Chapter ----: Defining Rome: The Arch of Trajan at Beneventum Elizabeth Wolfram Thill

Draft chapter from manuscript under contract with Oxford University Press

The Trajanic period saw drastic changes in the use of architectural depictions in monumental reliefs. Suddenly depicted architecture was everywhere. The traditional triumphal processions that wrapped their way around the friezes of honorary arches now marched towards miniature temples. Sweeping battle scenes took place in front of exotic-looking foreign buildings. The elaborately detailed individual buildings seen on the Valle-Medici Reliefs gave way to generalized architectural backdrops that surrounded the human figures with uninterrupted urban trappings.

The Arch at Beneventum presents an intriguing point of departure for an exploration of these Trajanic changes. At first glance, the depicted architecture of the arch seems to demand little explanation, and indeed the arch’s eight depicted buildings have seen almost no scholarship devoted specifically to them. The general picture presented by the depictions fits well within the same tradition as the Valle-Medici Reliefs, with the emperor represented among major buildings in Rome. Despite obvious compositional differences between the monuments, the overall approach and message appears to be the same.

An analysis of the depicted architecture in the context of the arch as a whole, however, reveals a very different situation. Gone is a concern with showing the emperor performing actions in front of particular historical buildings. Instead, the arch deals in broader conceptions of Rome as the embodiment of urbanity, and it does so by drawing contrasts between the Roman world and the world outside the empire.

The Beneventum Arch demonstrates several important concepts for the study of architectural depictions in relief. The first is the need to question building identifications that have become ingrained in the literature, despite resting on little to no direct evidence. This leads more importantly to the need to question the very assumption that all depictions were meant to be identifiable. The second concept demonstrated on the arch is the importance of studying architectural depictions within the context of the entire monument, rather than restricting their import to a single panel. Finally, the third concept is the evidence that even generic buildings can be crucial players in forming the thematic messages of a monument.

Introduction: The Beneventum Arch Towards the end of Trajan’s reign, a large arch was erected outside the ancient city of Beneventum, along the newly constructed Via Traiana that ran from Beneventum to Brundisium.1 Today the arch is still preserved in situ. The attic inscription records that the arch was dedicated by the Senate and People of Rome to the Emperor Trajan.2 The inscription of the arch does not mention the occasion for its erection, but traditionally scholars have connected the arch to Trajan’s renowned promotion of the alimenta program3 or the recent construction of the new major road.

The inscription is dateable by imperial titulature to 114 CE. There has been debate, however, as to whether this date refers to the laying of the foundation stone or the completion of the arch. Some scholars have identified two bearded figures in the attic as Hadrian, and have suggested that Hadrian completed the attic or made other modifications.4 F. Hassel has pointed out, however, that the dates of the inscriptions for the Column of Trajan and the Aqua Traiana match the inauguration dates recorded in the Fasti Ostienses; he argues that a similar situation should be assumed for the Beneventum Arch.5 This argument seems reasonable. The identifications of Hadrian, furthermore, are far from certain, and it seems unnecessary, in the absence of hard evidence, to introduce extensive Hadrianic influence to what appears prima facie to be a firmly Trajanic project. The Beneventum Arch therefore is dated here to the Trajanic, not the Hadrianic, period.

1 For the Arch at Beneventum, see e.g. Petersen 1892; Domaszewski 1899; Hassel 1966; Richmond 1969; Fittschen 1972; Rotili 1972; Lorenz 1973; Gauer 1974; Simon 1979-80; Molin 1994; Torelli 1997; Simon 1998; Quante- Schöttler 2002, 114-36; Heitz 2005-06; Speidel 2005-06; Töpfer 2008. Scholars debate many of the figures and subjects of the various panels on the arch. For my current purposes, it is sufficient to refer to those identifications that, at this time, have earned the widest consensus. Different interpretations will be cited only where the interpretation of the architecture is intimately dependent upon the reading of the overall scene. The nomenclature employed here for the panels is my own. 2 CIL IX.1558, reproduced in Hassel 1966, 1. 3 Possibly introduced under Nerva but greatly expanded under Trajan, the imperial alimenta program was intended to support the children of Italy. The program arranged for one-time loans to landed estates of Italian towns, with the interest on the loans providing income (in perpetuity) for the distribution of funds to a select group of children. While the exact purpose and workings of the alimenta are debated, what does appear clear from two fragmentary tablets is that a certain number of children were enrolled in each town, with different rates of payment for boys and girls, and legitimate and illegitimate children. For background on the alimenta, see e.g. Duncan-Jones 1964; Garnsey 1968; Patterson 1987; Bossu 1989. For a convincing argument that the alimenta should not be connected to modern concepts of poverty relief, see Woolf 1990. 4 For identifications of the bearded figures in the Consuls and Bridge Crossing Panels as Hadrian, see Petersen 1892, 252; Domaszewski 1899, 184-86; Strong 1907, 216, 218; Hamberg 1945, 66, 70-1; Hassel 1966, 18-19; Richmond 1969, 231; Rotili 1972, 79; Gauer 1974; Kleiner 1992, 228; Molin 1994, 720. For arguments against, see esp. Fittschen 1972, 743, 762-64, 776-77, also Koeppel 1969, 168; Simon 1979-80, 10; Torelli 1997. For Hadrianic interventions, see Richmond 1969; Gauer 1974; Kleiner 1992, 228. Richmond (1969) has suggested, based on his interpretation of the overall program of the arch, that the entire monument has Hadrianic themes. For a refutation of a Hadrianic date for any part of the arch, see Hassel 1966; Fittschen 1972; Simon 1979-80, 3; Molin 1994; Torelli 1997; Simon 1998, 189. 5 Hassel 1966, 7-9; see also Hamberg 1945, 68. The most striking features of the Beneventum Arch are its large figurative panels. Each main face of the arch features six panels: two on each pier and two in the attic (figs. 1-2). Additional figural scenes are found in the smaller Triumphal Frieze that runs below the attic, and in the two larger reliefs in the passageway of the arch; one depicts a sacrifice, and the other commemorates the alimenta program. A final figural panel is found at the center of the passage vault, where a Victory crowns a squatly-rendered Trajan.

Four panels and the Triumphal Frieze incorporate depictions of architecture. Scholarship on the arch as a whole has taken little interest in these architectural depictions, treating them primarily as a means to indicate the location, and therefore the subject, of the various events presented in the panels. Targeted studies of architectural depictions in monumental reliefs have also adhered to the idea that the identifications of the buildings were integral to their purpose. For example, although both D. Quante-Schöttler and M.G. Sobocinski suggest that not all buildings may have been meant to have been identifiable, they ultimately conclude that the identity of the majority of the buildings was critical to their intended effect, namely to clarify the topics of the various panels.6 Sobocinski’s brief analysis does move beyond identifications within each panel of the arch, arguing that the presentation of the emperor against a backdrop of known buildings in Rome emphasized the emperor’s relationship to the capital city (and by extension the senate), especially in the context of his frequent travels.7 Her analysis, however, still presumes that the identification of the buildings would have been crucial for their significance.

When the monument as a whole is considered, the distribution of the architectural depictions is revealed as significant beyond any specific identifications. In particular, the depictions help illustrate contrasts between urban/Roman and rural/provincial on the arch. These contrasts have long been recognized as one of the most important themes of the arch, even driving the arrangement of the reliefs themselves. The topics of the reliefs on the urban (southwest) side of the arch, closest to Rome and Beneventum, deal with the emperor’s interactions with cities (fig. 1). The topics of the rural (northeast) side deal with the emperor’s interactions with Italy and the provinces (fig. 2). Nevertheless, the depicted architecture has not been fully explored within this context, an oversight that I intend to remedy here.

Depicted Architecture on the Beneventum Arch Architecture is depicted in three out of six main panels on the urban side of the arch. The single passageway arch in the Adventus Panel has no identifying features (figs. 3-5). As such, it generally has been unidentified or seen as symbolic, one of the typical accoutrements of the adventus scene type, where the emperor returns to the capital. In the Reception Panel, a series of personifications stand in front of a columned building decorated with a weapons frieze (figs. 6-

6 Grunow 2002, 42 n. 68, 59, 112 n. 36; Quante-Schöttler 2002, 114-36. 7 Grunow 2002, 108-13. 8). Since E. Petersen’s 1892 identification, there has been wide (albeit not complete) consensus that this building represents the Curia in the Forum Romanum. This theory, however, is based exclusively on the identifications of the figures in front of the building, specifically a bearded figure as the Genius Senatus.

In the Consuls Panel, Trajan is greeted by a group of figures, including both personifications and two smaller consuls (figs. 9-12). The scene takes place in front of a continuous architectural backdrop that includes an arch, a masonry wall(?), and a pedimental façade. This arch also has a single passageway and no crowning statuary (fig. 11). It does, however, feature Victories in both spandrels. The arch’s passageway is filled by rectangular hatching that presumably represents some sort of wall. The pedimental façade has two Corinthian columns with no fluting, between which can be seen a half-open door with heavy bosses (figs. 9, 10). A weapons frieze runs below the pediment. The pediment is filled with a shield carrying a lightning bolt motif, flanked by what appear to be greaves. Above the pediment runs further hatching topped by one, perhaps two tiny merlons. This presumably is meant as a wall, although its position relative to the pediment and the angle of its courses suggest a tile roof.8 The depicted buildings of this panel have been identified as various structures on the Capitoline Hill, based primarily on the subject of the facing Capitoline Triad Panel, which shows the gods of the Capitoline Triad without any architectural setting (fig. 13).9

Architecture also appears on the section of the Triumphal Frieze directly below the Capitoline Triad Panel (figs. 14, 15). One building is a small temple with a stepped podium, Ionic, unfluted columns, quadratic masonry for the walls, and a well-defined tile roof (figs. 15-17). A wreath flanked by ribbons appears in each of the pediments. Interestingly, the temple serves as both the point of departure and ultimate destination of the depicted procession. This effect is achieved by the position of the depicted temple at the very corner of the arch. The one façade of the temple appears behind the departing procession on the urban side (figs. 15, 17), while the flank and other façade of the temple appear on the adjacent short side of the arch, at the end of the procession (fig. 16). Sobocinski argues that generic architecture here serves to create the impression that the triumphal frieze proceeds in an “infinite loop.”10 This temple has been identified as the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus on the Capitoline, based on the subject of the frieze and the appearance of the temple at the end of the procession.11

8 Most discussions connect the hatching under the arch and above the pediment as continuations of the same wall (Koeppel 1969, 136 n. 7; Quante-Schöttler 2002, 134-35; Sobocinski 2009, 140). The size and angle of the hatching differs inside and outside the curve of the arch, but it is not clear this is significant. 9 Some scholars (Petersen 1892, 251; Domaszewski 1899, 175) have argued that the arrangement of the Capitoline triad in this panel paralleled the arrangement of cult statues within the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus in Rome. If so, this would perhaps be a subtle but direct reference to the physical temple. 10 Sobocinski 2009, 138-39. For the importance of generic architecture in depictions of triumphs, see [ch. ---]. 11 Hassel 1966, 20; Hannestad 1986, 181; Molin 1994, 722; Simon 1998, 190. Sobocinski (2009, 138-39) considers the depiction to be generic. In addition, the remains of a depicted arch can be seen in the Triumphal Frieze directly in front of the triumphal quadriga and below the Capitoline Triad Panel (figs. 14-15, 18).12 This depicted arch is so badly preserved that it cannot be considered in detail here, except to note its inclusion on the urban side of the monument.

The final depiction of architecture appears on the rural side of the arch, in the Bridge Crossing Panel (figs. 19, 20). The crossed railing of a wooden bridge can be seen between several figures and above a personification of the river. Although typically seen as symbolic, this bridge has been identified by K. Fittschen as the famous bridge over the Danube built by Apollodorus of Damascus during the Trajanic Dacian Wars, based primarily on the renown of the historical bridge.13

Choosing Sides: Architecture and Urbanism at Beneventum Scholars have noted the difficulty in establishing the identities of the depicted structures on the Beneventum Arch, a difficulty made easily apparent by a glance at the numerous competing identifications for each structure (see [catalog]). As these numerous identifications also make clear, this difficulty has not stopped scholars from suggesting identifications, nor from insisting that an identification as a historical building was critical to the function of most of the depictions. In contrast, I will argue that the depictions on the arch are exclusively generic, and as such must function independent of associations with historical structures.

It is important to recognize that the depicted architecture on the arch lacks any elements that would definitively evoke an actual building. The arches in the Adventus (fig. 5) and Consuls Panels (fig. 11) have no clearly unique features, and the arch of the Triumphal Frieze is positioned in such a way that it could not have included crowning statuary (fig. 18). The shield pediment in the Consuls Panel may be specific, but is not definitively so (fig. 10). If the building in the Reception Panel is meant to be identifiable, the lack of space given over to the building is remarkable. The depicted friezes in the Reception and Consuls Panels may have been meant to identify their respective structures, but both friezes are small and de-emphasized, and their decorations are hardly unusual (figs. 6-7, 10). The tiny temple of the Triumphal Frieze is identified, if at all, only through its scene type. This absence of particularizing features has led to a lack of consensus as to the identity of a single depiction on the arch, despite over a century of scholarship, and should cast doubt on any theory that securing the identifications of the buildings was a high priority for the production team of the arch.

The inclusion of two friezes is indeed noteworthy, since depicted friezes are very rare in Roman art. If we are to believe, however, that all of the depictions on the arch refer specifically to

12 Adamo Muscettola 1992; Sobocinski 2009, 138-39. 13 Fittschen 1972, 759-65. historical buildings, this would suggest a situation where (a) one third of the historical buildings chosen for depiction on the arch happened to have distinctive friezes; and (b) the production team broke with tradition and used those friezes to identify the buildings, even to the exclusion of anything else, such as pedimental sculpture, for the Reception Panel façade. This seems unlikely. A more plausible explanation would be that the production team had a particular interest in emphasizing ornate, urbane decoration for the various buildings, and chose friezes as a means to this end.

Similarly, the lightning bolt motif in the shield of the pediment in the Consuls Panel may derive from an actual building, but it is striking how closely it echoes the lightning bolt that is the focus of the facing Capitoline Triad Panel (figs. 9, 10, 13). The lightning motif may have been selected to decorate the depiction and tie the two panels together, rather than to evoke a particular building. Shields with “almost identical” lightning bolts appear several times on the Great Trajanic Frieze.14 Shields with lightning bolts thus clearly existed as an independent motif that was employed without any particular significance. Interestingly, several helmets on the Great Trajanic Frieze feature small weapons friezes similar to that on the building in the Consuls Panel.15

What was stressed on the urban side of the Beneventum Arch, then, was the appearance of elaborate architecture, not the identity of particular buildings. This distribution of relatively generic architecture creates a powerful, generalized, abstract association between architecture and Rome. This is particularly apparent in the Adventus Panel, where the entrance of the emperor into the city of Rome is indicated in part by a single generic arch (see [ch. ---]).16 The emperor’s return to Rome is also a return to architecture.

Even though the buildings were strictly generic, the details of the architectural depictions on the Bevenentum Arch were carefully considered to emphasize Rome’s architectural sophistication. Similarly, the placement of the depictions was not coincidental. When the depicted architecture is considered within the context of the entire monument, rather than scenes of individual panels, a distinct pattern emerges: the concentration of architecture on the urban side of the arch. Seven out of eight depictions fall on the urban side of the arch, including the temple and arch of the Triumphal Frieze, which, theoretically, could have fallen on any of the arch’s four sides. Architecture thus becomes intimately associated with Rome.

Architecture and urbanism are not only depicted on the urban side, but are also alluded to by the subjects of the middle row of panels on that side. The Veterans Panel evokes Trajan’s establishment of urban colonies for veterans. The presence of Diana and Silvanus in this panel calls attention to the fact that urbanism is established specifically in rural wilderness, while at the

14 Leander Touati 1987, 57, with further examples of shields with lightning bolts (e.g. the Cancelleria Reliefs). 15 For the helmets and a brief history of weapons friezes, see Leander Touati 1987, 59, 59 n. 310. 16 Torelli (1997, 156) notes only that the ingressus is “symbolized by an arch,” but does not take this further; see also Fittschen 1972, 767 n. 111; Quante-Schöttler 2002, 117-19. same time this wilderness is represented abstractly (see below). In the Harbor Panel, the harbor setting is also represented through patron deities, along with rocky ground (fig. 21).17 The topic of a harbor would evoke Trajan’s impressive construction projects to facilitate trade, such as the Via Traiana and the harbor at Ostia.18 Yet despite allusions to architecture and construction in both panels, architecture is not specifically depicted in either.19 This is particularly strange in the case of the harbor, a topic shown several times on the Column of Trajan against an architectural backdrop (see [ch. ---] ). The end result is that, while construction was a prevailing theme on the Beneventum Arch, depicted architecture itself was reserved for Rome.

The same phenomenon may come into play for the setting of the Capitoline Triad Panel (fig. 13). Whatever allegorical act is represented by Jupiter’s offering of a lightning bolt to Trajan, it is likely that it does not take place literally in Rome, but instead in some unspecified higher plane.20 This would help explain why the action is broken up over two panels (fig. 1). This lack of architecture in the Capitoline Triad Panel is all the more striking when compared with the Reception Panel below it (figs. 1, 6). The compositions of the two panels are markedly similar: a group of three figures, two on the left and a slightly differentiated third on the right, standing in the foreground with other figures in low relief in the background. Yet in the Reception Panel, the panel dealing with human organizations, the architecture completely (and unusually) takes up the entire background (fig. 6). Again, this suggests a connection between architecture and the city of Rome.

In contrast to the numerous depictions on the urban side, architecture appears in only one panel on the rural side. In the Bridge Crossing Panel, a female personification kneels before a standing Trajan and attendants, while additional figures enter the scene via a small wooden bridge (fig. 19). Two water gods and a tree fill out the scene. The compositional focus of the scene is very much on the human figures, which surround and nearly hide the bridge.

Not only does architecture appear much more frequently and more prominently on the urban side than on the rural side,21 furthermore, but the architecture depicted on the urban side is complex and ornamented, with permanent stone construction indicated through both arches and masonry hatching. The architecture on the rural side, in contrast, is a simple wooden bridge. A dichotomy

17 For identification of the setting as the portus Tiberinus, where the three depicted gods had temples, see e.g. Domaszewski 1899, 182-83; Strong 1907, 217-18; Fittschen 1972, 772-73; Lorenz 1973, 20; Simon 1979-80, 8; Torelli 1997, 158-59. For identification of the setting as the harbor at Ostia, see Hassel 1966, 16; Hannestad 1986, 182; Kleiner 1992, 227. Simon (1979-80, 8; 1998, 198) sees these figures as statues. 18 Richmond 1969, 235; Fittschen 1972, 772; Lorenz 1973, 20; Hannestad 1986, 182. 19 Some scholars (Hassel 1966, 17, n. 104; Hannestad 1986, 182) have seen these gods as reflecting the layout of particular temples in Ostia. 20 Hamberg 1945, 73. Cf. Domaszewski 1899, 175, who sees the scene as taking place in the open space of the area Capitolina. One must also consider the idea that the gods are meant to represent or evoke the actual cult statues within the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus; see supra n. 9. 21 That architectural backgrounds are clustered on the urban side of the arch has been emphasized already by e.g. Grunow 2002, 112; Quante-Schöttler 2002, 115. The significance of this grouping, however, is generally underexplored, and explained as related to the particular scene types depicted on the various panels. is thus created, between elaborate, complex, permanent architecture on the side of the arch associated with Rome and Beneventum, and a notable lack of architecture on the side associated with the farther reaches of the empire. In the two bottom panels of the rural side (the Oath and Auxiliaries Panels), trees emphasize the natural, wild, specifically non-urban nature of the world outside the Roman Empire.22 This is not an abstracted wilderness, as in the Veterans Panel on the urban side, but a literal one.

Arch and Adventus: Rome as Abstraction The adventus was the ritual celebration of the emperor’s return to Rome. The Trajanic period saw an interesting addition to the visual commemoration of such an event: architecture. Two major adventus scenes are preserved from this period, in the Adventus Panel on the Beneventum Arch and as part of the Great Trajanic Frieze, now preserved as spolia in the Arch of Constantine in Rome (figs. 22, 23).23 In both scenes the emperor moves in a crowd through an abbreviated arch. Both arches generally have been interpreted as one of the standard elements of adventus scenes, and dismissed from further study. Both take on much greater significance, however, when situated within the development of adventus scenes in general.

The Adventus Panel and the adventus scene of the Great Trajanic Frieze share the same basic composition, one which would become typical of such scenes in relief. The emperor is on foot in a stance implying movement and with his right hand outstretched. He is surrounded by a crowd who move with him and whose implements (fasces on the arch, spears on the frieze) fill the upper register. In the Adventus Panel everyone wears civilian dress, while on the Great Trajanic Frieze the emperor and presumably his companions (who are mostly visible only from the neck up) are in military dress, although none wear helmets.24 No deities are present in the Adventus Panel, although numerous personifications wait to greet the emperor in the Reception Panel on the facing pylon (figs. 1, 6). In the frieze scene, the emperor is led by a striding Amazon figure,

22 Torelli 1997, 149-50. 23 For studies of the Great Trajanic Frieze in general, see e.g. Pallottino 1938; Koeppel 1969; Gauer 1973; Leander Touati 1987; Philipp 1991; Hölscher 2002. The monumental battle frieze as we know it today is preserved in eight marble slabs, now paired in four sections in the Arch of Constantine. These can be fitted together continuously to recreate an 18 m segment of a once longer monument. Although there has been debate about the date of the frieze, Leander Touati (1987, 91-5, followed by Gergel 1989, 483; Brilliant 1990, 240 (with some reservation); Hannestad 1992, 113) convincingly demonstrated in her landmark monograph on the frieze that the original imperial portraits, now re-cut to Constantine, most likely represented Trajan. The current consensus is that the frieze should be dated to the Trajanic period (see e.g. Toynbee 1948, 163; Holloway 1985, 265; Philipp 1991, 12; Hannestad 1992, 113), although Beckmann (2009a), who has suggested the frieze is Hadrianic, is correct to caution that Trajanic portraiture can only be a terminus post quem. But given the numerous similarities in technique that Leander Touati identified between the frieze and known Trajanic monuments, it is almost certain that if the frieze is not Trajanic, it is close. The adventus scene appears on slab 1 (following Leander Touati 1987, in which the eight preserved slabs are numbered left to right according to their position in the reconstructed frieze), preserved in the east passageway wall of the Arch of Constantine. 24 Leander Touati (1987, 52) states that the lack of helmets emphasizes the urban setting of the scene. either Roma or Virtus,25 and a full-scale Victory hovers slightly off the ground behind the emperor, her arm raised to crown him. For both scenes the direction of movement for all the figures is through an abbreviated arch at the left.

Through the inclusion of a depicted arch, the city on both arch and frieze is symbolized by architecture.26 The architecture is neither extensive nor specific. In fact, it is not even apparent from either immediate scene that the city to which the emperor returns is in fact Rome. On the frieze the striding Amazonian figure in front of him could be the topographically-neutral Virtus, and numerous scenes on the Column of Trajan depict the emperor’s entrance to provincial cities. The identity of the city is more definite on the Beneventum Arch, but only because the monument is fully preserved and the other panels help clarify the “narrative.” Both depicted arches are themselves purely symbolic and have no specific topographical significance. In both scenes, however, the arch stands in as an elegant shorthand for Roman urbanism in general. The emperor returns specifically to a city.

In the several scenes on the Column of Trajan that depict the emperor’s arrival in provincial towns these arrivals are presented as purely “historical” occurrences, without any deities or personifications.27 Beyond the general emphasis on Roman architecture (all of it generic) in these provincial towns, Scenes LXXXIII and XC feature a prominent arched structure. In the latter scene, the arched structure is the only architecture present and stands in for the entire settlement. Thus the Beneventum Arch, Great Trajanic Frieze, and Column of Trajan all provide examples of adventus scenes, each of which incorporates a generic arched structure.

The representation of the city in the adventus scenes of Trajanic monumental reliefs stands in stark contrast to its immediate predecessors, the Cancelleria Reliefs (figs. 24, 25). The topics of the Cancelleria Reliefs are debated extensively, and no interpretation has gained broad consensus.28 This is not the proper venue for an exhaustive investigation of these reliefs, but a cursory discussion can still reveal important points of comparison for their better understood Trajanic counterparts.

25 The identification of this Amazonian figure, in both this and other adventus scenes, is notoriously difficult (infra n. 31). Roma and Virtus are the obvious candidates. For the identification of the figure in the Great Trajanic Frieze as Roma, see Hamberg 1945, 56; as Virtus, see Koeppel 1969, 160, 189; Leander Touati 1987, 15-6. 26 Hamberg 1945, 58; Leander Touati 1987, 53. 27 Scenes XXXV, LXXXI, XC; Koeppel 1969, 175-79. In Scene XXXV, the first arrival scene, Trajan does not appear to enter the fortified settlement behind him; he is framed, however, by the arched gateway of the settlement. 28 For the Cancelleria Reliefs, see e.g. Magi 1945; Toynbee 1957; Koeppel 1969, 138-44, 172-74; Bergmann 1981; Pfanner 1981; Koeppel 1984, 5-8, 28-33; Hölscher 1992; D'Ambra 1994; Fehr 1998; Baumer 2007; 2008. Bergmann (1981) has demonstrated convincingly that both the portraits of Nerva (Relief A) and Vespasian (Relief B) were originally portraits of Domitian. This naturally undermines interpretations that see Relief B as representing Domitian greeting his father (e.g. Magi 1945; Toynbee 1957; Koeppel 1969, 172-74; Hannestad 1986, 132-39). Based on its emphasis on movement, Cancelleria Relief A is generally thought to show either an adventus or a profectio (fig. 24).29 The emperor (once Domitian but now recut to Nerva), on foot and in civilian dress, moves to the left, led by a lictor and two gods (Mars and Minerva) and followed by a crowd of figures, including personifications and humans. One personification is a striding Amazonian figure with a shield, again either Roma or Virtus; she places her hand on the imperial elbow to urge him forward.30 This all takes place against a blank backdrop, with the relief broken along the left edge.

The most convincing interpretation for Relief A is that of T. Hölscher, who presents several lines of argument in favor of an adventus scene.31 According to Hölscher, before the end of the 2nd c. CE, Victories, such as the one whose wing is seen to the far left of Relief A, are associated both in monumental reliefs and coins with the emperor’s return to city, but never with his departures. The gesture made by the emperor, furthermore, also appears on coins in the context of the emperor’s return, but not in representations of a profectio until the 3rd c. CE. The gesture made by the Genius Senatus parallels that of a figure on the south frieze of the Ara Pacis Augustae, an earlier monument associated with the emperor’s return (fig. 28; see below). Finally, Nerva never left the city after he became emperor, meaning that the reworked version, if it were a profectio, would have lacked historical context.32 If Hölscher’s interpretation is correct—and I believe that it is—Relief A would represent the first extant representation of the adventus scene type in monumental reliefs.

To these arguments of Hölscher for an adventus, I would add a few tentative observations. The presence of a goddess at least reminiscent of Roma urging the emperor forward seems to make more sense welcoming the emperor into the city, rather than encouraging him to leave it. Numerous female goddesses, furthermore, appear in adventus scenes, such as the Trajanic coin type (fig. 29; see below) and the Adventus Panel of the Marcus Aurelius Panels (fig. 30; see ch. - --]). The later example even includes a striding Amazonian figure with a shield, as in Relief A. In both the Trajanic profectio coins and the Profectio Panel of the Marcus Aurelius Panels, in contrast, only male figures appear.33 Finally, the dress of the emperor in civilian traveling garb without armor makes more sense when Victory and peace have been achieved, then when the emperor sets out specifically for war. While no one feature is definitive, the accumulation of evidence thus points to Cancelleria Relief A depicting an adventus.

Since the far-left panel of the reliefs is missing, the original presence of an arch in Relief A cannot be excluded. Hölscher suggests that either an arch or divinity may have served as the

29 For interpretations of Relief A as commemorating an adventus, see Magi 1945; Simon 1960; Hölscher 1992; Fehr 1998; Baumer 2007; 2008; for a profectio, see Toynbee 1957; Koeppel 1969, 138-44; 1984, 29; Hannestad 1986, 132-39. 30 D’Ambra (1994, 78) suggests that the ambiguity here between Roman and Virtus may be intentional. 31 Hölscher 1992, 302-3. 32 Hölscher (1992, 303) argues that the imagery of Relief A would still be applicable to Nerva, because the original Domitianic adventus culminated in the dedication of a wreath to Jupiter, a ritual that Nerva repeated. 33 For the dangers of projecting later depictions of such scenes on the Cancelleria Reliefs, see D'Ambra 1994, 74. destination of the procession, although he favors a divinity.34 One thing that is certain is that if there were an arch, the distance (both spatial and conceptual) between the emperor and the architecture would be much greater on Relief A than in either the Beneventum Adventus Panel or the Great Trajanic Frieze (figs. 3, 22, 24). As seen for the Column of Trajan (see [ch. ---]), the emperor’s close compositional relationship to and general association with architecture is significant.

Cancelleria Relief B, furthermore, provides circumstantial evidence that architecture is unlikely for Relief A. Here the emperor, now togate, is accompanied by lictors as he approaches a crowd that mixes Vestal virgins with personifications, including an enthroned Roma elevated on a platform (figs. 24, 26). On Relief B, then, the city of Rome is conceptualized and depicted through personifications of special religious aspects, rather than architecture.35

The half-naked youth holding a cornucopia and standing with his foot on a slanted object may also be a topographic personification (figs. 24, 27). Scholars debate the youth’s identity,36 but there are strong reasons to believe that he represents the borders of the city. While the most common hypothesis sees him as the Genius Populi Romani, this fails to explain why he is stepping on something, a pose that is unusual for monumental reliefs and surely significant (and not seen in other representations of the Genius). The pose serves to link figure and object, an object which must be an attribute that by its nature cannot be held like a cornucopia or staff. This implies something intimately connected to the ground. G. Koeppel’s interpretation, that the object represents a cippus and the youth the personification of the pomerium, makes sense in this context.37 The representation of the object as slanted has been seen as an indication of the object’s antiquity,38 which again would make sense if the object were the cippus marking one of

34 Hölscher 1992, 303; see also Fehr 1998, 719-20. 35 Koeppel 1969, 172; Hölscher 1992, 298; Fehr 1998, 723; Baumer 2008, 190. 36 For a convenient table of identifications, see Baumer 2007, 100. 37 Koeppel 1969, 172; see also 1984, 33. Despite the fact that his logic is very different from Koeppel’s, Fehr’s (1998) solution, that the figure is Terminus, also arrives at a god of borders. Although Fehr (1998, 721) identifies the object as an altar (see infra n. 39), a cippus could also be a reasonable attribute of Terminus. Baumer (2007, 103), who interprets the youth as the Genius, also sees topographic significance in the object, as an altar to Mars on the Campus Martius. The highlighting of borders, plus the likelihood that whatever event is commemorated in Relief B probably was connected to a homecoming of the emperor, has led Hölscher (1992, 301-2) to suggest that Relief B has some of the flavor of an adventus. 38 Ideas equating the object’s slant with antiquity are usually raised in the context of arguments that see the object as an altar, whose crooked appearance underscores the longevity and permanence of the cult (Fehr 1998, 721; Baumer 2007, 103). There are several reasons, however, to reject the interpretation of the depicted object as an altar. In the first place, such interpretations fail to justify fully why the figure is stepping on the altar. Besides an odd thing to do to an altar, this gesture suggests a particularly intimate and unique connection between the divinity or personification and the object, and an old altar is hardly unique; a cippus, on the other hand, would be a unique attribute of the pomerium. More importantly, small altars are represented regularly in relief on all scales, almost always with molding and typically with garlands, flames, or both (fig. 63). Since the object in Relief B follows none of these conventions, nor does it appear in the context of sacrifice, it is unclear how the viewer would recognize the object as an altar. the most ancient aspects of the city. The youth, then, is another element of Relief B that represents Rome through personifications of characteristic religious components.

This reliance on personifications to represent the city is all the more striking, given that many of the topics that scholars have suggested for Relief B—the founding of a cult, the restoration of the destroyed Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus—are topics where one might expect to find architecture depicted.39 In the end, the exclusive use of personifications in Relief B speaks against the inclusion of an arch in the adventus scene of Relief A. Instead, the city is signified through a series of personifications, including the Genius Senatus, the Genius Populi Romani, and the Amazonian figure, who regardless of whether she was technically meant to represent Roma or Virtus would recall the Roma of Relief B. All of this demonstrates a conceptualization of the city of Rome in the Cancelleria Reliefs that is strikingly different from that seen in the Trajanic period.

The Trajanic period thus saw not only a florescence of adventus scenes in monumental relief, but also a concomitant shift in the visual rendering of the imperial act. The addition of the arch to the scene stressed Rome’s physical, urban nature, rather than her religious identity. The generic nature of the arch, furthermore, encapsulated the city in general, rather than a particular building or part of the city. The emperor returned to the essentially urban entity that was Rome. At the same time, the arch served as a touchstone for the actual performance of the ceremony. A citizen witnessing Trajan returning to Rome presumably did not see the goddess Roma greet the emperor, but he could have seen Trajan walk through a gate. This follows a general pattern in official presentations of Trajan’s reign, which stressed the average citizen’s experience of the imperial regime.40

The sudden abundance of adventus scenes in the Trajanic period, and their relationship to architecture, takes on further significance when considered in light of the numismatic evidence. Interestingly, the adventus first became a clearly defined numismatic type under Trajan as well (fig. 29).41 On the coins, the mounted emperor rides to the right, led by a female figure and followed by several soldiers and a nude Mars on foot.42 The reverse legend—ADVENTVS AVG above, SPQR OPT PRINCIPI in ex.—makes the subject explicit. It is somewhat odd that this type bears little resemblance to its equivalents in relief, all of which, Trajanic or otherwise, feature the emperor on foot. There is also no architecture in the design.

Notably, this adventus type was minted only for a very limited time (c. 106-107 CE) and did not appear on any standard denominations. Instead it was used strictly on presentation pieces (Ar- multiplum, Ae-medallion) commemorating Trajan’s return from the Second Dacian War. Like

39 Founding of a cult: (to the imperial family) Simon 1960, (to Minerva) Hölscher 1992; restoration of the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus in Rome: Fehr 1998, census lustratio: Baumer 2007; 2008. 40 Wolfram Thill 2014. 41 MIR 259, 260. Koeppel 1969, 181-82; Woytek 2010, 120, 322. 42 For identification of the nude figure as a soldier, see Strack 1931, Nr 118; Mattingly 1936, 68; Koeppel 1969, 181-82. Woytek (2010, 120, 322) correctly sees this figure as Mars. the approach in Cancelleria Relief A, it seems that this means of visualizing an adventus was not deemed successful enough to warrant repetition. The problem was not that the design did not work from a strictly functional perspective, since the design later was used on all major denominations with only slight modification (the substitution of a male for a female in the leading figure) to commemorate a profectio (fig. 31).43 But something must have been missing as an adventus type, and I would suggest that this something was a clear connection to the city of Rome.

The inclusion of architecture in the scene provided the solution to the problem when the adventus was revamped some years later in reliefs. The depicted arches of the Beneventum Arch and the Great Trajanic Frieze, as well as their relatives on the Column of Trajan, stood in for the urban world to which the emperor returned. The success of the approach towards visualizing an adventus, in contrast to the numismatic type, is demonstrated by subsequent monumental reliefs, which, while hardly numerous, follow the Trajanic predecessors in including a generic arch. Indeed, the adventus scenes of the Hadrianic(?) relief in the Museo dei Conservatori and Marcus Aurelius Panels (fig. 30) emphasize the arch to a greater degree than their Trajanic counterparts.44

The question remains as to why adventus scenes were so popular in monumental reliefs and so unpopular in coins in the Trajanic period. This discrepancy may be explained by considering the different intended audiences of the two media. Since reliefs were stationary, the primary audience of the monumental reliefs was clearly encompassed in the population of Rome and her environs. Travelers to the city may also have been taken into consideration, as is suggested by the position of the Beneventum Arch along a major road to Rome. Although the question of audience targeting in coin designs is hotly debated,45 it is clear that coins were not limited in their circulation patterns, and could potentially travel throughout the empire. The absence of adventus scenes from circulated coins and their regularity in monuments physically connected to the capital indicates that the topic of the emperor returning to Rome had particular relevance to inhabitants of that city.

43 MIR 430, 486, 496, 508, 515. Koeppel 1969, 180; Woytek 2010, 146, 406, 431, 436, 440, 442. This modified design, paired with a legend consisting of some variation of PROFECTIO AVGVSTI, was minted on all major denominations for a maximum period of October 113 to late 115 CE. The leading figure has traditionally been identified as a human soldier (see Mattingly and Sydenham 1926, 262; Strack 1931, 218, Nr 208; Mattingly 1936, 102-3; Woytek 2010, 406, 431, 436). Woytek (personal communication) now agrees with me, however, that this figure should be seen as Mars. 44 As M.G. Sobocinski has kindly pointed out to me, the Hadrianic adventus relief is heavily damaged, particularly in the architecture; see La Rocca 1986, 13-20, pl. 4. Nevertheless, at least the expanded span of the arch and the position of Roma within that span call attention to the structure. For an argument that the arch in the Marcus Aurelius Adventus Panel is generic, rather than the famous elephantine Arch of Domitian, see [ch. ---]. 45 Unlike for monumental reliefs, the question of audience targeting in coins is further complicated by the existence of multiple denominations; see e.g. Metcalf 1993; Hekster 2003; Kemmers 2005; 2006; Beckmann 2009b; Woytek 2009; Elkins 2010. At the very least, the Cancelleria Reliefs and the Trajanic numismatic adventus scene demonstrate that the arch cannot be taken as a natural element of adventus scenes. Its addition suggests a growing conceptual connection between Rome and architecture, beyond references to particular buildings that actually stood in the city. When the emperor returned to Rome, he returned to urbanism.

A Bridge to Rome The rendering of the bridge in the Bridge Crossing Panel is strictly generic (figs. 19, 20). Suggested interpretations therefore have depended on the interpretation of the surrounding figures. Given the date of the Beneventum Arch, the most popular identification of the kneeling figure has been Dacia, which had been conquered in 107 CE and subsequently saw a targeted program of colonization by citizens imported from nearby provinces.46 Such colonists would nicely explain the mixture of costume (togas and hitched tunic) seen on the men around the bridge, which would itself represent the famous bridge built over the Danube by Apollodorus of Damascus. This interpretation is undermined, however, by the presence of two water gods. Attempts to see one or both of the gods as various (relatively unknown) tributaries, or in the case of the left god the Danube itself as identified by the bridge,47 seem like special pleading. A similar approach argues that the bridge characterizes the left-hand god as the Euphrates, which the Roman army crossed, and the right-hand god as the Tigris, which the army did not. The kneeling personification in this case would be Mesopotamia or Armenia.48

E. Simon and M. Torelli, however, have argued that the kneeling figure cannot represent any particular province, since provinces are always shown in native costume and dejected poses.49 Drawing support from compositional and thematic parallels between the kneeling personification of the arch and the personification of the Italia Restituta Type on coins of 111 CE, they argue that the female figure is a more generalized Italia, with the two water gods representing fresh (left) and salt (right) water. Torelli sees the men entering the scene as representing new citizens brought from afar to restore a depopulated Italy, with the bridge as a generalized structure emphasizing the crossing of borders into Italy. Simon believes the bridge and the rocky ground beneath the sea god indicating a harbor are meant to recall Trajan’s great hydrology infrastructure projects in Italy.

46 Petersen 1892, 242; Hassel 1966, 18; Fittschen 1972, 759-65; Rotili 1972, 106-7; Lorenz 1973, 46-7; Gauer 1974, 314, 320; Simon 1979-80, 8; Leander Touati 1987, 22 n. 55. For arguments against the Dacia interpretation, see Simon 1979-80, 8; 1997, 189; Torelli 1997, 166-67. 47 Petersen 1892, 242; Hassel 1966, 18; Fittschen 1972, 760; Gauer 1974, 320. 48 Domaszewski 1899, 184-86; Strong 1907, 218; Hamberg 1945, 69-74; Ryberg 1967, 35 n. 39; Richmond 1969, 231-32; Rotili 1972, 79. 49 Simon 1979-80, 8; Torelli 1997, 153-54, 166-67; Simon 1998, 198-200. Italia Restituta coinage: MIR 349, 366, 367, 368, 369; Woytek 2010, 370, 378-79. The identification of the kneeling personification and her supporting figures remains open to discussion. Without a distinctive costume it is difficult to associate her with a particular province or ethnicity.50 The lack of overt references to recent military activities on the arch as a whole makes a recent violent conquest an unlikely topic, and the tone of the panel is also clearly hopeful. Yet some association with recent additions to the empire is probable, for several reasons. Firstly, the presence of a tree and two water gods suggest a theme of the borders of “civilization.” The men crossing the bridge should, therefore, be people who cross borders (and perhaps cultures). The notable contrast in dress and focus on the togate figure suggest that this group consisted of both citizens and non-citizens, and that the presence of citizens was important. In the broadest sense, citizens are entering an area under Trajan’s auspices.

Secondly, in such a scene, the bridge could indicate more than a literal river crossing. It could also evoke associations between bridges and the expansion into new territory across a long, difficult border.51 One of the most famous bridges in this sense would be the bridge across the Rhine into Germania in Caesar’s Bellum Gallicum.52 This bridge and the engineering expertise that made it possible are described in great length; the speed with which the bridge is constructed—and then purposely destroyed—are unmistakably aggressive and expansionist (even though Caesar himself did not stay in the area). The entire Bellum Gallicum, furthermore, is replete with examples that tie Roman engineering, and specifically the skill to quickly make bridges, with military success, while the barbarians, unable to make bridges, repeatedly drown in large numbers attempting to swim rivers.53 Notably Trajan, who took the title Germanicus, was in the capital of Germania Superior at the time of his accession, and there were deliberate actions taken during the early part of his reign to further the integration of the area, including the granting of municipal and market rights to various towns.54 While only a suggestion, it is worth noting that the two water gods could be seen as representing the Rhine and the Danube, and thus the river boarders of the northern empire that Trajan had brought into the fold.

Apollodorus’ famous Bridge over the Danube would be another obvious (and more immediate) example connecting bridges with conquest and the expansion, both military and cultural, of the Roman Empire. This bridge appears as a focus point of the Column of Trajan frieze (Scenes XCIX-C), along with numerous other illustrations of the Roman army constructing and crossing

50 Hölscher (2002, 144) suggests the kneeling figure may represent the entire inhabited world (or Italia). 51 The long visual tradition of this connection between bridges and triumph can be seen in a provincial relief from Cherchel, probably dating to the time of Caracalla. The relief shows a triumphal procession with a ferculum, on top of which rests a model of a bridge, complete with crossing soldiers and carts (Torelli 1982, 124, pl. 5.6; La Rocca et al. 2008, no. 1.2.17; 140). The procession also includes a tabula ansata reading “Pons Mulvi. / Expeditio / imperatoris / in Germa / nium.” 52 Caes. B Gall. 4.17-19. 53 E.g. Caes. B Gall. 2.9.4-5, 2.23.1-2, 5.58.6; Wolfram Thill in preparation. The theme of barbarians’ inability to build bridges and cross rivers was apparently picked up on two separate monuments in the Trajanic period. The first is Scene XXXI on the Column of Trajan, where Dacians on horses drown in swirling water, while their companions look on in despair from the river banks. A similar scene seems to be preserved in a relief fragment now in the Villa Medici, which shows a Dacian on horseback in swirling water (Leander Touati 1987, 106-7 with bibliography). 54 E.g. Enckevort 2005. bridges, both built and pontoon. A bridge, perhaps Apollodorus’ Bridge over the Danube, also appears on Trajanic coins.55 The bridge on the Beneventum Arch could evoke this bridge building activity without necessarily serving as the portrait of any particular bridge.

There may be a further clue to the meaning of the bridge and the scene in general in other elements of the composition. Of the left-hand group of men facing Trajan, all three whose arms are visible once held their arms in a particular gesture, with elbow sharply bent and the upper arm held towards the body. This is the same basic gesture noticed by Hölscher on the Ara Pacis and the Cancelleria Reliefs (figs. 25, 27, 28). This gesture features numerous times on the Column of Trajan in scenes of Trajan arriving in provincial settlements, where the inhabitants greet him with their arms held thusly. It also appears in the Oath and Auxiliaries Panels on the Beneventum Arch; in the Consuls and Harbors Panel, citizens make a similar gesture, but with their arms less sharply bent. The gesture thus appears to signify some sort of greeting, at least in certain situations. Further evidence in the Bridge Crossing Panel comes from the distinctive gesture where the man in the tunic rests his hand on the shoulder of the togate man in front. This gesture seems to have something to do with expressing group solidarity. It appears in several scenes of provincials on the Column of Trajan and on the Beneventum Arch itself: in the Veterans Panel, a city goddess rests her hand on a veteran colonist’s shoulder, and a similar goddess rests her hand on a figure in the Consuls Panel. The gesture also appears early on the Altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus, probably in the context of a census (i.e. an assignment of social groups).

Both of these gestures come together in Scene LXXXV of the Column, where provincials sacrifice with Trajan, while some rest their hands on each other shoulders. Here the figures are arranged in a similar position to those on the Bridge Crossing Panel, with the men spread out in a sort of alternating row. This scene notably includes a mixture of citizen and non-citizen dress, with the men in togas and the women in provincial dress. The Bridge Crossing Panel probably represents a similar concept, where Trajan, clad in a traveling cloak, arrives at the boundaries of the empire, indicated by the tree and water gods, boundaries that have now been expanded and made accessible, signified by the bridge. There he is greeted by the region’s inhabitants, a mixture of citizens and non-citizens living peacefully together. This new order benefits a grateful Italia, resurgent thanks to the new peaceful territory brought into the empire by the expansionist Trajan.

Such an interpretation fits nicely into the theme of bounty expressed in the Fertility Gods Panel. As on the Southwest side, the left attic panel would represent a divine abstraction or approval of the action of the right attic panel. It may also explain how an extremely similar composition ended up on a series of Trajanic sestertii that were minted from 20 February 116 until August

55 E.g. MIR 314 (Woytek 2010, 351). The identity of this bridge is debated. 117 CE.56 The coins featured a standing Trajan above Armenia seated on the ground and flanked by two river gods. Armenia is clearly identified by her foreign costume and the legend (ARMENIA ET MESOPOTAMIA IN POTESTATEM P R REDACTAE). This is further indication that the imagery of the Bridge Crossing Panel had connotations of the furthest realms being brought into the empire: the coin legend says that Armenia and Mesopotamia have been brought back into the power of the Roman people, and the coin was minted as part of a series of coin types celebrating the peaceful integration of the territory, such as the Regna Adsignata type, where Trajan grants power to three kings, and the Rex Datus Parthis type, which showed a kneeling, grateful Parthia receiving a king given by Trajan.57 All three of these types were minted in the same brief period, and seem to put a positive, integrative spin on the recent military conquests. In one variant of the Armenia type, the province even looks up at Trajan, as in the Bridge Crossing Panel.58

In short, the bridge in the Bridge Crossing Panel need not be “just a bridge” emphasizing a river crossing, nor the bridge built by Apollodorus over the Danube. Instead it could be a multivalent symbol incorporating border crossings, connotations of conquest in foreign lands, the skillful engineering technology used by the Romans both in conquest and in peace, and the link between the spread of Roman citizenship and the spread of Roman architecture. In sum, it is not fortuitous that the only architecture to appear on the rural side of the arch is a bridge, a symbol of the crossing from non-urban to urban, barbarous to civilized, non-Roman to Roman.

The Beneventum Arch thus employs architectural depictions for several related purposes. The depictions help draw a conceptual connection between Rome, both the literal city and the way of life associated with the city, and sophisticated architecture. A lack of architecture characterizes the rural edges of the empire as fundamentally different from territories closely aligned with Rome. And a simple bridge evokes ideas of conquest and transformation within the provinces. All of this is accomplished without a single direct reference to a historical building. The arch thus demonstrates the important contribution generic architectural depictions can make to a monument, as well as the special relationship between Rome and her architecture.

56 MIR 590; Woytek 2005, 224–26; 2010, 478-79; Wolfram Thill 2014, 105-6,123. Hamberg (1945, 69-70) saw the similarities between the coins and sculpture as an indication that the kneeling personification was Armenia. For the close relationship between Trajanic coins and sculpture, see Wolfram Thill 2014. 57 Regna Adsignata: MIR 564, 593; Rex Parthis Datus: MIR 594. For discussion of these types as marking a distinct period of Trajanic coinage, see Wolfram Thill 2014, 118-19. 58 In other variants Armenia looks down and holds her head in her hand. This may indicate the uplifting message was dropped, or simply was neglected by some die carvers. The wide variation in her direction of gaze (up, down, and straight ahead) suggests that the composition may have been adopted, more or less directly, from the sculpture but misunderstood by some segment of the numismatic production team. The Trajanic Revolution At this point we are faced with several important questions. What brought about this sudden conceptual shift, as shown in the reliefs, from Rome as a collection of particular buildings, to Rome as a synonym for urbanism in general? And why did architectural depictions suddenly become so critical for monumental reliefs? Before Trajan architectural depictions were optional for monumental reliefs. As we will see, once Trajan became emperor, such depictions became a sine qua non.

These issues will be discussed further in the conclusion (see [ch. ---]), but I will make some initial points here. There are several historical features of Trajan’s reign that may have encouraged these changes. By Trajan’s time, the understanding of what it meant to be Roman was under continual flux, with the biographical accident of being born in Rome counting for less and less. Trajan himself was born outside of Italy, the non-Italian first emperor. Trajan, and those that supported him, thus had an incentive to emphasize a more inclusive vision of what it meant to be Roman. Trajan, furthermore, was adopted and had no specific architectural pedigree within the capital that he could highlight. He could not have benefited from depictions of particular dynastic buildings; he could not construct his own Valle-Medici Reliefs.

Trajan came, therefore, to the elite tradition of architectural patronage in Rome as something of an outsider. He could emphasize his participation in the tradition by the huge scale of his projects, such as the Forum of Trajan. But the same goal could be furthered by a coordinated visual program that argued for the importance of such architecture to Rome herself, rather than dynastic projects, and which placed the emperor squarely in the center of such architecture.

At the same time, Trajan propagated the first major expansionary scheme that Rome had seen in generations. The resulting wars in Dacia were difficult, prolonged, and expensive, although they eventually yielded great wealth. Generic architectural depictions expressed a view of the world where participation in the Roman way of life could be obtained through adherence to a certain simplified urban culture. This was a convenient means of implying easy integration for the territory that Roman soldiers had recently died to obtain. The provinces could hardly become Rome, but they could become like Rome. They could not aspire to a vision of a city characterized by particular historical buildings. But they eventually could fall within the more inclusive theoretical umbrella of Roman architectural superiority. It is important to remember that this message was expressed in Rome, for the inhabitants of Rome. It was not a call to architectural arms for those living in Dacia, so much as an assurance to those living in Rome that something valuable had been purchased: a new, productive, potentially Roman—and therefore secure—territory.

The wealth gained by the bitter Dacian Wars notably was funneled directly into architectural projects. When completed, this architecture undoubtedly had its advantages, but while under construction it must have been a logistical nightmare for those living in Rome, clogging streets with cartloads of building material, creating immense amounts of dust and noise, and completely dominating the heart of the city.59 These detriments would be offset to some extent by increased employment opportunities, but such opportunities would have been temporary, and would have driven up construction prices and rents elsewhere in the city. Even once the forum was finished, it is not clear that everyone would have been pleased with it. R. Newbold has pointed out that land and rental prices must have skyrocketed in Rome after the Great Fire of 64, which increased demand for housing while at the same time reducing supply.60 A similar situation, albeit to a much lesser extent, would have resulted from the construction of the Forum of Trajan, whose immense scale was certainly grand, but would have precluded all other uses for an unprecedented expanse of the city center.

We take it for granted, in other words, that imperial architectural projects were an objective good that all segments of the population would rejoice to see. This may not have been the case. Constantius II may have been impressed by Forum of Trajan, but the practical benefit that the complex would have yielded to the average Roman inhabitant would have been limited. How often would a baker have occasion to make use of the Basilica Ulpia? You could not live in the grand porticoes. You could not eat the imported marble. If you were to ask a Roman pleb where he would prefer to see the Dacian booty spent, on an architectural masterwork whereby Trajan’s glory would live forever, or on an increase in the subsidy for grain, you can imagine what his answer might be. The Trajanic architectural depictions thus operated in a world where it was in the emperor’s best interest to project a message that elaborate architecture was intrinsically valuable, a critical component of Rome herself, and that the concomitant absence of architecture was barbarian and dark.

Figures Figure 1: Beneventum Arch. Urban (southwest) face (outline after Fittschen 1972, fig. 33; labels by author). Figure 2: Beneventum Arch. Rural (northeast) face (outline after Fittschen 1972, fig. 33; labels by author). Figure 3: Beneventum Arch. Adventus Panel (Panel 1) with arch (photo by author). Figure 4: Beneventum Arch. Adventus Panel (Panel 1); detail of arch (photo by author). Figure 5: Beneventum Arch. Adventus Panel (Panel 1); detail of arch (photo by author). Figure 6: Beneventum Arch. Reception Panel (Panel 2) with background facade (photo by author).

59 For the mind-boggling logistics of constructing the Column of Trajan, including the possible effects on local traffic, see Lancaster 1999. All numbers regarding building supplies, etc. naturally would be expanded for the adjacent Forum complex. 60 Newbold 1974. Figure 7: Beneventum Arch. Reception Panel (Panel 2); detail of background facade (photo by author). Figure 8: Beneventum Arch. Reception Panel (Panel 2); detail of background facade (photo by author). Figure 9: Beneventum Arch. Consuls Panel (Panel 5) with three structures (photo by author). Figure 10: Beneventum Arch. Consuls Panel (Panel 5); detail of pediment (photo by author). Figure 11: Beneventum Arch. Consuls Panel (Panel 5); detail of arch. Note Victories in spandrels (photo by author). Figure 12: Beneventum Arch. Consuls Panel (Panel 5) with three structures. Note angle of arch (photo by author). Figure 13: Beneventum Arch. Capitoline Triad Panel (Panel 6). Note lightning bolt in Jupiter’s hand (photo by author). Figure 14: Beneventum Arch. Triumphal Frieze; corner below Capitoline Triad Panel with temple and arch (photo by author). Figure 15: Beneventum Arch. Triumphal Frieze; corner below Capitoline Triad Panel with temple and arch (photo by author). Figure 16: Beneventum Arch. Triumphal Frieze; detail of temple (photo by author). Figure 17: Beneventum Arch. Triumphal Frieze; detail of temple (photo by author). Figure 18: Beneventum Arch. Triumphal Frieze; detail of section with arch (photo by author). Figure 19: Beneventum Arch. Bridge Crossing Panel (Panel 11) with bridge (photo by author). Figure 20: Beneventum Arch. Bridge Crossing Panel (Panel 11); detail of bridge (photo by author). Figure 21: Arch at Beneventum. Harbor Panel (Panel 3) (photo by author). Figure 22: Great Trajanic Frieze, Arch of Constantine. Section 1; adventus scene with arch (photo by author). Figure 23: Great Trajanic Frieze, Arch of Constantine. Section 1; detail of arch (photo by author). Figure 24: Cancelleria Reliefs. Relief A (Museo Gregorio Profano; photo by author). Figure 25: Cancelleria Reliefs. Relief B (Museo Gregorio Profano; photo by author). Figure 26: Cancelleria Reliefs. Relief B, detail of Roma (Museo Gregorio Profano; photo by author). Figure 27: Cancelleria Reliefs. Relief B, detail of Genius (Museo Gregorio Profano; photo by author). Figure 28: Ara Pacis Augustae. South frieze (cast in Museum für Abgüsse Klassischer Bildwerke; photo by author). Figure 29: MIR 260. MIR 260; Trajanic adventus design (Woytek 2010, pl. 52.260m2). Figure 30: Marcus Aurelius Panels. Adventus Panel (Ryberg 1967, fig. 19). Figure 31: MIR 496; Trajanic profectio design (Woytek 2010, pl. 101.496f2).

Bibliography Adamo Muscettola, S. 1992. "Per una riedizione dell'arco di Traiano a Benevento: appunti suI fregio trionfale." Prospettiva 67: 2-16. Baumer, L.E. 2007. "Mehrschichtige Botschaft. Anmerkungen zu Komposition und Deutung der sogenannten Cancelleriareliefs." AntK 50: 93-106. ———. 2008. "L'iconographie politique de Domitien. Essai d'interprétation des reliefs dit 'de la Cancelleria'." RA 189-93. Beckmann, M. 2009a."The Meaning and Original Location of the Great Trajanic Frieze." Paper presented at the 110th Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, 1-4 January, Philadelphia, PA. ———. 2009b. "The Significance of Roman Imperial Coin Types." Klio 91: 144-61. Bergmann, M. 1981. "Zum Fries B der flavischen Cancelleriareliefs." MarbWPr 19-31. Bossu, C. 1989. "L'objectif de l'Institution alimentaire. Essai d'évaluation." Latomus 48: 372-82. Brilliant, R. 1990. Review of The Great Trajanic Frieze. The Study of a Monument and the Mechanisms of Message Transmission in Roman Art, by A.-M. Leander Touati. OpRom 18: 239-41. D'Ambra, E. 1994. "Mythic Models of the Roman Social Order in the Cancelleria Reliefs." Fenway Court 72-90. Domaszewski, A.v. 1899. "Die politische Bedeutung des Trajansbogens in Benevent." ÖJh 2: 173-205. Duncan-Jones, R. 1964. "The Purpose and Organisation of the Alimenta." PBSR 32: 123-46. Elkins, N.T. 2010. "Architectural Coin Types: Reflections of Roman Society." Ph.D. diss., University of Missouri. Enckevort, H.v. 2005. "The Significance of the Building Activities of Trajan and the Legio X Gemina for the Integration of the Batavians into the Roman Empire." In Limes XIX: Proceedings of the XIXth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies held in Pécs, Hungary, September 2003, edited by Z. Visy, 85-93. Pécs: University of Pécs. Fehr, B. 1998. "Ein böser Bube und zwei verdiente ältere Herren: Die Cancelleria-Reliefs als Rebus." In Archäologische Studien in Kontaktzonen der antiken Welt, 717-32. Veröffentlichungen der Joachim-Jungius-Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften Hamburg 87. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Fittschen, K. 1972. "Das Bildprogramm des Trajansbogens zu Benevent." AA 742-88. Garnsey, P. 1968. "Trajan's Alimenta: Some Problems." Historia 17: (3): 367-81. Gauer, W. 1973. "Ein Dakerdenkmal Domitians." JdI 88: 318-50. ———. 1974. "Zum Bildprogramm des Trajansbogens von Benevent." JdI 89: 308-35. Gergel, R.A. 1989. Review of The Great Trajanic Frieze. The Study of a Monument and the Mechanisms of Message Transmission in Roman Art, by A.-M. Leander Touati. AJA 93: (3): 482-83. Grunow, M.D. 2002. "Architectural Images in Roman State Reliefs, Coins, and Medallions: Imperial Ritual, Ideology, and the Topography of Rome." Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan. Grunow Sobocinski, M. 2009. "Porta Triumphalis and Fortuna Redux. Reconsidering the evidence." MAAR 54: 135-64. Hamberg, P.G. 1945. Studies in Roman Imperial Art. With special reference to the state reliefs of the second century. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard. Hannestad, N. 1986. Roman Art and Imperial Policy. Jutland Archaeological Society Publications 19. Højbjerg: Jutland Archaeological Society. ———. 1992. Review of The Great Trajanic Frieze. The Study of a Monument and the Mechanisms of Message Transmission in Roman Art, by A.-M. Leander Touati. AnzAW 45: 112-14. Hassel, F.J. 1966. Der Trajansbogen in Benevent. Ein Bauwerk des römischen Senates. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. Heitz, C. 2005-06. "Des Kaisers neue Kleider. Romanitas und Barbarentum am Trajansbogen von Benevent. Anhang: Die Felltracht der Signiferi." RM 112: 207-24. Hekster, O.J. 2003. "Coins and messages: audience targeting on coins of different denominations?" In The Representation and Perception of Roman Imperial Power. Proceedings of the Third Workshop of the International Network "Impact of empire. Roman empire, c. 200 B.C. - A.D. 476," Netherlands Institute in Rome, March 20 - 23, 2002, edited by L. de Blois, 20-35. Impact of Empire 3. Amsterdam: Gieben. Holloway, R.R. 1985. "The Spolia of the Arch of Constantine." NumAntCl 14: 261-69. Hölscher, T. 1992. "Monumenti politici di Domiziano: Stabilità e sviluppo dell’iconografia politica romana." In La storia, la letteratura e l'arte a Roma da Tiberio a Domiziano. Atti del convegno, Mantova 4, 5, 6, 7 ottobre 1990, 293-309. Mantua: Accademia nazionale Virgiliana. ———. 2002. "Bilder der Macht und Herrschaft." In Traian. Ein Kaiser der Superlative am Beginn einer Umbruchzeit?, edited by A. Nünnerich-Asmus, 127-44. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. Kemmers, F. 2005. "Not at Random: Evidence for a Regionalised Coin Supply?" In TRAC 2004. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference which took place at the University of Durham, 26-27 March 2004., edited by J. Bruhn, B. Croxford and D. Grigoropoulos, 39-49. Oxford: Oxbow Books. ———. 2006. Coins for a Legion: An Analysis of the Coin Finds from the Augustan Legionary Fortress and Flavian Canabae Legionis at Nijmean. Studien zu Fundmünzen der Antike 21. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. Kleiner, D.E.E. 1992. Roman Sculpture. Yale Publications in the History of Art 42. New Haven: Yale University Press. Koeppel, G. 1969. "Profectio und Adventus." BJb 169: 130-94. ———. 1984. "Die historischen Reliefs der römischen Kaiserzeit, II. Stadtrömische Denkmäler unbekannter Bauzugehörigkeit aus flavischer Zeit." BJb 184: 1-65. La Rocca, E., ed. 1986. Rilievi storici capitolini. Il restauro dei pannelli di Adriano e di Marco Aurelio nel Palazzo dei Conservatori. Rome: de Luca Editore. La Rocca, E., S. Tortorella, and A. Lo Monaco, eds. 2008. Trionfi romani. Milan: Electa. Lancaster, L. 1999. "Building Trajan's Column." AJA 103: (3): 419-39. Leander Touati, A.-M. 1987. The Great Trajanic Frieze. The Study of a Monument and the Mechanisms of Message Transmission in Roman Art. ActaRom 45. Stockholm: Paul Åströms Forlag. Lorenz, T. 1973. Leben und Regierung Trajans auf dem Bogen von Benevent. Castrvm Peregrini 106. Amsterdam: Castrvm Peregrini Press. Magi, F. 1945. I rilievi flavi del Palazzo della Cancelleria. Rome: Presso la Pontificia accademia romana di archeologi. Mattingly, H. 1936. Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum. Vol. III. Nerva to Hadrian. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mattingly, H., and E.A. Sydenham. 1926. The Roman Imperial Coinage. Vol. II. Vespasian to Hadrian. London: Spink & Son, Ltd., Reprint, 1989. Metcalf, W.E. 1993. "Whose Liberalitas? Propaganda and Audience in the Early Roman Empire." RIN 95: 337-46* (last page repeats proceeding page). Molin, M. 1994. "L'arc de Trajan à Bénévent. Un monument de la première partie du règne." In L'Afrique, la Gaule, la religion à l'époque romaine. Mélanges à la mémoire de Marcel Le Glay, edited by Y. Le Bohec, 716-22. Collection Latomus 226. Brussels: Latomus. Newbold, R.F. 1974. "Some Social and Economic Consequences of the A.D. 64 Fire at Rome." Latomus 33: (4): 858-69. Pallottino, M. 1938. Il Grande Fregio di Traiano. Studi e materiali del Museo dell' Impero Romano 1. Rome: Colombo. Patterson, J.R. 1987. "Crisis: What Crisis? Rural Change and Urban Development in Imperial Appennine Italy." PBSR 55: 115-46. Petersen, E.A.H. 1892. "L'Arco di Traiano a Benevento." RM 7: 239-64. Pfanner, M. 1981. "Technische Beobachtungen an den Cancelleria-Reliefs." AA 514-18. Philipp, H. 1991. Der Große Trajanische Fries. Überlegungen zur Darstellungsweise am Großen Trajanischen Fries und am Alexandermosaik. Munich: K.M. Lipp. Quante-Schöttler, D. 2002. Ante aedes: Darstellung von Architektur in römischen Reliefs. Antiquitates. Archäologische Forschungsergebnisse 20. Hamburg: Dr. Kovač. Richmond, I. 1969. "The Arch of Beneventum." In Roman Archaeology and Art. Essays and Studies, edited by I. Richmond, 229-38. London: Faber. Rotili, M. 1972. L'arco di Traiano a Benevento. Rome: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato. Ryberg, I.S. 1967. Panel Reliefs of Marcus Aurelius. Monographs on archaeology and the fine arts 14. New York: Archaeological Institute of America. Simon, E. 1960. "Zu den flavischen Reliefs von der Cancelleria." JdI 75: 134-56. ———. 1979-80. "Die Götter am Trajansbogen zu Benevent." TrWPr 1-2: 1-15. ———. 1998. "Der Trajansbogen in Benevent." In Ausgewählte Schriften, edited by E. Simon, 188-203. 2 vols. Vol. 2. Römische Kunst. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. Sobocinski, M.G. 2009. "Porta Triumphalis and Fortuna Redux. Reconsidering the evidence." MAAR 54: 135-64. Speidel, M.P. 2005-06. "Trajan's Column and the Arch at Benevento." RM 112: 189-206. Strack, P.L. 1931. Untersuchungen zur römischen Reichsprägung des zweiten Jahrhunderts. Vol. I. Die Reichsprägung zur Zeit des Traian. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer. Strong, E. 1907. Roman Sculpture from Augustus to Constantine. New York: C. Scribner's Sons. Töpfer, K. 2008. "Hadrian auf der Trajanssäule?" RM 114: 357-88. Torelli, M. 1982. Typology and Structure of Roman Historical Reliefs. Jerome Lectures 14. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. ———. 1997. "'Ex his castra, ex his tribus replebuntur': The Marble Panegyric on the Arch of Trajan at Beneventum." In The Interpretation of Architectural Sculpture in Greece and Rome, edited by D. Buitron-Oliver, 145-78. Center for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts. Symposium papers 29. Washington D.C.: National Gallery of Art. Toynbee, J.M.C. 1948. Review of Il Grande Fregio di Traiano, by M. Pallottino. JRS 38: 163- 64. ———. 1957. The Flavian Reliefs from the Palazzo della Cancelleria in Rome. Charlton Lectures on Art 39. New York: Oxford University Press. Turcan-Déléani, M. 1958. "Les monuments représentés sur la colonne Trajane: schématisme et réalisme." MÉFRA 70: 149-76. Wace, A.J.B. 1907. "Studies in Roman Historical Reliefs." PBSR 4: (3): 229-76. Wolfram Thill, E. 2014. "The Emperor in Action: Group Scenes in Trajanic Coins and Monumental Reliefs." AJN Second Series 26: 87–140. ———. in preparation. "Constructing Conquest: Architecture, Destruction, and Representation within Caesar’s Bellum Gallicum." Woolf, G. 1990. "Food, Poverty and Patronage: The Significance of the Epigraphy of the Roman Alimentary Schemes in Early Imperial Italy." PBSR 58: 197-228. Woytek, B. 2005. "Zitate flavischer Reverstypen in der Münzprägung Traians." MÖNG 45: (4): 199-227. ———. 2009. "Themen der römischen Aureusprägung unter Kaiser Traian: Die Hauptlinien der typologischen Entwicklung." In Gold. Tagung anlässlich der Gründung des Zentrums Archäologie und Altertumswissenschaften an der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 19.–20. April 2007, edited by S. Deger-Jalkotzy and N. Schindel, 113- 36. Origines. Schriften des Zentrums Archäologie und Altertumswissenschaften 1. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. ———. 2010. Die Reichsprägung des Kaisers Traianus (98-117). 2 vols. Moneta Imperii Romani 14. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Figure 1: Beneventum Arch. Urban (southwest) face

(outline after Fittschen 1972, fig. 33; labels by author). Figure 2: Beneventum Arch. Rural (northeast) face

(outline after Fittschen 1972, fig. 33; labels by author). Figure 3: Arch at Beneventum. Adventus Panel (Panel 1) with arch

(photo by author). Figure 4: Arch at Beneventum. Adventus Panel (Panel 1); detail of arch

(photo by author). Figure 5: Arch at Beneventum. Adventus Panel (Panel 1); detail of arch

(photo by author). Figure 6: Arch at Beneventum. Reception Panel (Panel 2) with background facade

(photo by author). Figure 7: Arch at Beneventum. Reception Panel (Panel 2); detail of background facade

(photo by author). Figure 8: Arch at Beneventum. Reception Panel (Panel 2); detail of background facade

(photo by author). Figure 9: Arch at Beneventum. Consuls Panel (Panel 5) with three structures

(photo by author). Figure 10: Arch at Beneventum. Consuls Panel (Panel 5); detail of pediment.

(photo by author). Figure 11: Arch at Beneventum. Consuls Panel (Panel 5); detail of arch. Note Victories in spandrels

(photo by author). Figure 12: Arch at Beneventum. Consuls Panel (Panel 5) with three structures. Note angle of arch

(photo by author). Figure 13: Arch at Beneventum. Capitoline Triad Panel (Panel 6). Note lightning bolt in Jupiter’s hand

(photo by author). Figure 14: Arch at Beneventum. Triumphal Frieze; corner below Capitoline Triad Panel with temple and arch

(photo by author). Figure 15: Arch at Beneventum. Triumphal Frieze; corner below Capitoline Triad Panel with temple and arch

(photo by author). Figure 16: Arch at Beneventum. Triumphal Frieze; detail of temple

(photo by author). Figure 17: Arch at Beneventum. Triumphal Frieze; detail of temple

(photo by author). Figure 18: Arch at Beneventum. Triumphal Frieze; detail of arch

(photo by author). Figure 19: Arch at Beneventum. Bridge Crossing Panel (Panel 11) with bridge

(photo by author). Figure 20: Arch at Beneventum. Bridge Crossing Panel (Panel 11); detail of bridge

(photo by author). Figure 21: Arch at Beneventum. Harbor Panel (Panel 3)

(photo by author). Figure 22: Great Trajanic Frieze, Arch of Constantine. Section 1; adventus scene with arch

(photo by author). Figure 23: Great Trajanic Frieze, Arch of Constantine. Section 1; adventus scene with arch

(photo by author). Figure 24: Cancelleria Reliefs. Relief A

(Museo Gregorio Profano; photo by author). Figure 25: Cancelleria Reliefs. Relief B

(Museo Gregorio Profano; photo by author). Figure 26: Cancelleria Reliefs. Relief B; detail of Roma

(Museo Gregorio Profano; photo by author). Figure 27: Cancelleria Reliefs. Relief B; detail of Genius

(Museo Gregorio Profano; photo by author). Figure 28: Ara Pacis Augustae. South frieze

(cast in Museum für Abgüsse Klassischer Bildwerke; photo by author). Figure 29: MIR 260. MIR 260; Trajanic adventus design

(Woytek 2010, pl. 52.260m2). Figure 30: Marcus Aurelius Adventus Panel, Arch of Constantine.

(photo by Sergey Sosnovskiy). Figure 31: MIR 496; Trajanic profectio design

(Woytek 2010, pl. 101.496f2).