2017 1 Contents I. Introduction 3 The semantics of Roman art: images and their visual language 6 Information theory: entropy, repetition and redundancy 9 Aims and structure of the subsequent chapters 14 II. Putting the columns in context 16 Reflections on the processes and practicalities of design and construction 16 Date, location, audience and purpose 20 ‘Reading’ the columns: the issues of visibility and historicity 32 III. The columns and their representations of the barbarian enemy 40 Practices of barbarian representation in Early Imperial Rome 42 The importance of repetition: previous scholarship on the columns’ images of barbarians 44 Battle scenes 48 Another recurring motif in the battle scene: the fleeing barbarian 58 Some preliminary conclusions 62 Interacting with the emperor: submission and captives 66 The representation of barbarian women on the columns of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius 75 Barbarians on the columns of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius: the redundancy of barbarian types 80 IV. The columns and their differences: the meaning of the changing artistic representations of Rome’s barbarian enemies 88 The columns and their imagery 88 The columns and their styles 90 Explaining difference 91 V. Conclusion 99 VI. Bibliography 103 2 I. Introduction During the period of economic prosperity and stability that is known as the High Empire (96- 192),1 two outstanding and sumptuous monuments were put up in the aftermath of the victories over two of Rome’s long-time barbarian foes. The first of these was Trajan’s Column, which was set up in 113 in commemoration of his Dacian Wars (101-106). Likewise, for his triumph over the Germans and Sarmatians in the Marcomannic Wars (166-180), the last ‘Good Emperor’ Marcus Aurelius received the honour of a monumental victory column. Standing well over 40 meters tall from their bases to the statues on their tops, both monuments loomed over a large number of the many structures in their vicinities and will not have escaped the eye of the ancient passer-by. Not only do the columns stand out because of their height, but also because of the considerable number of images on their surfaces, which contained numerous figures representing barbarian enemies. In many respects, the columns look very similar. In fact, Marcus Aurelius’ Column seems to have been modelled after that of Trajan,2 which explains their close resemblance. Both monuments are composed of a base supporting a large, hollow column inside which a spiral staircase, lit by small rectangular windows in the column shaft, provides access to a platform at the column’s top.3 This platform originally supported a sumptuous bronze statue of the emperor, which would have increased the height and, hence, the visibility of the monument even further. Apart from their overall structure and design, the subject matter on the main part of the monuments – the column itself – also coincides; the spiral bands enfolding the marble drums that constitute both columns are decorated with sculpted reliefs representing the key events of important military campaigns that took place during the reigns of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius. Closer inspection of the columns, however, reveals a number of significant differences. Apart from the lesser amount of spirals compared to the Column of Trajan,4 the style in which the figures on Marcus’ Column have been executed seems to deviate from its ‘model’ as well: the figures are carved into a higher relief, standing out 1 Unless mentioned otherwise, all dates will be referring to events that took place after the beginning of the Common Era. 2 See for instance Hölscher (2000) 89-91; Dillon (2006) 245; Beckmann (2011) 55f. 3 On the importance of these staircases, see Beckmann (2002) 353-356. 4 The column consisted of 21 instead of 23 spirals. See for instance Huet (2000) 108. 3 further from the background than the figures we find on Trajan’s Column. Furthermore, they are portrayed from a frontal perspective more often and have non-classical proportions; the figures are more elongated than those on Trajan’s Column and often, their heads appear to be too large for their bodies. Also, the poses and movements of the figures have been executed in a less naturalistic fashion in comparison to Trajan’s Column. Each of these aspects sets the frieze covering the surface of the Column of Marcus Aurelius apart from the more traditional and ‘classical’ reliefs on Trajan’s Column.5 The difference that has received the most scholarly attention, however, is the way in which the columns portray Rome’s barbarian opponents. They have emphasised that the lion’s share of the images on the frieze of Trajan’s Column allude to the non-violent aspects of war, such as the emperor’s addresses to his troops and the construction works of the Roman army. These stand in sharp contrast to the overabundance of violent representations on the Column of Marcus Aurelius; the Germanic and Sarmatian barbarians are shown in states of sheer agony and distress: women are harassed by Roman soldiers and men are butchered. Other scenes even confront the viewer with the image of the decapitation barbarian men. Indeed, scholars have stressed that such cruel representations of the violent ‘realities’ of war had not appeared on any previous work of monumental Roman art.6 Hence, despite the similarities in their overall design and general subject matter, and their shared purpose as monuments commemorating two major military successes of the High Empire, the Column of Marcus Aurelius and that of his predecessor Trajan profoundly differ from each other on grounds of their stylistic characteristics and their iconographic contents. What prompted this change in the representation of barbarians in the relatively short period between the constructions of the two columns? So far a number of different explanations has been proposed. Max Wegner was one of the first to address this issue. He mainly focused on the style of the Aurelianic Column and argued that its style should be perceived as a ‘transitional style’, initiating the turn to the artistic style of Late Antiquity.7 While Wegner interpreted the violent character of the monument as an indicator of stylistic transition or Stilwandel, a number of alternative interpretations that look beyond the column’s stylistic characteristics have been put forward. Ranuccio Bianchi 5 Wegner (1931); Pirson (1996); Beckmann (2011) 158f. 6 See for instance Hannestadt (2001); Dillon (2006); Ferris (2009). 7 Wegner (1931). 4 Bandinelli argued that the frieze cannot be reconciled with the image of Marcus Aurelius as presented in his Meditations. As a mild and humane emperor, he could simply not have commissioned the horrendous and violent images on the column’s surface. He therefore concluded that the column must date to the reign of Commodus rather than to that of Marcus Aurelius, as the design of the frieze could only be the product of his violent and cruel.8 Other scholars have argued that the column was constructed during the reign of Marcus Aurelius and linked the imagery on the column’s helical frieze to Marcus Aurelius’ ‘humanistic’ philosophy and his criticism of the way in which Roman soldiers treated their opponents. The Aurelianic Column was the first monument to openly address these ethical apprehensions towards war.9 Alternatively, other publications have stressed how the images on the Aurelianic frieze reflected the sentiments of insecurity, distress and anxiety that were felt throughout the instable Roman Empire during the reign of Marcus Aurelius.10 Another explanation has been sought in the changing conception of the barbarian during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, which may have been the result of the increasing insecurity and anxiety that now prevailed in the Roman Empire. According to Iain Ferris, the violent and gruesome images that covered the surface of his column marked the beginning of a trend he has dubbed the ‘dehumanisation of the barbarian’: barbarians are no longer regarded and presented as human beings, but simply as objects in the narrative enfolding the Aurelianic Column. They are ‘mere humps of flesh and bones’ rather than proper characters, which explains and legitimises the increased amount of violence in the scenes in which barbarians appear.11 Lastly, some scholars adhere to the rather paradoxical view that the violent imagery in fact conveyed a positive message. In the late 1990’s Felix Pirson claimed the motivations behind the adoption of the violent imagery on the Aurelianic Column need to be sought in the need to reassure the inhabitants of the Roman Empire of Rome’s military superiority and power, which was no longer self-evident in the light of recent Germanic incursions and other socio-economic issues the empire was already facing.12 Along the same lines, other scholars have stressed how the column’s imagery serves to exhibit that Rome’s enemies received a suitable punishment for their utterly transgressive behaviour towards the 8 Bianchi Bandinelli (1978) 136. 9 See for instance Birley (1993) 215. 10 See for instance Hannestadt (2001) 151-152. 11 Ferris (2009) 131-151. 12 Pirson (1996). Also see Dillon (2006) 244-263. 5 Romans.13 In short, the differences between Trajan’s Column and that of Marcus Aurelius and the way in which they represent Rome’s barbarian enemy have not remained unnoticed, and so far various explanations for this phenomenon have been put forward. Although the subject has, thus, not suffered from a lack of scholarly attention – far from it – it is my aim to readdress it.