American Journal of Numismatics 26

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NUMISMATICS 26

Second Series, continuing The American Numismatic Society Museum Notes

ISSN: 1053-8356 ISBN 978-0-89722-336-2

Printed in China Contents

Editorial Committee v Jonathan Kagan. Notes on the Coinage of Mende 1 Evangeline Markou, Andreas Charalambous and Vasiliki Kassianidou. pXRF Analysis of Cypriot Gold Coins of the Classical Period 33 Panagiotis P. Iossif. The Last Seleucids in Phoenicia: Juggling Civic and Royal Identity 61 Elizabeth Wolfram Thill. The Emperor in Action: Group Scenes in Trajanic Coins and Monumental Reliefs 89 Florian Haymann The Hadrianic Silver Coinage of Aegeae (Cilicia) 143 Jack Nurpetlian. Damascene Tetradrachms of Caracalla 187 Dario Calomino. Bilingual Coins of Severus Alexander in the Eastern Provinces 199 Saúl Roll-Vélez. The Pre-reformCONCORDIA MILITVM Antoniniani of Maximianus: Their Problematic Attribution and Their Role in Diocletian’s Reform of the Coinage 223 Daniela Williams. Digging in the Archives: A Late Roman Coin Assemblage from the Synagogue at Ancient Ostia (Italy) 245 François de Callataÿ. How Poor are Current Bibliometrics in the Humanities? Numismatic Literature as a Case Study 275 Michael Fedorov. Early Mediaeval Chachian Coins with Trident-Shaped Tamghas, and Some Others 317 Antonino Crisà. An Eighteenth-Century Sicilian Coin Hoard from the Termini-Cerda Railway Construction Site (Palermo, 1869) 339 Review Articles 363

American Journal of Numismatics

Andrew R. Meadows Oliver D. Hoover Editor Managing Editor

Editorial Committee

John W. Adams John H. Kroll Boston, Massachusetts Oxford, England Jere L. Bacharach Eric P. Newman University of Washington St. Louis, Missouri Gilles Bransbourg Ira Rezak American Numismatic Society Stony Brook, New York Andrew Burnett Stephen K. Scher British Museum New York, New York Evridiki Georganteli Stuart D. Sears Harvard University Westport, Massachusetts Kenneth W. Harl Peter van Alfen Tulane University American Numismatic Society Paul T. Keyser Bernhard Weisser IBM T. J. Watson Research Center Münzkabinett John M. Kleeberg Staatliche Museen zu Berlin New York, New York

The Emperor in Action: Group Scenes in Trajanic Coins and Monumental Reliefs

Plates 11–29 Elizabeth Wolfram Thill*

Under Trajan, over ten new group scene types were created for imperial coinage. Significantly understudied, these new coin types were innovative in both composition and content, and represented a dramatic departure from traditional coin reverse types, which typically featured at most two figures. The new designs depicted the emperor interacting directly with his subjects, civilian and military. In both composition and theme, the Trajanic coin reverses are similar to the group scenes on contemporaneous monumental reliefs. The group scenes on both sculpture and coins point to a key emphasis in the Tra- janic period on the relationship and interaction between the emperor and his subjects, and broaden our understanding of both the artistic innovations and official representation of the Trajanic regime. The reign of Trajan presents such a wealth of information that, even after centuries of study, important developments have gone unobserved, and connections within and between media still remain to be discovered. One development in the Trajanic period that has escaped extensive study is the drastic increase in imperial coin types depicting numerous anthropomorphic figures. Previous to Trajan, coin reverses featuring multi-figure scenes had been limited primarily to depictions of the occasional adlocutio, congiarium, or sacrifice. The reign of Trajan, in contrast, saw fourteen new types of scenes with four or more figures. These new coin types

* Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis ([email protected]).

89 90 Elizabeth Wolfram Thill were innovative in terms of both composition and content, and represented a dramatic departure from traditional reverse types. Rather than using a single figure, such as a personification, to embody an abstract concept, the new “group scene” coins often depicted the emperor interacting directly with his subjects, both civilian and military. Many of these group scenes, such as the presentation of a foreign king before Trajan and his army, seem intended to represent (more or less accurately) concrete historical events. In both composition and theme, therefore, the Trajanic coin designs share many similarities with well-studied scenes in Trajanic monumental reliefs. Taken together, the group scenes on both sculpture and coins point to a key emphasis in the Trajanic period on the relationship and interaction between the emperor and his subjects. The numismatic group scenes thus broaden our understanding of both the artistic innovations of the Trajanic period and representations of the Trajanic regime. I. Introduction: Definitions and Methodology The goals of this article are twofold: (a) to present a definitive exposition of Trajan- ic group scenes in imperial coinage; and (b) to investigate the significance and relationship of these scenes to contemporary monumental reliefs. Following a brief methodological discussion, I first present an exploration of the compositional innovations of group scenes, through a description and preliminary discussion of the individual designs. I then explore the thematic innovations of group scenes, and the relationship between numismatic group scenes and Trajanic reliefs.

I.1. Group Scenes “Group scenes” are defined in this article as compositions that include four or more anthropomorphic figures. Most imperial numismatic designs featured only one or two figures.1 In the initial stages of this study, I selected three figures per scene as my defining criterion. While designs with three figures were in fact relatively infrequent, the resulting subset of coins was not sufficiently distinctive for clear analysis. Narrowing the range to four figures, however, resulted in a distinct and significant subset of imperial coin designs focused on historicizing scenes. One interesting aspect of Trajanic group scenes on coins is that they frequently refer to specific historical events or programs. The legends of the coins may specify to which particular historical event they refer (for example Trajan’s seventh, eighth or ninth imperatorial acclamation).2 Some of the representations of these events are purely symbolic, such as the alimenta type showing Trajan with a female and two children.3 Others take the form of historicizing vignettes, designs that give the impression of depicting an actual, specific historical event. 1 Anthropomorphic figures can comprise deities, personifications, and adult and child human figures on any scale. 2 MIR 497, 548, 549. 3 MIR 357, 358, 447. The Emperor in Action 91

This is not to say that these numismatic representations were meant to act as believable snapshots of the events they commemorated, or that they necessarily incorporated any particular historical details. Just as scenes in sculpted reliefs presented an ideal, not a documentary, of imperial behavior, the numismatic vignettes were carefully contrived compositions that may have had only tenuous connections to history. The representation of these events is often abstracted and simplified, and can feature personifications or deities, albeit rarely. It is not even necessary to assume that the events commemorated in historicizing vignettes ever occurred as discrete proceedings. What connects the designs in question is a compositional choice: to memorialize an event by depicting it as an interaction of numerous human actors, often with realistic details.Circus Maximus coins (MIR 182) that include an abstract personification of the circus also include concrete details such as a cheering crowd, the imperial podium, and metae. The use of historicizing vignettes can be contrasted with more common mythological or symbolic coin types, which allude to events but do not represent them directly. For example, some Iudaea Capta coins of Vespasian (e.g. BMC 532) show a captive, downtrodden female representing Judaea, but do not actually show the capture of Jerusalem. Similarly, coins commemorating the dedication of a temple typically show the temple without any illustration of its actual dedication (e.g. Vespasian’s dedication of the Capitoline temple; BMC 721). Trajanic group scenes, on the other hand, often seem to present the commemorated event in a more literal manner. This warrants specific study.

I.2. Methodology This article is founded on a systematic examination of coin types minted in Rome under the reign of Trajan. This examination draws on B. Woytek’s authoritative systematic work on Trajanic coinage, Die Reichsprägung des Kaisers Traianus (98– 117) in the Moneta Imperii Romani series (Woytek 2010). All typological distinctions and chronologies for Trajanic coinage presented in this paper are derived from Woytek’s volumes. This article compares imagery on Trajanic coinage and monumental reliefs,4 the two major media associated with the emperor and designed for a broad public audience. In making comparisons between imperial coinage and monumental reliefs, one must be careful to avoid several theoretical pitfalls. The first involves preservation. Coins were mass produced and have survived in large numbers, to such an extent that scholars can be plausibly certain that what survives in the archaeological record is a reasonable record of what was once minted in Rome. The same cannot be said for reliefs. Few examples of monumental reliefs survive, and 4 This article uses the term “monumental reliefs” to refer to large scale sculptures in relief, which were set up in publicly accessible space, by groups or individuals acting in the capac- ity of official positions of authority. These sort of sculptures are traditionally referred to as “historical” or “state” reliefs; see Sobocinski and Wolfram Thill forthcoming. 92 Elizabeth Wolfram Thill it is not at all clear to what extent the surviving sample is representative of what was once produced. Nevertheless, a sufficient number of individual imperial relief monuments survives to allow for a discussion of general trends, albeit a cautious one. A further problem in comparing coins to monumental reliefs is the question of scale and production. The small size of a coin flan meant that any numismatic design would be severely restricted in surface area. No comparative restriction existed for reliefs. The mass production of coins also meant that any numismatic design normally would need to be repeated in numerous dies, while a design for monumental reliefs needed to be executed only once. Coins are portable objects, while reliefs are not; coins are free-standing, while reliefs were incorporated within architectural frames and complexes; coins could be personally owned, while monumental reliefs were public monuments set up in public spaces. All of these important differences must be kept in mind when comparing reliefs with coins. One area of common ground for coins and reliefs is that questions of patronage, artistry, and audience for both media are fiercely debated. It is not within the scope of this article to discuss these issues in depth. Speaking broadly regarding patronage and artistry, however, it seems the most likely scenario is that at different times, different emperors took different degrees of interest in different aspects of different projects. Sorting out who was involved in what stage of a project or process remains nearly impossible. In this article, therefore, the neutral term “the production team” is used, to refer to anyone and everyone involved in the production of coins and sculpture. In terms of audience, the fact that coins were mass produced and reliefs were not would have serious implications for the intended audiences of both media. Unlike relief monuments, coins came in distinctive denominations with different circulation patterns, both physical and social.5 This raises the heavily debated question of whether denominations and designs may have been intended to tar- get diverse audiences, separated by class or location.6 Woytek and M. Beckmann have both examined the denominational distribution of Trajanic types, noting that the more complicated designs are found primarily on aurei and the larger base metal denominations, often contemporaneously (Table 1, below) (Beckmann 2009; Woytek 2009). It is difficult to tell, however, whether this reflects ideological 5 Admittedly, access patterns for relief monuments are generally a matter of speculation. The two in situ monuments specifically considered in this article, the Column of Trajan and the Beneventum Arch, are located in a forum and along a road, respectively, and thus were probably publicly available. 6 There has been considerable debate on the extent to which coins were designed to convey (potentially complicated) messages to various audiences: see Charlesworth 1937; Sutherland 1959; Levick 1982; Crawford 1983; Crump 1985; Metcalf 1993; Cheung 1998; Hekster 2003; Kemmers 2005; 2006; Beckmann 2009; Woytek 2009; Elkins 2010; Noreña 2011. The Emperor in Action 93 machinations or the production logistics of the imperial mint (see below). Even if we assume that the distribution of types was ideologically motivated, it is uncertain how to interpret a given distribution.7 Since this article cannot hope to do sufficient justice to questions of audience and reception, I will follow the basic hypothesis that the various designs of Trajanic coinage were intended to convey some message to the viewers who handled them, leaving aside any question of the efficacy of the message. The issue of the distribution of group scenes will be ad- dressed below.

7 The appearance of the same image on bothaurei and sestertii, for example, could mean that separate demographics were being targeted through the same image, but it would not be clear whether those audiences were meant to draw different or identical messages from that image. 94 Elizabeth Wolfram Thill , ,

. in ex. SC ,

. in ex. in ex. IMP NERVA CAES TRAIAN CAES IMP NERVA TRAIAN IMP CAES NERVA TRAIAN IMP CAES NERVA TRAIAN IMP CAES NERVA IMP CAES NERVAE IMP CAES NERVA TRAIAN IMP CAES NERVA COS V CONGIAR SECVND V CONGIAR COS SPQR OPTIMO PRINCIPI SC FIDES EXERCIT SC COS II P P CONG P R, SC II P CONG COS in ex. in field. Legend Obv: GERM P M. AVG Rev: Obv: GERM P M. AVG Rev: Obv: GERM P M. AVG Rev: Obv: TR P. GERM P M AVG Rev: in ex. Obv: P M GERM DACICVS AVG Rev: SC Obv: TR P M GER DAC TRAIANO AVG V P P COS Rev: SC

8 Two podia; podium l. 2 on Two figure a with third figures podium r. on steps; climbing tripod seated; in center Trajan podium on standing Trajan gestures attendant with meta and crowd; to of circus, personification reclining Description stands attendant, with Trajan, podium, addressing on soldiers below. soldiers. and altar with Trajan stands attendant, with Trajan, podium, addressing on below. soldiers, lictors podia; podium l. 3 on Two fourth figure with figures podium r. on steps; climbing Trajan seated. Period 1 Period Period 2 Period First half of 103 half of First c. 103–104 Date (CE) Date 98 Jan.–Feb. 98 Feb.–Fall 98 Feb.–Fall (Oct?) 98–Fall 99 Fall Sestertius Sestertius Denomination Sestertius Sestertius Sestertius Sestertius Table 1: Chronological overview of group scenes in Trajanic coinage. scenes in Trajanic overview group of 1: Chronological Table 4 7 # of Figures Figures # of 6 5 6 5 Circus Maximus Scene Type Adlocutio Military Oath Adlocutio Congiarium Congiarium 8 First appearance of a given type is marked in bold. type marked a given is of appearance 8 First 182 MIR 11 41 43 64 160 The Emperor in Action 95

above, above, in field. in ex. in ex. SC in ex., CAES NERVAE CAES NERVAE

IMP CAES NERVAE IMP CAES NERVAE IMP CAES NERVAE IMP IMP CAES NERVAE IMP CAES NERVAE SPQR OPTIMO PRINCIPI; ADVENTVS AVG ADVENTVS AVG TERTIVM, CONGIARIVM SPQR OPTIMO PRINCIPI, in ex. in ex. Obv: TR P M GER DAC TRAIANO AVG V P P. P COS Rev: SC Obv: TR P M GER DAC TRAIANO AVG V P P. P COS Rev: SPQR OPT PRINCIPI Obv: TR P M GER DAC TRAIANO AVG V P P. P COS Rev: SPQR OPT PRINCIPI Obv: TR P M GER DAC TRAIANO AVG V P P. P COS Rev: SC Obv: TR P M GER DAC TRAIANO AVG V P P. P COS Rev: ALIM ITAL - - Trajan crowned by Victory Victory by crowned Trajan eagles Dacians, kneeling with base below statue and walk led by horse, on Trajan followed and figure female ing 3 walking male figures. by walk led by horse, on Trajan followed and figure female ing 3 walking male figures. by podia; podium l. 2 on Two figure a with third figures podium r. on steps; climbing tripod seated; in center. Trajan standing facing Seated Trajan child. holding woman child, Period 3 Period c. 103–104 c. 107 c. 107 halfc. second of 107–108 COS VI) 111 (before Sestertius AR Multiplum AE Medallion Sestertius Sestertius 3 5 5 4 4 Statue Group Adventus Adventus Congiarium Alimenta 184 259 260 312 357 96 Elizabeth Wolfram Thill below. in field. in field. in field. in field. SC SC SC SC SC in ex., in ex., in ex., in ex., in ex., IMP CAES NERVAE IMP CAES NERVAE IMP CAES NERVAE IMP CAES NERVAE IMP CAES NERVAE IMP CAES NERVAE SPQR OPTIMO PRINCIPI, SPQR OPTIMO PRINCIPI, SPQR OPTIMO PRINCIPI, SPQR OPTIMO PRINCIPI, SPQR OPTIMO PRINCIPI, Obv: TR P M GER DAC TRAIANO AVG V P P. P COS Rev: ALIM ITAL Obv: TR P M GER DAC TRAIANO AVG V P P. P COS Rev: REST ITALIA Obv: TR P M GER DAC TRAIANO AVG V P P. P COS Rev: REST ITALIA Obv: TR P M GER DAC TRAIANO AVG V P P. P COS Rev: REST ITALIAE Obv: TR P M GER DAC TRAIANO AVG V P P. P COS Rev: REST ITAL Trajan, standing, facing facing standing, Trajan, 2 and woman kneeling children. standing facing standing, Trajan, 2 and woman kneeling children. standing facing standing, Trajan, 2 and woman kneeling children. standing facing standing, Trajan, 2 and woman kneeling children. standing Seated Trajan facing standing standing facing Seated Trajan child. holding woman child, 111 (before COS VI) 111 (before COS VI) 111 (before COS VI) 111 (before COS VI) 111 (before 111 (before COS VI) 111 (before Dupondius As Sestertius Sestertius Dupondius 4 4 4 4 4 Italia Italia Restituta Italia Restituta Italia Restituta Italia Restituta Alimenta 366 367 368 369 358 The Emperor in Action 97 S in ex. in ex., in ex. in field. in ex. SC above, in ex. in ex., MP CAES NERVAE MP CAES NERVAE IMP CAES NERVAE IMP CAES NERVAE GER TRAIANO AVG IMP GER TRAIANO AVG IMP IMP TRAIANO OPTIMO IMP TRAIANO OPTIMO PROFECTIO AVG PROFECTIO AVG PROFECTIO AVG REX PARTHVS AVGVSTI SPQR OPTIMO PRINCIPI, VII IMPERATOR below. Obv: TR P M GER DAC TRAIANO AVG VI P P. P COS Rev: ALIM ITAL Obv: VI P P. TR P COS P M DAC Rev: Obv: I TR P M GER DAC TRAIANO AVG VI P P. P COS Rev: C Obv: VI P P. TR P COS P M DAC Rev: Obv: TR P. P M GER DAC AVG Rev: PROFECTIO Obv: TR P. P M GER DAC AVG Rev: Trajan riding center; 2 center; riding Trajan behind; walking soldiers in front. walking Mars 3 center; riding Trajan behind; walking soldiers in front. walking Mars between male figure Kneeling soldiers standing of (a) group (b) seated and lictor and on attendant with Trajan podium. 3 center; riding Trajan behind; walking soldiers in front. walking Mars Seated Trajan facing standing standing facing Seated Trajan child. holding woman child, podium with on seated Trajan a facing attendants, 2 standing horse) (and soldiers of group raised hands. with Period 4 Period Oct. 113–Summer 114 Oct. 113–Summer Oct. 114 113–summer 114 113–Summer Late 114 Summer–Fall Late c. 112–113 114 Summer–Fall Late Aureus Sestertius Aureus Aureus As Aureus 4 5 9 5 4 10 Profectio Profectio Parthus Rex Profectio Alimenta Imperial Acclamation 430 486 431 496 447 497 98 Elizabeth Wolfram Thill

SC . . . . in ex., in ex., in ex., in ex., above. in ex. above, . . in ex. MP CAES NER TRAIANO MP CAES NER IMP TRAIANO OPTIMO IMP CAES TRAIANO IMP CAES TRAIANO TRAIANO IMP CAES NER IMP CAES NER TRAIANO IMP CAES NER PROFECTIO AVG REX PARTHVS AVGVSTI REX PARTHVS REGNA ADSIGNATA REX PARTHVS below. Obv: TR P. P M GER DAC AVG Rev: Obv: TR P M GER DAC OPTIMO AVG VI P P COS Rev: SC Obv: TR P M GER DAC OPTIMO AVG VI P P COS Rev: below Obv: GER DAC OPTIMO AVG Rev: PROFECTIO Obv: I GER DAC OPTIMO AVG Rev: Obv: GER DAC OPTIMO AVG Rev: Kneeling male figure between male figure Kneeling soldiers standing of (a) group (b) seated and lictor and on attendant with Trajan podium. 3 center; riding Trajan behind; walking soldiers in front. walking Mars between male figure Kneeling soldiers standing of (a) group (b) seated and lictor and on attendant with Trajan podium. 3 center; riding Trajan behind; walking soldiers in front. walking Mars between male figure Kneeling soldiers standing of (a) group (b) seated and lictor and on attendant with Trajan podium. podium with on seated Trajan kings 3 foreign 2 attendants; ground. on standing Late Summer–Fall 114 Summer–Fall Late 114 Summer–Fall Late 114 Summer–Fall Late 115 114–early Winter 115 114–early Winter 114–beginning Winter 116 of Aureus Sestertius Sestertius Aureus Aureus Aureus 9 5 10 5 9 6 Rex Parthus Profectio Rex Parthus Profectio Rex Parthus Regna Adsignata 498 508 509 515 516 531 The Emperor in Action 99

SC SC SC SC , . in ex., in ex., in ex., in ex., in ex., in ex., . . . . MP CAES NER TRAIAN MP CAES NER IMP CAES NER TRAIANO IMP CAES NER TRAIANO IMP CAES NER TRAIANO IMP CAES NER TRAIANO IMP CAES NER REX PARTHVS IMPERATOR VIIII IMPERATOR REGNA ADSIGNATA REGNA ADSIGNATA IMPERATOR VIII IMPERATOR Obv: TR P M GER DAC OPTIMO AVG VI P P. P COS Rev: below. Obv: TR P M GER DAC OPTIMO AVG VI P P COS Rev: below. Obv: TR P M GER DAC OPTIMO AVG VI P P COS Rev: in ex. Obv: TR P M GER DAC OPTIMO AVG VI P P COS Rev: below. Obv: I GER DAC OPTIM AVG PARTHICO Rev: Trajan seated on podium with on seated Trajan a facing attendants, 2 standing horse) (and soldiers of group raised hands. with podium with on seated Trajan kings 3 foreign 2 attendants; ground. on standing between male figure Kneeling soldiers standing of (a) group (b) seated and lictor and on attendant with Trajan podium. podium with on seated Trajan kings 3 foreign 2 attendants; ground. on standing Trajan seated on podium with on seated Trajan a facing attendants, 2 standing horse) (and soldiers of group raised hands. with Period 5 Period Winter 114–beginning Winter 116 of 114–beginning Winter 116 of 114–beginning Winter 116 of 116 Fall 20 Feb.–c. Winter 114–beginning Winter 116 of Sestertius Sestertius Sestertius Aureus Sestertius 9–10 6 9 6 9–10 - Imperial Acclamation Regna Adsig nata Rex Parthus Imperial Acclamation Regna Adsignata 549 550 551 548 564 100 Elizabeth Wolfram Thill .

, , SC , REGNA ADSIGNATA IMP CAES NER TRAIANO IMP CAES NER IMP CAES NER TRAIANO IMP CAES NER TRAIANO IMP CAES NER ARMENIA ET REX PARTHIS DATVS REX PARTHIS in field. in ex. . Rev: Obv: GER DAC OPTIMO AVG VI P P. TR P COS P M PARTHICO Rev: IN MESOPOTAMIA P R REDACTAE POTESTATEM SC Obv: GER DAC OPTIMO AVG VI P TR P COS P M PARTHICO P SC Obv: GER DAC OPTIMO AVG VI P TR P COS P M PARTHICO Rev: in ex. Standing Trajan; reclining reclining Trajan; Standing gods 2 river and Armenia below. podium with on seated Trajan kings 3 foreign 2 attendants; ground. on standing podium with on seated Trajan and king standing attendant; ground on Parthia kneeling below. 20 Feb. 116–Aug. 117 116–Aug. 20 Feb. 20 Feb. 116–Aug. 117 116–Aug. 20 Feb. 117 116–Aug. 20 Feb. Sestertius Sestertius Sestertius 4 6 4 Trajan and and Trajan Armenia Regna Adsignata Rex Parthis Datus 590 593 594 The Emperor in Action 101 .

, II. Group Scenes in Trajanic Coinage , SC , The following section presents a description of the various types of Trajanic group scenes on coin reverses.9 I organize the types by composition, since composition would have been one of the most striking features of these new coin types. The group scenes thus can be divided into three main categories, proceeding from simple to complex: REGNA ADSIGNATA IMP CAES NER TRAIANO IMP CAES NER IMP CAES NER TRAIANO IMP CAES NER TRAIANO IMP CAES NER ARMENIA ET REX PARTHIS DATVS REX PARTHIS 1. Designs with figures on single level. in field. in ex.

. Rev: 2. Designs with mounted emperor. Obv: GER DAC OPTIMO AVG VI P P. TR P COS P M PARTHICO Rev: IN MESOPOTAMIA P R REDACTAE POTESTATEM SC Obv: GER DAC OPTIMO AVG VI P TR P COS P M PARTHICO P SC Obv: GER DAC OPTIMO AVG VI P TR P COS P M PARTHICO Rev: in ex. 3. Designs with emperor on suggestus.

II.1. Designs with figures on single level 1. Military Oath MIR 41 Sestertius, February–Fall 98 ce Description: This subject appeared in only one group scene design. Trajan, in toga praetexta, stands to the left, his right arm extended over a small altar topped with Standing Trajan; reclining reclining Trajan; Standing gods 2 river and Armenia below. podium with on seated Trajan kings 3 foreign 2 attendants; ground. on standing podium with on seated Trajan and king standing attendant; ground on Parthia kneeling below. flames (Pl. 11, 1a). Facing him across the altar are four soldiers. One soldier is clearly in the foreground, standing nearly frontal and reaching his right hand out to grasp that of Trajan. Standing behind the soldier to the right are two other soldiers, one of whom holds a shield. A fourth soldier appears only as a face above the leading soldier’s right shoulder. A legionary eagle and a second standard are in the background. Trajan stands more than a head taller than the other figures. 20 Feb. 116–Aug. 117 116–Aug. 20 Feb. 20 Feb. 116–Aug. 117 116–Aug. 20 Feb. 117 116–Aug. 20 Feb. Discussion: As Woytek has demonstrated, this design is clearly based on Domiti- anic predecessors.10 These predecessors all share the basic composition of emperor standing left, grasping the hand of a soldier over an altar with other soldiers watching. BMC 344 (85 ce) is particularly close to the Trajanic example, sharing the number of soldiers (four), the position and number of standards (two), and even Sestertius Sestertius Sestertius smaller details such as the shield on the far right soldier’s shoulder (also seen in BMC 301 and 368) and the “floating” face above the frontal soldier11 (Pl. 11, 1a, 1b).

9 These descriptions conform to examples illustrated in Woytek 2010, which are, to the 4 6 4 best of my and Dr. Woytek’s knowledge, representative of the material. I use the term “type” in this article to designate a set of coin reverses that refer to the same subject (e.g. the set of coins celebrating the alimenta). “Design,” on the other hand, indicates particular, distinct imagery within a type (e.g. the design, within the alimenta type, featuring Trajan and a kneeling woman). A design may have multiple “compositional variants,” where certain ele- Trajan and and Trajan Armenia Regna Adsignata Rex Parthis Datus ments are divergent within a constant overall design (e.g. the alimenta design with Trajan and a kneeling woman may feature one or two children). 10 BMC 301, 344, 368; Woytek 2005: 202–204. 590 593 594 11 BMC 301 reveals that the face belongs to a standard bearer. 102 Elizabeth Wolfram Thill

While the Domitianic oath scene was repeated and varied, however, the Trajanic design was only produced briefly, towards the beginning of his reign, and is now extremely rare (Woytek 2005: 202).12 This type’s obvious theme of harmony with the army would be taken up less explicitly in other subjects and designs instead.

2. Statue Group13 MIR 184 Sestertius, c. 103–104 ce Description: This type appeared in only one design and shows a statue group erect- ed for Trajan, probably following the victory of the First Dacian War (Pl. 12, 2). The focus of the composition is a large togate statue of Trajan standing on a prominent statue base. In his left hand he holds an imperial scepter, and in his right a laurel branch. He is crowned by a Victory, suspended in the air to the right. On either side of Trajan, reaching up to him, are two kneeling Dacians, wearing traditional costumes of cloaks, trousers, and pilei (caps). Compared to Trajan, the Da- cians and Victory are on a miniature scale. Below the Dacians are four eagles, two on each side, each with a vexillum behind them. The eagles stand on a garlanded trapezoidal base. Discussion: As a likely representation of an actual statue (as suggested by the statue bases), the composition is determined in part by the design of the actual statue group. At the same time, it is probable that the statue has not been depicted strictly faithfully. The floating position of the Victory in particular is difficult to imagine in a statue group. Typically the crowning figure in such a composition is positioned behind the emperor.14

12 I am grateful to an anonymous reader for pointing out that the brief use of this type may be related to its connections to Domitian, which could have proven offensive to some influential party. If this were the case, it would raise interesting questions of patronage and reception, since it would imply that a design was produced, noticed and subject to negative feedback (from someone, the emperor, the senate, some mint official, or the people at large), and then recalled. To speculate further, it is possible to envision a scenario where Nerva’s sudden death, and Trajan’s absence from Rome, led to the hasty reliance on a preexisting type, which was subsequently reviewed and revised. Mint designers did return to Domi- tianic predecessors later in Trajan’s reign for elements of the Trajan and Armenia design (MIR 590; see main text), although here the parallels were not so obvious. 13 Although Trajan stands on a base in this design, all human figures are on the same level, with the bent knees and feet of the Dacians on the same plane as Trajan’s feet. 14 This can be seen in a few obvious examples, such as the Gemma Augustea, the Chariot Frieze on the Arch of Titus, the Great Trajanic Frieze, and the Beneventum Arch. The motif can also be seen in Trajanic coinage (MIR 121–122, 167, 185, 320–322; Woytek 2005: 204–209). If part of the actual statue group, the Victory in the Statue Group type may have been moved in the numismatic design in order to make her more visible, or simply to take advantage of the medium’s greater freedom (Strack 1931: 112). The production team may The Emperor in Action 103

The inclusion of multiple figures in the numismatic design was ultimately a compositional choice, since the emperor and Victory, combined with the legend, should have been sufficient to clarify the identity of the statue. The Dacians nevertheless are included, and with great care: even given the small scale, the production team was able to make the figures’ identity clear through the careful rendering of their costume. Rather than simplifying the design to identifying elements, an attempt was made at a detailed rendering of a complicated, multi-figural group.

3. Alimenta (Trajan, female figure, and two children) MIR 357, 358, 447 Sestertius, dupondius, and as, 111–113 ce Description: Only one design explicitly commemorating the alimenta program took the form of a group scene. A togate Trajan sits on a sella curulis with his feet on a small stool (Pl. 13, 3a). His left hand is raised, balancing a long, eagle-topped scepter on the sella, and his right hand is lower and outstretched. To the left, frontal but with her head turned towards Trajan, stands a woman wearing a stephane. Her identity is unclear but she is probably a personification, perhaps Annona or Italia.15 To her left stands a boy, who clings with a raised hand to her dress; in her left arm she holds a smaller child, who leans out with both hands towards Trajan. Discussion: Under Trajan, three separate reverse designs commemorated the institution of the imperial alimenta.16 The imperial alimenta program provided 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 the towns’ children.17 Possibly begun under Nerva, the program was expanded greatly under Trajan. The first Trajanic alimenta design on coins features a traditional composition: a personification ofAnnona (Mattingly 1936: 183; Woytek 2010: 372) standing center holding a cornucopia, with a much smaller togate child standing on the left (Pl. 13, 3b). This personification design appeared on three distinct base metal

also have been working from a description, rather than from the statue itself. 15 For an identification as Italia, see Strack 1931: No. 404; Mattingly 1936: 184; Woytek 2010, 374. Mattingly and Sydenham (1926: 278) refer to the figure only as a woman. 16 I do not include under the alimenta category MIR 352, whose legend includes ALIM ITAL in exergue but whose imagery clearly follows that of the Italia Restituta design type (see text). For discussion of the alimenta types as a group, see e.g. Torelli 1997: 170–171. 17 The imperialalimenta program apparently was inspired by preexisting private alimentary schemes, which had important connections to ideologies of patronage. 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 concep- tions of poverty relief, see Woolf 1990. 104 Elizabeth Wolfram Thill series between 111–113 ce and on denarii of c. 112–113 ce.18 The second Trajanic alimenta design (MIR 345, 376) appeared on aurei of 111 ce and features a togate Trajan with two small children (Pl. 13, 3c). Trajan stretches out his right hand to the children; the child on the left, a boy, raises one hand to nearly meet Trajan’s, while the girl raises two hands. Taken together, the three alimenta designs show interesting variation in the expression of the idea of the alimenta. The Trajan-and-children design is odd in and of itself: it features simply Trajan and two children, who, while broadly sym- bolizing the newly-assured prosperity of the Roman people, most likely represent human recipients of the alimenta program. For the emperor to appear with generic children that are not his own relatives, the children of vanquished kings, or so on, was unusual. The more complicated Trajan-and-female figure design adds a personification, and changes the size of the smaller child to almost that of an infant.19 The composition of the female figure with a child standing to her left is also seen in the traditional personification design; in the latter design, however, the female holds a cornucopia instead of a second child. Despite the overlap of elements, the Trajanic alimenta coins do not show a clear chronological progression from simple to more complicated compositions. Instead the traditional composition centered on a single standing personification came into play alongside the more populated scenes. There is little denominational overlap: not only was the Trajan-and-children design reserved for aurei, but it is also the only design on gold coinage to explicitly mention the alimenta in its legend (the related Italia Restituta coinage also appeared on gold; see below). Finally, no literal depiction of the alimenta program in action, along the lines of the Congi- arium or Imperial Acclamation types, is preserved on coinage. This is all the more striking, given that a more narrative-driven depiction of the alimenta program is preserved on the Beneventum Arch (Pl. 14, 3d; see below).

4. Italia Restituta MIR 349, (352), 366, 367, 368, 369 Aureus, sestertius, dupondius, as, 111 ce Description: This type appeared in only one design. The design had two compositional variants, one of which was a group scene (Pl. 15, 4a). In the basic design, a frontal, togate Trajan stands to the right, extending his right hand to a kneeling female figure in flowing drapery. This presumed personification holds a globe and

18 The design appeared onsestertii , dupondii, and asses in early 111 ce (MIR 354, 355, 356; Woytek 2010: 372–373); on sestertii and asses in later 111 ce (MIR 382, 383; Woytek 2010: 385); on sestertii, dupondii, and asses in c. 112–113 ce (MIR 444, 445, 446; Woytek 2010: 411–412); and on denarii of c. 112–113 ce (MIR 395; Woytek 2010: 390). 19 It has been suggested that this type may have been based on a Trajanic statue group, depicted on the Anaglypha reliefs; see infra n. 65. The Emperor in Action 105 in some examples wears a mural crown. She extends her hand to grip Trajan’s. In the first compositional variant, seen onaurei (MIR 349), a single togate child stands between the kneeling personification and Trajan, raising two hands to the emperor. In the second compositional variant, found in the base metals, a smaller but otherwise identical child stands to the right of the first child.20 Discussion: The Italia Restituta type is obviously related, in terms of conception, composition, and chronology, to the Alimenta type, particularly the design incor- porating Trajan, the female figure, and the two children. Both types celebrate Tra- jan’s personal active interest in Italy, and the children draw special attention to his concern for Italy’s future. The close relationship between the types is particularly apparent in MIR 352, most likely a mistake, where the Italia Restituta design is combined with the legend ALIM ITAL in ex.

5. Trajan and Armenia MIR 590 Sestertius, 20 February 116–August 117 ce Description: This type appeared in one design, with three compositional variants (Pl. 16, 5). In the basic design, a frontal Trajan in military dress stands in the center, holding a parazonium and lance. His head is turned towards two figures seated on the ground. The one closest to Trajan is a heavily draped female wearing a tall crown. Her legs are stretched forward in front of Trajan’s, and her left arm falls behind her. The other seated figure, a half-nude bearded male, leans back against a water jug and holds a reed. Across from the two figures, also facing Trajan, lounges a nearly identical half-nude bearded male, also with a water jug and reed. The legend identifies the figures as Armenia and the river gods of the Tigris and Euphrates.21 The three compositional variations are distinguished by Trajan’s pose and the direction of Armenia’s gaze (Woytek 2010: 478): (a) Compositional Variation 1: Trajan stands in three-quarter view facing left (Pl. 16, 5a). He holds the lance in his left hand and theparazonium in his right. His right foot is raised and steps firmly on the legs of Armenia. Arme- nia sits oriented to the right and looks up at Trajan. (b) Compositional Variation 2: Trajan stands in three-quarter view facing right (Pl. 16, 5b). He holds the lance in his right hand and the parazonium in his left. His left foot is raised and steps firmly on the legs of Armenia. Armenia sits oriented to the right. She looks either directly in front of her or behind her at the river god.

20 MIR 366, 367, 368, 369. 21 ARMENIA ET MESOPOTAMIA IN POTESTATEM P R REDACTAE. 106 Elizabeth Wolfram Thill

(c) Compositional Variation 3: Trajan stands frontal in classic contrapposto pose, his weight on his right leg and his glance firmly to the right (Pl. 16, 5c). He holds the lance in his right hand and the parazonium in his left. His left foot rests on Armenia, although the positioning of the leg is awkward. Armenia sits oriented to the left. She looks dejectedly downwards and holds her head in her right hand. Discussion: This design is related to two earlier Trajanic designs. Both of the earlier designs feature a figure, either Trajan or Pax, standing in three-quarter view facing left, with the left hand raised holding an object (a lance for Trajan and cornucopia for Pax), and right leg striding on a protome of Dacia.22 The examples with Trajan resemble Compositional Variation 1 very closely. Woytek has shown as well that the Trajanic type clearly is based on a Domitianic predecessor (BMC 298), which shows Domitian in military garb with parazonium and lance, his foot on a reclining river god (presumably the Rhine) (Woytek 2005: 224–226). The later Trajan and Armenia type, coming at the end of Trajan’s reign, takes this central motif of a figure treading on an enemy and complicates the design, expanding the (literally) downtrodden enemy to include a full figure of Armenia, and adding the additional figures of the river gods. This same motif of an emperor striding on a defeated enemy can be seen most famously in a statue of Hadrian found at Ierapetra in Crete, now in Istanbul. In- deed, several elements of the latest numismatic design lend it a statuary feel, not least the classic contrapposto stance of Compositional Variation 3, which obviously evokes famous statue types. There is no need, however, to reconstruct an actual Trajanic statuary group as a direct model. In the first place, there are no statue bases shown on the coins, in contrast to several other Trajanic types. Secondly, the important variations in the poses of both Trajan and Armenia, the two main figures, suggest that the production team was not copying a model directly.23 Thirdly, the design has clear numismatic predecessors. The Trajanic design, then, should be seen as a numismatic phenomenon, showing experimentation within new freer parameters for the numbers of figures that could be included in reverse designs.

22 The design featuring Trajan appeared on aurei (MIR 180) and sestertii (MIR 181) in c. 103–104 ce (Woytek 2010: 273). The design showing Pax was more popular; it appeared on denarii (MIR 194, c. 103–105 ce), aurei (MIR 200, c. 104/105–107 ce and later), dupondii (MIR 206, c. 104/105–107 ce and later), and asses (MIR 207, c. 104/105–107 ce and later). In one variant (some examples of MIR 200), there is a tropaeum to the right of Pax (Woytek 2010: 288–289). 23 These are not minor variations, since elements such as whether or not Trajan was emphatically striding on Armenia, and where the captured province was looking, would presumably be crucial components of any theoretical statue group’s composition, message, and affect (although these three components need not necessarily be successfully integrated, or apparent to the coin production team). The Emperor in Action 107

II.2. Designs with mounted emperor 6. Adventus MIR 259, 260 AR multiplum, Æ medallion, c. 106–107 ce Description: The adventus type appears in one basic design under Trajan (Pl. 17, 6a). The center of the composition is taken up by a mounted Trajan, in military dress and holding a lance. His horse strides to the right with one foreleg raised. In front of the horse is a draped female figure, probably Felicitas,24 holding a cornucopia and caduceus(?). She moves forward to the right while looking back towards Trajan. In the foreground to the left of the horse is Mars,25 a striding nude figure holding a spear and shield. Two armored soldiers can be seen between Mars and Trajan and behind the horse. Discussion: The adventus numismatic type was a Trajanic invention. In monumental reliefs, the earlier Domitianic (?) Cancelleria Relief A preserves a broadly similar composition to that of the Trajanic numismatic type, in that it features Mars and a female divine figure moving to one side in companionship with the emperor. In the relief, however, the emperor is not mounted, and there is no (preserved) legend to specify the subject.26 The numismatic adventus design was, therefore, novel, at least as far as we can tell from extant evidence. Under Trajan the adventus type appears on one small group of multipla and medallions, celebrating Trajan’s adventus from the Second Dacian War. The design seems to have been created specifically for these presentation pieces and does not appear on any regular Roman denominations. The brief production of this type is surprising, given the subject’s later prominence in Trajanic monumental reliefs (see below). On Trajanic coins the basic composition was given over to the profectio scene (Pl. 18, 7), which would be more popular.

24 For identification of this figure as Felicitas, see Strack 1931: No. 118; Mattingly 1936: 68; Koeppel 1969: 182; Woytek 2010: 322. 25 Strack (1931: No. 118) and Mattingly (1936: 68) group the figure with the other soldiers. Woytek (2010: 120, 322) sees this figure as Mars. 26 The topics of the Cancelleria Reliefs are debated extensively, and no interpretation has gained broad consensus. Based on its emphasis on movement, Relief A is generally thought to show either an adventus or a profectio. 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. 108 Elizabeth Wolfram Thill

7. Profectio MIR 430, 486, 496, 508, 515 Aureus and sestertius, October 113–early 115 ce (maximum span) Description: TheProfectio type appears in one basic design under Trajan, with two compositional variants (Pl. 18, 7). As for the Adventus design, the center of the profectio composition is dominated by Trajan in military dress with lance, mounted on a horse that strides to the right with one foreleg raised. To the right in front of the horse stands a male figure, probably Mars, given his greater scale, open composition, and position set off from the other figures, a position formally held by a personification in theAdventus design27 His head is turned back towards Trajan. The figure wears armor and carries a lance across his body and a round shield behind him. To the left of the horse is a group of armored soldiers facing right. In the first compositional variant, found on the earliest examples (MIR 430), two soldiers follow the horse; in the second compositional variant (Pl. 18, 7),28 one soldier directly follows the horse, with two soldiers behind the body of the horse. Discussion: The Profectio numismatic type was also a Trajanic invention. Unlike the Adventus type, a profectio scene appeared on two major denominations, one gold and one base metal, and was in production for several years. The Profectio design also differs from itsadventus predecessors in the substitution of a male figure for a female figure leading the emperor. The profectio scene would go on to be popular on the Column of Trajan as well.

II.3. Designs with suggestus 8. Adlocutio MIR 11, 43 Sestertius, January–Fall 98 ce Description: The adlocutio type appears in two designs in the Trajanic period. In the first design, produced briefly from January–February 98 ce (MIR 11), Trajan stands in a dynamic pose on a low platform on the right (Pl. 18, 8a). He wears military dress and holds a lance in his left hand, with his right hand raised and his right leg slightly behind him. Behind him, also on the podium, is a second standing figure in military dress, probably an officer. A group of four soldiers stands to the left, looking up at the emperor. The soldiers wear helmets and hold long shields; two standards can be seen in the background above the soldiers. 27 For identifications of this figure as a soldier, without discussion of Mars, see Mattingly and Sydenham 1926: 262; Strack 1931: 218, no. 208; Mattingly 1936: 102–103; Koeppel 1969: 180; Woytek 2010: 406, 431, 436. Dr. Woytek (personal communication) now accepts this figure as Mars. 28 MIR 486, 496, 508, 515. The Emperor in Action 109

In the second design, produced from February–fall 98 ce (MIR 43), Trajan and an attendant again stand on a low platform, but this time on the left (Pl. 18, 8b). Trajan does not hold a lance and neither hand is raised emphatically. The right side of the composition is taken up by two soldiers, again helmeted, holding shields and facing up towards Trajan, with standards in the background. In this design, a horse, meant to evoke the cavalry, has been added to the group. Between Trajan and the soldiers are two figures (one of them certainly a lictor, standing in front of the podium facing the soldiers). These figures are on a smaller scale and may be meant to be in the background. Discussion: The Adlocutio type is one of the few group scenes to appear on imperial reverses before the Trajanic period. While broadly similar, the two Trajanic designs depicting an adlocutio nevertheless show significant differences: in the emperor’s stance (dynamic vs. static); in the number of soldiers; in the inclusion of a lictor; and in the inclusion of a horse. This is especially interesting considering the short chronological gap between the two designs. Trajanic adlocutio scenes appear exclusively on coins from the first year of Trajan’s reign. This brief appearance of the subject is striking, given the later importance of adlocutio scenes on the Column of Trajan (Baumer 1991).

9. Congiarium MIR 64, 160, 312 Sestertius, fall 98–108 ce Description: TheCongiarium type appears in two designs that share several elements. The focal point of both designs is two large podia (Pl. 21, 9a, 9b). Trajan, togate, is seated on a sella curulis on the right podium, facing left with his right arm outstretched. On the left podium, two figures, one seated (henceforth Figure A) and one standing (Figure B), face a third figure who approaches via a stairway/ ladder (Figure C). Figure A, probably an official, leans forward with a stylus. Fig- ure B holds up a board or plaque-like object, usually interpreted as a tessera or some sort of counting device. There has been little consensus as to whom Figure B represents.29 In the first design (MIR 64, fall–end 98 ce), the two podia are clearly separated (Pl. 21, 9a). Figure A and Figure B are joined on the left podium by an additional standing figure, who holds out the fold of his toga to receive a donation (Figure D). Figure C is below, his hands engaged in his task of climbing. Trajan is on a much

29 Suggested identifications of Figure B in the Trajanic coins include: atablifer with a tessera (Strack 1931, 88; Woytek 2010: 220, 265, 349); “statue of Liberalitas” (Mattingly and Sydenham 1926: 277 [RIC 450/MIR 160]); “Liberalitas standing, holding abacus in r. hand” (Mattingly 1936: 147; see also 161); “statue of Libertas” (possibly a typo, Mattingly and Sydenham 1926: 272 [RIC 380/MIR 64]); Liberalitas explicitly as personification (Ham- mond 1953: 158). 110 Elizabeth Wolfram Thill larger scale than the other four figures; he and his podium are large and clearly dominate the scene, taking up approximately half of the composition and leaving the other four smaller figures markedly cramped. In the second design (MIR 160, first half of 103? ce; MIR 312, second half 107–108 ce), the two podia are now adjacent, although the podium beneath Tra- jan is still differentiated by its slightly greater height (Pl. 21, 9b). Figure A and Fig- ure B are on the left podium, but Figure D has been omitted. Figure C takes over the supplicant’s role by holding out his toga. A tall tripod, set on the left podium, forms a longitudinal axis for the scene and clearly separates Trajan from the rest of the composition. The tripod may indicate location, since earlier examples of congiarium coins under Nero (e.g. BMC 138, 140; Pl. 22, 9c–d) and Nerva (BMC 87) feature a figure of Minerva in this position. Trajan is again on a significantly larger scale than the other figures. Discussion: TheCongiarium type had been introduced under Nero, with significant variation (see below). Under Trajan, in contrast, the type shows considerable continuity over time in its basic composition and constituent elements. At the same time, there is a clear compositional evolution, with general movement towards consolidation, simplification of composition and narrative, and clarity. More room is given over to the action on the left podium, and the number of sup- plicants is reduced.

10. Circus Maximus MIR 182 Sestertius, c. 103–104 ce Description: The subject of the Circus Maximus restorations appears in one group scene design (Pl. 22, 10a). To the right, a togate Trajan stands on a small, low podium with his right arm outstretched. Another attending figure, slightly shorter, stands behind him. Below the emperor to the left is a crowd of four standing togate figures; the crowd members all look up towards Trajan and raise their hands. The closest figure to Trajan also holds a scroll. The outstretched hands of both Trajan and crowd are isolated clearly in the central open field of the design. The meta of the circus, represented by three pillars, rises to the left of the crowd. Below and slightly in front of the crowd lounges a bearded personification, presumably the spirit of the circus, resting on a wheel. Discussion: Under Trajan, two separate, contemporaneous designs commemorated the restoration of the Circus Maximus (Pls. 22–23, 10a–b). Only one of these designs (MIR 182) was a group scene. The other design MIR( 175, c. 103–104 ce) shows a detailed aerial view of the Circus Maximus building, complete with monumental arches, temple, and spina (Pl. 23, 10b). Woytek has shown that the two circus designs are connected through at least one obverse die link (Woytek 2010, The Emperor in Action 111 pl. 142). Thus two very different approaches towards commemorating the same topic were in operation at one and the same time. It may be that the group scene type commemorated a particular event associated with the restorations, while the more typical building design commemorated the restorations in general. If so, this would be an interesting experiment in moving beyond commemorating the physical restorations of a building, towards immortalizing an associated event. The mix- ing of human and divine figures is also intriguing.

11. Rex Parthus MIR: 431, 498, 509, 516, 551 Aureus and sestertius, late 113–beginning 116 ce (maximum span) Description: This type appeared in one basic design, with compositional variation (Pl. 23, 11a). The basic design depicts the Parthian King of Armenia presenting his diadem to a seated Trajan, in the presence of the Roman army. Trajan, in military dress, is seated on a sella castrensis on a podium to the right. His feet are set apart on a stool, his right hand outstretched. Behind him stands an official, also in military dress. Directly in front of the podium, at the center of the design, is the Parthi- an king, shown in profile with his knees bent slightly and his hands outstretched to Trajan’s feet. Behind the king, seen between the king’s hands and emperor’s feet, stands a lictor with fasces, his back to the podium. Filling in the rest of the design behind and to the left of the king are five to six soldiers, facing Trajan. They wear full armor and hold shields, spears, and three standards. The main differences between this design’s compositional variants have to do with the relative compression of the design. The first compositional variant follows the basic design just outlined and was seen on both aurei and sestertii.30 The second compositional variant appeared only on sestertii (MIR 509) and features a larger podium, a larger Trajan, larger lictor and attendant, and more open space (Pl. 23, 11a). The lictor is turned outward, clarifying his identity. As a result of these changes the design is clearer, taking advantage of the larger flan size. The exaggerated discrepancy in scale and size of the emperor and his attendant, however, decreases the sense of realism. Discussion: This design apparently commemorates a very specific historical event, namely the subjugation of the Parthian king of Armenia before Trajan.31 The design does so in a highly historicizing manner, creating a sense of realism that is nevertheless undermined by subtle distinctions in scale. The primary components creating this sense of realism are the inclusion of the soldiers and lictor, which emphasize Trajan’s camaraderie with the army. At the same time, these elements complicate the design. As seen below, this sort of complicated design would not

30 Aurei: MIR 431, 498, 516; sestertii: MIR 551. 31 See e.g., Cassius Dio 68,19,2f; Beckmann 2009: 149–150; Woytek 2010: 142. 112 Elizabeth Wolfram Thill be repeated in the later commemoration of a similar event, the crowning of the Arsacid King of Parthia (Rex Parthis Datus, MIR 594; Pl. 23, 11b), which features a more open, clearer composition.

12. Imperial Acclamation MIR: 497, 548, 549 Aureus, sestertius, summer 114–beginning 116 ce (maximum span) Description: This type appears in only one basic design, with compositional variants (Pl. 25, 12a). Trajan, in military dress, is seated on a sella castrensis on a large podium to the left, his right hand outstretched. Two officials in military dress join Trajan on the podium; one stands at the emperor’s back to the left, and the other stands in the background to the right, appearing over the emperor’s outstretched hand. This latter figure sometimes holds a scroll. A much smaller figure, a lictor with fasces, stands on the ground with his back to the podium. A group of soldiers stands to the right of the lictor, looking up at the emperor. They raise their hands in the air towards Trajan’s own outstretched hand, with their hands isolated and seen clearly in the center of the composition in the space between soldiers and podium. The soldiers wear helmets and hold long shields. In the middle of the soldiers is the forepart of a horse, as on the Adlocutio design. Standards can be seen in the background above the soldiers. The primary compositional variations in the basic design are in (a) the number of soldiers (5 to 6); (b) the number of standards (2 to 3); and the legend. The first two variations are probably related to the available size of the flan. The last is related to the imperial acclamation commemorated, which is specified, and the denomination.32 Discussion: This is the first appearance of an imperial acclamation on a Roman coin (Woytek 2009: 127). The type, begun on aurei and then continued on sestertii, shows the acclamation of Trajan as imperator by the army, and was used to commemorate the seventh through ninth acclamations. It is not clear why this subject was introduced only with the seventh acclamation, but it may be related to a sudden intense interest in all things having to do with the Parthian campaigns (Beckmann 2009: 149–150; Woytek 2009: 130–131). The introduction of this type under Trajan fits well within a general Trajanic numismatic trend to emphasize historical events, and to illustrate them directly.33

32 In the aurei (MIR 497) the legend reads IMPERATOR VII in the exergue. In the two sestertii versions (MIR 548, 549) the legends read IMPERATOR VIII and IMPERATOR VIIII in the exergue, respectively, with S C below. 33 The Trajanic coins can be compared to a related Augustan type that shows two figures, presumably generals, presenting olive branches to the seated emperor (e.g. BMC 446). Whatever the exact ritual or occasion portrayed on the Augustan coins (unlike for the Tra- janic coins, there is no specifying legend), the effect is certainly more abstract, and the The Emperor in Action 113

In some respects, the acclamation design is conventional within Trajanic coinage, since it incorporates several elements from previous adlocutio designs, such as the emperor (although seated instead of standing), a crowd of soldiers, and the forequarters of a horse. The theme of harmony between emperor and army is also conventional. The topic, however, is novel, since it represents not a gift or act of the emperor to the people, but an act of the people towards the emperor. The outstretched hands of the emperor and soldiers is a gesture seen in many Trajanic group scenes, and one that emphasizes both the connection between emperor and subject, and their respective roles as giver and receiver (e.g. Pl. 13, 3a, 3c and Pl. 14, 4a). In this variation, however, Trajan is the receiver. Despite this role, he still maintains the dominant visual position traditionally held by the giver; the raised hands of the soldiers not only fit within the narrative, but also echo the appeals of the receivers seen in other coin types. The choice of commemorating the imperial acclamations on coins, and its portrayal in a historical vignette, elevated what had become an almost routine (and no longer optional) occurrence to the status of an important event.

13. Regna Adsignata MIR: 531, 550, 564, 593 Aureus, sestertius, winter 114–August 117 ce (maximum span) Description: This type appeared in one design, with two compositional variants (Pl. 26, 13a). In the basic design, Trajan sits in military dress on a sella castrensis on a prominent podium, his right hand extended in front of him. Behind him to the right stands another figure in military dress, probably an officer. A third figure in military dress, a lictor, stands behind and to the left of Trajan, holdingfasces (not always clear) in his left hand. Three figures stand on the ground in front of the podium. These three are dressed identically in foreign dress (a long cape and trousers), and have identical hair styles. The figure closest to Trajan reaches up with both hands to receive a diadem from the emperor. The two compositional variants have to do with the position of the lictor’s right arm. In the aurei examples (MIR 531, 564), the lictor’s arm is generally close to his side, while in the sestertii examples (MIR 550, 593; Pl. 26, 13a) he extends his arm more clearly towards the first foreign figure, as if presenting him to Trajan. This greater clarity of action is probably made possible by the increased flan size. In some examples of both compositional variants, the lictor holds a staff in his right hand. Discussion: Like the Rex Parthus and Imperial Acclamation types, this scene commemorates a specific historic event, namely the allocation of kingdoms by Trajan emphasis is not on the army as a whole. My thanks to C. Gazdac for bringing this to my attention. 114 Elizabeth Wolfram Thill to eastern client kings. Unlike these other types, however, the design in this case is much more schematic. The army is represented not by an intricate background of a crowd of soldiers, but by the attendant and lictor, the latter now on the podium. This has several effects. The first is of course to increase the clarity of the composition, although at the expense of a sense of realism. The second is to remove the common soldier from the representation of the army, which is now presented through the imperial entourage. The third is to emphasize the distinction between Romans and foreigners, by moving all Roman actors, even the lowly lictor, to an elevated position above the client kings.

14. Rex Parthis Datus MIR: 594 Sestertius, 20 February 116–August 117 ce Description: This type appeared in only one design (Pl. 23, 11b). Trajan, in military dress, is seated on a sella castrensis, on top of a large podium. He holds a parazonium in his left hand and his right hand is outstretched. Behind him stands an attendant, probably an officer, also in military dress; his pose is dynamic, with his weight on his left leg and his right leg slightly behind him. In front of and to the left of the podium, with his back towards the emperor, is an apparently royal figure. The king wears Parthian costume, with a long shirt, trousers, and beard. His weight is on one leg, and he raises his right arm towards his head, where Trajan sets a diadem. To the left facing this king kneels the personification of Parthia. She too wears a long shirt, flowing cloak, trousers, along with a cap, and stretches both hands towards the king. Discussion: This type commemorates Trajan’s crowning of Parthamaspates, the Ar- sacid King of Parthia (Woytek 2010: 157, 481). The design is interesting, since it represents a discrete historical event, but in a primarily abstract manner that combines purely symbolic elements (the personification, Trajan’s exaggerated scale) with more prosaic elements (the attendant, the podium). The poses of all figures are emotive and dynamic, and the realistic detail of an audience (either military or civil) has been replaced with the abstract element of Parthia. This last feature is particularly interesting when compared with the related, near contemporaneous Rex Parthus type (Pl. 23, 11a). III. Trajanic Group Scenes: Innovations III.1. Numismatic Group Scenes Before Trajan Before Trajan, group scenes in imperial coinage were relatively rare. An extended survey of all pre-Trajanic group scenes is beyond the scope of this study, but some The Emperor in Action 115 broad observations may be made using the coin catalogs of the British Museum as a sample.34 The first imperial group scene of note with four or more (non-statuary) -fig ures35 was issued under Caligula. This was the firstAdlocutio type:36 it featured a standing, togate emperor, alone on a podium with a sella castrensis behind him, addressing a tight group of five small, helmeted soldiers holding shields, swords, and standards (BMC 33–35; Pl. 19, 8e). The legend—ADLOCVT above and COH in exergue—made the subject clear. Group scenes were more popular under Nero. An adlocutio design was minted on sestertii sometime between 64–66 ce (Pl. 20, 8f).37 In this design, the emperor stands with attendant on a low podium to the right, facing left in contrapposto pose with his right hand raised. Three soldiers face him in a line; the front two hold standards and all three wear parazonia. Nero and his attendant are togate. A building and possibly a camp wall are in the background.38 The design features a legend of ADLOCVT COH S C. Two separate congiarium designs were also minted under Nero, both on sestertii of 64–66 ce.39 In the first design,40 Nero, togate, sits alone on a podium to the left (Pl. 22, 9c). On a second adjacent podium are Figure A, Figure B,41 and

34 Mattingly 1923; 1930; 1936; 1940. While such an approach may not be exhaustive, it has the potential to reveal general but important trends. 35 Tiberius issued several designs depicting temples with statuary groups that included numerous human figures (e.g.BMC 116). 36 This design was minted onsestertii in Rome from 37–38 ce. 37 The design was minted in both Rome (BMC 122–126) and Lugdunum (BMC 303– 304). 38 The nature of this background structure is unclear. A line of columns capped by a horizontal element can be seen behind the soldiers; a large crescent shape, its line broken by projections, curves above, following the upper edge of the flan. The scene has been iden- tified as showing an address to the imperial guard, with the building representing part of the praetorian camp or a building on the Palatine (Mattingly 1923: clxxvi; Mattingly and Sydenham 1926: 156). 39 Tacitus dates Nero’s first congiarium to 57 ce, and the relative chronology of the two designs is unclear (Mattingly 1923, clxxvii). This is in part due to debate over the authentic- ity of some legends (CONG I vs. CONG II etc.) and which event(s) are shown on which coin types (Mattingly 1923: clxxvii, 261). Mattingly (1923: clxxvii) also sees the two designs as commemorating two different kinds of donation, specifically one of money (Types D1 and C1) and grain (Types D2 and C2), as indicated by the horrea (his interpretation) in the background of the latter types. 40 e.g. BMC 136–138 (“Rome, Type D1”) and BMC 308–309 (“Lugdunum, Type CI”); RIC Type 8. 41 Figure B is interpreted in this case by Mattingly (1923: 224) as “a figure of Liberali- tas standing right…holding up tessera;” see also Mattingly and Sydenham 1926: 156; Uzzi 2005: 35. 116 Elizabeth Wolfram Thill a large figure of Minerva (perhaps indicating locality or the event’s patroness),42 with Figure C and a male child below and in front. The second design43 shows Nero again togate and seated on a podium, but this time the podium is lower and to the right, and an attendant Figure E44 stands behind the emperor (Pl. 22, 9d). In front of the podium stands Figure D, who faces a variation on Figure B, who maintains a raised right arm holding a plaque, but this time features a short tunic and a wide stance.45 In the background are a standing Minerva and a schematically rendered structure. Thus not only are the two Neroniancongiarium designs early group scenes, but they represent two clearly differentiated approaches to depicting the same type of event. This is in striking contrast to the standardization that this type would undergo in subsequent years. Group scenes were also issued in Galba’s name. One remarkable design (BMC 205) depicted a triumphal arch with three prisoners and a marshal processing beneath it. Another elaborate design (BMC 249) presented an adlocutio: the emperor in military dress stands with an attendant on a podium, facing a crowd of soldiers with standards and a single horse (Pl. 21, 8g). This design is notable not only as the firstadlocutio to depict the emperor in military dress, but also for its close compositional connections to the later Trajanic designs. Even Vitellius managed to issue a coin type with a group scene design: a togate Vitellius, seated on a podium, grasps the hand of one of three togate citizens, with a seated attendant in the background (BMC 49). Group scenes continued to grow in popularity under the Flavians, culminat- ing in the famous ludi saeculares coins of Domitian (BMC 419–438), an apparently coherent commemorative set that included group scene designs and depicted various imperial religious performances associated with the most recent ludi. Accord- ing to M. G. Sobocinski, under Domitian the ludi base metal coins were meant to document and demonstrate the emperor’s religious activities and careful fulfill- ment of his duties in Rome (Sobocinski 2006).46 By the time of the Flavians, then, the general numismatic foundation had been laid for the use of group scenes in the Trajanic period. Nevertheless, what would be seen under Trajan would be truly remarkable. Group scene compositions on coins were not a Trajanic invention, but they would become a truly Trajanic phenomenon.

42 For discussion of the possible meanings of this figure, see Mattingly 1923: clxxviii. 43 e.g. BMC 139–141 (“Rome, Type D2”) and BMC 310 (“Lugdunum, Type C2”); RIC Type 9. 44 Figure E is interpreted by Mattingly (1923: 225) as the praefectus annonae. 45 Figure B in this case is interpreted by Mattingly (1923: 225) simply as “attendant… holding out tessera to citizen.” (see also Mattingly and Sydenham 1926: 156). 46 Sobocinski (2006) outlines a difference in denominations for the Domitianicludi saeculares coins, with aurei and denarii types recreating Augustan symbolic ludi saeculares designs, and base metal types representing Domitian sacrificing at various locations throughout Rome. The Emperor in Action 117

III.2. Trajanic Group Scenes: Chronology and Development The group scenes of the Trajanic period threw open the door to numerous new possibilities for what could be depicted on Roman coin reverses. Not all of these possibilities came into being immediately. The first three group scenes to appear— the adlocutio, military oath, and congiarium scenes—were exactly those that had established precedents (Table 1, above). None of these types differed greatly from their predecessors. Yet the trend towards additional and complicating details was already there in nascent form. While the firstAdlocutio design is relatively simple, inspired by the Caligulan example (BMC 33–35), the second Trajanic Adlocutio design is already more complicated, following more elaborate designs such as those of Galba (BMC 249) (Pl. 18, 8a–b; Pl. 19, 8e; Pl. 21, 8g). The trends introduced in the early group scene types do not follow a simple, uninterrupted pattern to culminate, for example, in the complicated, historicizing Imperial Acclamation sestertii. In the first place, there was a significant time lapse between the introduction of the initial three group scenes (all between January and the end of 98 ce) and the introduction of the next group scene coinage in the first half of 103 ce. Furthermore, two of the first three Trajanic group scene types, the Adlocutio and Military Oath, would not be repeated in Trajan’s coinage, despite the subjects’ popularity in other periods. When group scenes appeared again, in early 103 ce, it was in the well- established Congiarium type, the only original group scene to continue past this initial period. This type, however, had undergone substantial compositional modifications (Pl. 21, 9a–b). The second design had a greater sense of realism and added the (possibly) localizing detail of a tripod. The next group scene to materialize was the Circus Maximus group scene, a truly innovative composition that combined the basic elements of adlocutio scenes (standing emperor and attendant on podium with crowd below) with localizing elements and a personification. Before this type, historical events represented on coinage had primarily been repeated imperial actions. The renovations of the Circus Maximus, in contrast, presumably were not meant to be repeated any time soon. The fact that the group scene design appears alongside the sort of building design that traditionally monumentalized architectural dedications or renovations seems to stress the group scene’s connection to a one-time imperial celebration. A precedent had been set in expanding the types of imperial actions that could be commemorated and depicted in coinage. The secondCongiarium and Circus Maximus designs ushered in a second period in group scene compositions, lasting from 103 to c. 109/110 ce. This period is characterized by further experimentation with group scenes, introducing new types while still maintaining relatively simple designs. The introduction of theAd - ventus type in 107 ce produced another type that commemorated a (potentially recurrent) imperial event. The design of this type was relatively uncomplicated, 118 Elizabeth Wolfram Thill

but did incorporate repeated, undifferentiated figures, previously seen in the soldiers of adlocutio scenes and now seen in the soldiers following Trajan’s horse. Like the Circus type, this design celebrating a historical event included a personification. The topic of theadventus did not appear in standard denominations, and this topic, if not the design, would not be repeated under Trajan. The third period in group scene compositions was confined to the years 111– 113 ce and was characterized by group scenes featuring children and celebrating Trajan’s promotion of the alimenta program. This topic was a natural for group scenes, since the program targeted children, and pairs of children were an established symbol of fecundity and imperial providential concern for the realm’s future. At the same time, the marriage of multiple figures and the alimenta should not be taken for granted, as illustrated by the popular contemporary personification type, where for whatever reason the personification was only presented with a single child (Pl. 13, 3b). The fourth period, from the beginning of the Parthian campaign in late 113 ce, to as late as the beginning of 116 ce, may be considered the heyday of group scenes. This period saw the greatest number of new types created, and these new types were more revolutionary in their composition and content. The group scenes of this period primarily deal with the army and the Parthian war, and began with the revival of the Adventus design, modified to include only male figures, to commemorate a profectio. The primary innovation of the beginning of this period was the Rex Parthus type (Pl. 23, 11a). The design for this subject achieved new levels in terms of both the number of figures included (nine) and the sense of realism. The effect is almost photographic, and is reminiscent of monumental reliefs. One must never confuse effect and actual accuracy, however. What is presented was an idealized interaction between emperor, army, and foreign powers. What was new was the approach and sophistication of that message’s numismatic presentation. This sort of historicizing presentation was undertaken again in this period in the Imperial Acclamation type. By the introduction of the Regna Adsignata type (winter 114–beginning of 116 ce), however, the move had already begun towards simplified, more schematic and symbolic types with clearer compositions, from which the undifferentiated army had been excised (Pl. 26, 13a). Throughout this period, however, the complicated historicizing vignettes continued to be issued, along with more generally symbolic (Profectio) group scenes. The three group scene types certainly (re)issued in the final, brief period of group scenes (20 February 116–c. Fall 117 ce) showed a preference for more schematic, symbolic representations. The Trajan and Armenia type is of course purely symbolic, although still taking advantage of the greater possible numbers of figures. The Regna Adsignata type was already in circulation and was the most historicizing of the three types appearing in the latest period. The Rex Parthis Datus type, in contrast, took a more symbolic approach to its subject (Pl. 23, 11b). Rather than showing logistical aspects of a commemorated event, the design The Emperor in Action 119 focused on the symbolic importance. Although this approach clearly was different from that of the more literal Rex Parthus type, the two designs’ compositions were similar (Pl. 23, 11–b): both featured a seated Trajan on a suggestus interacting with a central foreign figure in an unusual pose, with a prominent audience rounding out the composition. The Rex Parthis Datus type’s composition, however, replaced the Rex Parthus’ watching army, a literal audience, with the symbolic audience of Parthia. To take all this as definitive evidence for a return to symbolic, simplified compositions is perhaps misleading: chronological control of the production dates of many coin types is not secure enough to rule out their reissue as late as 116 ce, and the period obviously was brought to an arbitrary close by Trajan’s death. Nev- ertheless, the evidence as we have it points, however vaguely, to a trend towards simplified, symbolic compositions. It is interesting to note that the more complicated group scenes appear at approximately the same time as the dedication of the Column of Trajan in 113 ce. This significance of this coincidence will be taken up below.

III.3. Crowd Scenes and Imperial Interactions One of the most striking features of Trajanic coinage is the frequency and prominence of crowd scenes, defined here as scenes involving three or more figures that are indistinguishable in terms of their identity. Eight different types take the form of crowd scenes.47 Such repeated, nearly identical figures borrow a technique from painting and sculpted friezes, where such figures were used to represent large numbers of individuals. In addition to metonymy, the crowd scenes of the Trajanic period drastically expanded the number of figures that could be included in a single numismatic scene. The use of crowds in a design furthers the impression that the design realistically depicts an actual event, by highlighting one of the most important features—indeed, in some ways the raison d’être—of imperial events: the audience. While not an invention of the Trajanic period, the inclusion of crowds in so many Trajanic types meant that new numismatic emphasis was placed on representations of Roman citizens. These were not a representative cross-section of the population of the Roman Empire: in six out of eight crowd scenes, the crowd is made up of legionary soldiers, and in the one crowd scene involving civilians the civilians are clearly togate (i.e. citizens). This is not surprising, however. In Rome, these were the people that mattered.

47 Crowd scenes, with the number of undifferentiated figures given in parentheses: Adlo- cutio (4); Military Oath (4); Circus Maximus (4); Adventus (3); Profectio (3); Imperial Ac- clamation (5–6); Rex Parthus (4–5); Regna Adsignata (3). It is possible that the three foreign kings in the last type are meant to be identifiable as historic individuals. An identification cannot be made from numismatic evidence alone, however. 120 Elizabeth Wolfram Thill

The subjects of the Trajanic group scenes can be roughly divided into two broad themes: Trajan interacting with the civilian population, and Trajan interacting with the army. A subset of the latter theme is Trajan interacting with foreign powers in a military context. These two main divisions, between civilian and military contexts, are distinguished carefully, not only by subject but also by details such as Trajan’s dress and type of seat. In the civilian designs, all male human figures, including Trajan, are shown togate. This is most obvious in the congiarium designs, where Figures C or D hold out a toga to receive the imperial gift. In the two designs where Trajan is shown seated, his chair is the sella curulis. These types are set, therefore, within a specifically civilian context. With the exception of the Oath Scene type, where religious concerns would have precluded any other form of costume, Trajan wears military dress for all types dealing with the army. His seat is also specifically marked as a sella castrensis, a throne type used in the field and also seen several times on the Column of Trajan (e.g. Scene VI, XLIV; Pl. 27, 13b). These elements, along with the presence of armed soldiers, make clear that the events depicted take place outside of Rome, in a military context. Four group scene types show Trajan interacting with civilian populations. Three out of four reference specific imperial benefactionsAlimenta ( , Congiarium, and Circus Maximus), while the Italia Restituta type is more general. Two of these types (Congiarium and Circus Maximus) certainly reference events in Rome, while the other two types specifically reference activities outside of Rome. In all of these types, Trajan acts as a paternal figure, taking care for the physical welfare of his subjects. Eight types show Trajan interacting with the army. Four of these types refer to unique historical events, namely Trajan’s interactions with foreign powers. All but the last of these types (Rex Parthis) include ordinary soldiers in the design. The number of ordinary soldiers (not counting attendants or lictors) in a design varies from one to an impressive six. The cavalry, signified by a horse, is sometimes high- lighted, although auxiliaries are not specifically differentiated. The theme of Trajan interacting directly with the army thus was stressed repeatedly through eight different coin types stretching from the beginning to the end of Trajan’s reign, with types emphasizing the role of the army becoming more numerous and frequent towards the end of Trajan’s reign. IV. Trajanic Group Scenes in Coinage and Monumental Reliefs The Trajanic period is a particularly fruitful area for the study of monumental reliefs, with numerous well preserved monuments extant and available for close comparison. Three of these monuments will be discussed in this article: the The Emperor in Action 121

Column of Trajan, dedicated in 113 ce48 in the Forum of Trajan to celebrate Trajan’s victories in the two Dacian Wars; the Beneventum Arch, set up in 114 ce outside of Beneventum to commemorate the inauguration of the new Via Traiana between Brundisium and Rome; and the Great Trajanic Frieze, a monument whose exact date and original location in Rome is unknown, but which must have once been part of a major architectural complex (an 18 m section is preserved in four parts in the Arch of Constantine in Rome).49 As the previous discussion has indicated, there were numerous important points of correspondence between Trajanic group scenes in coinage and reliefs. These points of correspondence include scene types, particular compositions, and themes.

IV.1. Specific Points of Correspondence IV.1.1. Scene Types Adlocutiones appear frequently on the Column of Trajan,50 looking very much like their numismatic predecessors (Pl. 18, 8). These are the first preserved appearanc- es of an adlocutio in monumental relief. Yet after an initial presence in the first year of Trajan’s reign, this traditional numismatic type disappears from his coinage. A similar story pertains to sacrifice scenes. Sacrifices appear on the Beneventum Arch and eight times on the Column of Trajan, in both civilian (e.g. Beneventum Arch east passageway, Column of Trajan Scene LXXXVI) and military contexts (e.g. Column of Trajan Scene VIII) (Pl. 11, 1c and Pl. 12, 1d). The later popularity of the subject in Trajanic monumental reliefs is striking, given that the topic was produced on coins only for a few months, before Trajan even returned to Rome. Not surprisingly, the compositions, if not the popularity, of adlocutio and sacrifice scenes are similar for both media. Other scene types also appear in both coins and relief, but the approaches to the same subject are different. The Beneventum Arch depicts Trajan’s adventus into Rome, but while the adventus scene on coins was in a military context with soldiers and showed the emperor mounted, on the arch the emperor is togate and enters the city, indicated by architecture and personifications, on his own two feet (Pl. 17, 6). Theadventus scene on the Great Trajanic Frieze combines the military associations of the coins with the arch and walking composition of the Beneventum Arch. A passageway panel on the Beneventum Arch commemorates the alimenta, but the scene has more of a sense of narrative than do the coins (Pl. 14, 3d). Like the coins, the sculptural scene employs the motif of symbolic females in the personifications of Italian cities with mural crowns. But the depiction in relief is also more historicizing

48 In this article I follow the consensus view that the Column of Trajan frieze was effec- tively complete at the time of the monument’s dedication in 113 ce (pace Claridge 1993). 49 Although the bibliography on each of these monuments is extensive, an excellent syn- opsis and discussion of reliefs in the Trajanic period can be found in Hölscher 2002. 50 Scenes X, XXVII, XLII, LIV, LXXIII, CIV, CXXV, CXXXVI; Baumer 1991. 122 Elizabeth Wolfram Thill than the coins, since it pairs symbolic female elements with purely human fathers; in particular, the unpretentious motif of fathers carrying their children on their shoulders adds lifelike flavor.51 Profectiones and more general scenes of Trajan riding with the army are also depicted on the Column of Trajan (e.g. Scenes III, LVIII), although depictions of Trajan mounted are relatively rare on this monument. An imperial acclamation is depicted on the Column of Trajan at the close of the First Dacian War (Scene LXXVII; Pl. 26, 12b). This scene at first glance is indistinguishable from otherad - locutio scenes on the Column, with Trajan and attendants standing on a podium with a group of facing soldiers below. Closer inspection, however, reveals that the soldiers are bareheaded and in civilian dress, and, most importantly, their hands are raised (somewhat awkwardly) towards Trajan. In the numismatic example, in contrast, Trajan is seated and the soldiers are in military dress. Finally, the Column of Trajan features numerous scenes of enemies being presented before or submit- ting themselves before the emperor (e.g. Scenes XLIV, LXXV), the same broad subject as the Rex Parthus (Pls. 23–25, 11 and Pl. 27, 13b).

IV.1.2. Composition On a basic level, the most obvious similarity between Trajanic reliefs and numismatic group scenes is the sheer abundance of figures. While large numbers of figures had been a staple of monumental reliefs since at least the Augustan period, the frequent use of numerous figures was new to imperial coinage. More specifically, however, both Trajanic reliefs and coinage featured large numbers of figures representing anonymous Romans, particularly soldiers. Previous to the Trajanic period, the appearance of non-elites in extant monumental reliefs was limited to generic roles as sacrificial assistants and figures in sacrificial or triumphal proces- sions. This changed drastically in the Trajanic period. Modern scholars have emphasized how the Column of Trajan acts as a monument to the Roman soldier,52 since over one thousand anonymous soldiers, both legionaries and auxiliaries, appear on the monument’s frieze. The Great Trajanic Frieze similarly pairs the emperor with a crowded field of nameless soldiers. The Column of Trajan also shows numerous examples of the emperor interacting with crowds of anonymous provincials, frequently sacrificing alongside them (e.g. Scenes LXXXI–VI). The Beneventum Arch is swimming with packs of anonymous figures, with a broad range of interactions between emperor and subjects. Trajan is shown entering Rome among a sea of people (Pl. 17, 6b), receiving merchants in a harbor (Pl. 27, 14), and assigning veterans to colonies, among other

51 This motif is also featured in Pliny’s Panegyric, in the context of the congiarium (Pliny, Pan. 26.1). 52 For an overview of the role of the Roman soldier on the Column of Trajan, see e.g. Richmond 1982; Coulston 1988; Hölscher 1999; Clarke 2003. The Emperor in Action 123 scenes.53 It is instructive to compare the alimenta panel on the Beneventum Arch to the numismatic representations of the same subject. On the one hand it is not surprising to see a greater number of figures in the sculptural example, given the greater space involved. On the other hand, the scene is still crowded with figures, despite the extended space of the passage relief: Trajan has numerous attendants, there are more children, and both female and male “parental” figures appear. There were more specific compositional similarities between coins and reliefs in this period, however, beyond a large number of figures.Adlocutio scenes are particularly close between sculptures and coins (Pls. 18–20, 8a–d). Scene CIV on the Column of Trajan even includes a horse among the listening soldiers.54 The Beneventum Arch features a depiction of Trajan raising a kneeling female personification, surrounded by two water gods (Pl. 15, 4b):55 this combines the theme and kneeling figure of theItalia Restituta type with the composition (Trajan in contrapposto stance facing a sunken female and river god, with another river god behind him) of the Trajan and Armenia type (Pls. 15–16, 4–5). The panel on the Beneventum Arch commemorating the alimenta employs an identical motif seen on the coins, of a mother holding a small child while presenting an older child to the emperor (Pl. 14, 3d). Another scene on the arch, related to Trajan’s concern for the future of Italy, pairs Trajan with two children of different heights (although the children face away from Trajan; Pl. 14, 3e). The motif of the emperor seated on a podium with attendants and crowds in front appears numerous times on the Column of Trajan (e.g. Scenes VI, LXXV; Pls. 23–24, 11c–e).56 In several examples of this arrangement, foreign powers specifically submit themselves before the elevated Trajan (e.g. Scene LXXV; Pl. 23, 11c, and Pl. 27, 13b). This motif, combining a seated emperor and crowd, becomes popular in coins right around the time of the Column’s dedication. This seems an amazing coincidence, particularly since these types have no clear compositional precedence, in either coins or monumental reliefs. Any compositional influence between the Column of Trajan and the coins was certainly not one sided. Theadlocutio motif on coins predates the examples of the same motif on the Column of Trajan. Images on the Column of the emperor riding

53 For the interpretation of the scenes on the Beneventum Arch, see e.g. Hassel 1966; Fittschen 1972; Rotili 1972; Gauer 1974; Koeppel 1985; Heitz 2005–06; Speidel 2005–06. 54 While the numismatic examples abbreviate the horse by showing only its front half, Scene CIV includes the full horse, with the forequarters and attendant soldier in similar positions to their numismatic equivalents. A second horse and soldier fill out the composition to the right and connect Scene CIV to the following scene. 55 There has been no consensus as to the identity of the kneeling personification, and thus the specific meaning of the scene; Dacia and Mesopotamia, among other solutions, have both been suggested. See e.g. Fittschen 1972: 759–765; Torelli 1997: 166–167; Simon 1998: 189. 56 As is fitting for the narrative’s setting outside of Rome, in these scenes Trajan is always in military garb and seated on a sella castrensis. 124 Elizabeth Wolfram Thill with attendants seem very close to designs on earlier adventus and profectio coins. The design of the emperor seated on a podium not only was most likely inspired by actual events, but also appeared on congiarium coins before the Column, although notably on the coins the emperor is alone, togate, and on a sella curulis, not a sella castrensis. After the Column’s construction, the coins and the monumental reliefs are particularly close in composition (although as we have seen the imperial acclamation is handled somewhat differently between media). What we see in the Trajanic period in general, then, is apparently a close relationship between coins and monumental reliefs, with specific compositional elements from one medium appearing on the other, and vice versa.

IV.1.3. Theme Speaking on the broadest level, the general subjects and themes of Trajanic monumental reliefs and coinage are strikingly coincident, even when their approaches to the same subject are different. The glorification of a particular imperial program such as the alimenta in both reliefs and coins appears to be unprecedented before the Trajanic period, although admittedly it is difficult to identify the specific occasion of most monumental reliefs. The scene on the Beneventum Arch shows Trajan raising a kneeling female personification, a topic reminiscent of the Italia Restituta type (Pl. 15, 4). Similarly, although numerous military subjects had long been popular on coins, the Trajanic period was the first time that purely military (i.e. non- triumphal) subjects were depicted frequently in both coins and monumental relief. The Column of Trajan and the Great Trajanic Frieze were the first (preserved) major monumental reliefs in Rome to depict soldiers in battle.57 No literal battle scenes are depicted on coins, but the subject of military action is common to both coins and relief. The sculptural illustration of events taking place outside of Rome was unusual before the Trajanic period. In Trajanic monumental relief, in contrast, events outside Rome were depicted frequently. The Beneventum Arch combines events inside and outside Rome, with those inside Rome placed on the face of the arch closest to Rome, and events outside Rome on the opposite. The Column of Trajan depicts a grand journey and war outside of Rome and even the Roman Empire. As a battle frieze, the Great Trajanic Frieze obviously takes place outside Rome, but this fact is still underscored by the inclusion of rustic huts in the background. In terms of numismatic subjects, eight Trajanic group scenes refer to specific events outside of Rome (compared to five group scenes referring to specific events inside Rome.)58 In the Trajanic period, therefore, events taking place specifically outside

57 The metope reliefs of the contemporary Tropeum at Adamklissi, admittedly a provin- cial monument but still a major one (Florescu 1965), also consisted primarily of depictions of ordinary soldiers in battle. 58 Three Trajanic numismatic group scene types refer to specific events inside Rome: The Emperor in Action 125

Rome were becoming frequent for the first time in both monumental reliefs and coinage. The common theme of Trajanic group scenes was the emperor interacting directly with his subjects. Trajan provided for the future generations of Italy, not only through the vague idea of imperial providentia, but also through the specific alimenta program. This program could be expressed, albeit symbolically, by Trajan giving something to two children. Trajan provided a newly renovated circus for his people, and the direct interaction of grateful citizens thanking Trajan in that circus was visualized on coins. When Trajan was proclaimed imperator by his loyal troops, the scene was depicted as a direct interaction between the emperor and his troops. Even in the more abstract types, the commemorated concept is presented as an interaction: in the Rex Parthis Datus design, Trajan’s establishment of a rul- ing power friendly to Rome is conceptualized visually as the emperor, seated on a podium as in the Congiarium designs, giving a gift, in this case a king, to a subject, in this example a personification standing in for all subjects in Parthia. This theme is also well established in Trajanic monumental reliefs. The Col- umn of Trajan is replete with images showing the interaction of Trajan with his subjects. Indeed, scholars such as T. Hölscher have shown that the frieze of the Column of Trajan in fact is made up of a series of “vignettes” that simply repeat various shared activities between the emperor and his subjects over and over again to create a sense of narrative, with the occasional specific historical event thrown in (Hölscher 1991a). On the Column of Trajan, Trajan oversees construction of fortifications, leads his men in sacrifice, and is welcomed by civilian populations. He passes judgment on enemies, granting mercy to those that surrender, and personally overseeing the resettlement of others. On the Beneventum Arch, Trajan sends out colonists, receives the submission of foreigners, and oversees the establishment of the alimenta program. The numismatic evidence thus fits within a general artistic trend of the period, namely the representation of the emperor interacting in numerous practical ways with Roman subjects outside of the imperial family or even the senatorial class. To summarize, the major innovation of Trajanic group scenes was the increased prominence of the ordinary Roman, especially the ordinary Roman soldier. The average Roman citizen was more frequently depicted, often in crowds, and the common theme of the majority of group scenes was his interaction with the emperor. While some group scenes referred to general, repeated interactions, such as the adlocutio or sacrifice, more frequent were references to specific programs or events, from individual congiaria or acclamations, to the alimenta pro-

Congiarium, Statue Group, and Circus Maximus. Two more group scene types—Adventus and Profectio—refer to liminal events involving the city. Five group scene types refer to specific events outside of Rome: Rex Parthus, Imperial Acclamation, Regna Adsignata, Tra- jan and Armenia, and Rex Parthis Datus. Three numismatic group scenes refer to general events or programs outside of Rome: Adlocutio, Oath Scene, and Alimenta. 126 Elizabeth Wolfram Thill gram, to the one-time event of a submission of a particular foreign king. The emperor interacted with his people, and the coins were there to prove it.

IV.2. Trajanic Group Scenes: Significance If the themes of the emperor interacting with his subjects are already well known from Trajanic monumental reliefs, what can the study of Trajanic numismatic group scenes add to our understanding of the period? In the first place, the close and complex compositional similarities in group scenes on coins and relief call attention to the complexity of the artistic climate under Trajan. While we cannot reconstruct the exact artistic connection between the two media, we can see that clearly there was some connection. This has important implications for how we view the artistic climate of Trajanic Rome and how we study Trajanic monuments. The group scenes remind us that we can not study the Column of Trajan and other sculptural monuments without studying the coins, and we can not study the coins without studying the sculpture. Furthermore, a comparison between the use of vignettes, illustrated as group scenes, in both Trajanic monumental reliefs and coins perhaps can help us to understand the artistic traditions in the background of both media. Scholars have long debated the artistic origins of the Column of Trajan, which seems to spring ex nihilo from the archaeological record. While the idea of a continuous frieze was nothing new, the format of an extended series of discrete vignettes strung together like beads on a string was innovative, at least as far as we can tell from extant evidence. Scholars have postulated that the Column of Trajan may have been inspired by triumphal paintings, not a single example of which now survives.59 Literary descriptions of triumphal paintings60 suggest that they were panels featuring segmented depictions of individual historical events, similar to the Column’s vignettes. But the idea of discrete vignette representations of historical events had also appeared on coinage long before the Column of Trajan. This phenomenon was in fact reaching new heights under Trajan’s reign, and the types of subjects commemorated were expanding, moving beyond generic military events to specific civilian concerns and unique historical events. This is not to imply that the Column of Trajan frieze is really a series of coin reverses strung together. In fact, the subjects of the Column of Trajan vignettes only occasionally coincide with the subjects of coin reverses. But the coins show that the relationship between the Column of Trajan and triumphal painting, if it existed, was probably neither unique nor straightforward. It is possible that the

59 For discussion of triumphal paintings in general, see e.g. Holliday 1997; Hölscher 2002: 38, 44; Lusnia 2006. For the influence of triumphal paintings on the Column of Trajan, see Lehmann-Hartleben 1926: 2, 29; Coulston 1988: 124, 131–132; Settis 1988: 94–96; Coulston 1990: 295; Hölscher 1991b: 293–294; Coarelli 2000: 11; Koeppel 2002: 248; Beck- mann 2003: 111–113. 60 E.g. Livy 41.28.10, Josephus BJ 7.132–157. The Emperor in Action 127 phenomenon of group scenes on coins was inspired by triumphal paintings. By the Trajanic period, however, this relationship, if it existed, was most likely also highly complicated and possibly reciprocal. Many of the subjects of the Beneven- tum Arch panels are not military in nature and are unlikely subjects for triumphal paintings. They have more in common with coin reverses. Yet they share with the Column of Trajan and the coins the use of vignettes to present the emperor interacting with his people in discrete, historicizing events. We are witnessing not a one-to-one correspondence, the transfer of painting to stone, but the spread of a phenomenon. Understanding the importance of emperor-subject interaction in imperial monumental relief under Trajan, furthermore, is to understand only one aspect of a crucial, widespread message. It is well established that in this period relief em- braced the use of vignette compositions to show the emperor interacting directly with his subjects, taking that idea to new heights in the Column of Trajan. But it is important to recognize as well that at the same time the same idea was also reaching new heights in imperial coinage. The message of the emperor directly connected to his people, and particularly to the army, was pervasive. We also must take into consideration the architectural activity underway in this period. The Forum of Trajan was a vast public complex built by the emperor for his subjects, financed by his personal share of the booty from the Dacian Wars.61 While this much was standard imperial practice at the time, the scale and opulence of the Forum of Trajan was clearly meant to surpass all such previous benefactions. Unlike preceding victory complexes, which typically were focused on a central temple surrounded by a portico,62 the Forum of Trajan added a gigantic basilica, a non-religious space dedicated to secular interactions between the imperial apparatus and individual subjects. The Forum also featured particularizing details such as inscriptions listing and commemorating the individual legions that served in the Dacian Wars (Meneghini and Santangeli Valenzani 2007: 90). Central to the complex was the Column of Trajan itself, a memorial to the interaction between emperor and subject. That memorial, furthermore, featured dozens of

61 For the Forum of Trajan in general, see Zanker 1970; Richardson Jr. 1977a; Packer 1981; 1997a; 1997b; 2004; 2008; Meneghini et al. 1990; Meneghini 1995; 1998; 2001a; 2001b;2007; La Rocca 1998; 2000; Galinier 2007. 62 For Republican victory temple-portico complexes, see e.g. Morgan 1971; Richardson Jr. 1976; 1977b; Flory 1984; Isager 2006; Gorrie 2007. For the similar layout and function of the imperial fora, see e.g. Hastrup 1962; Zanker 1968; Bonnefond 1987; Ulrich 1993; Westall 1996; Packer 1997b; Wightman 1997; Stamper 2005; Carnabuci 2006; Gros 2006; Ventura Villanueva 2006; Lipps 2008. The possible location of the so-called Templum Divi Traiani within the Forum of Trajan complex is much debated, but scholars generally agree that any temple present did not occupy an exactly analogous position to the temples of other imperial fora; see e.g. Meneghini 1993; 2001b; 2002; 2007; Ponti 1995; Meneghini et al. 1996; Packer 1997a; 2003; 2008; La Rocca 1998; 2000; 2004;Gros 2000; 2005; Stamper 2005; Staccioli 2006; Claridge 2007; Galinier 2007. 128 Elizabeth Wolfram Thill images of elaborate, sophisticated architecture in towns friendly to the emperor, demonstrating that loyalty to Trajan would bring architectural benefits even into the provinces (Wolfram Thill 2010). Finally, this architectural complex was commemorated extensively in coins, including coins specifically depicting the Basilica Ulpia.63 Taken together, Trajanic monumental relief, coinage, and architecture present three intersecting lines of evidence demonstrating a unified theme that emphasized Trajan’s connections to his people.64 These were not abstract connections, such as the religious piety of Augustus. These were concrete, often tangible connections, forged through practical benefits and actual, unique historical events.

V. Conclusion: Group Scenes after Trajan The close interaction between group scenes on coinage and monumental reliefs apparently was short lived. Historicizing vignettes showing the emperor interacting with his subjects continued to be very popular in relief. The Anaglypha reliefs—of uncertain date but certainly close to, if not from, the Trajanic period— featured a civilian adlocutio scene (Pl. 28, 15a) and what has been interpreted traditionally as a scene showing the cancelation of debts, a genuinely logistical interaction between emperor and subjects.65 In addition the Anaglypha adlocutio takes place in front of what has been argued is a depiction of a statue group commemorating the alimenta, with a seated emperor facing a standing woman who holds a child in one arm and (presumably) guides another standing child with her free left hand, in a layout identical to Trajanic coins (Pl. 13, 3a and Pl. 28, 15b).66 A panel from the Hadrianic Arco di Portgallo shows another civilian adlocutio (Koeppel 1986, 40–42; VanderLeest 1995). A relief from the late Hadrianic or early Antonine period and now in the Museo del Palazzo dei Conservatori in Rome preserves an adventus scene very similar to that of the Beneventum Arch (Koeppel 1969, 156–158): the emperor is greeted by Roma and other symbolic figures, but is also accompanied by generic humans. The Column of Marcus Aurelius adopted, but also adapted, the Column of Trajan’s basic layout of historicizing vignettes: the

63 E.g. MIR 398, 403, 409, 424, 425, 465, 472, 473. Basilica Ulpia coins: MIR 399, 404, 464. 64 Although this is not the proper venue for a full exploration of this subject, it is worth noting that this same theme of practical connection between emperor and subject can be found throughout Pliny’s Panegyric. In particular, the image of an emperor surrounded by subjects with easy access to the imperial presence is emphasized to a striking degree (see e.g. 48.2: scis enim sibi quemque praestare, quod te videat, quod te frequentet: ac tanto libera- lius ac diutius voluptatis huius copiam praebes). 65 For the Anaglypha reliefs, see e.g. Hammond 1953; Torelli 1982: 89–118; Pollini 1983; Smith 1983; Koeppel 1986: 17–24. 66 For full discussion see Hammond 1953. The Anaglypha reliefs are of uncertain date, and, while possible, it is not definitive that they depict a historical statue group, from or after the Trajanic period. The Emperor in Action 129 battle scenes are more drawn out and there are fewer “vignettes” than in the later monument (Balty 2000; Beckmann 2011). The most famous examples of this vignette phenomenon are the Marcus Au- relius Panels, now in the Museo del Palazzo dei Conservatori and Arch of Con- stantine. These panels show the emperor going through a series of standardized motions: sacrifice in Rome, sacrifice in the field, accepting the submission of barbarians, returning triumphant to Rome, and even distributing gifts to citizens (Ryberg 1967; Angelicoussis 1984; Koeppel 1986, 47–75). Although always idealized, the style continues to be one that presents the events in a generally realistic manner, although several panels incorporate symbolic elements such as the city goddess. The habit of depicting the emperor in action with his subjects continued even to the Arch of Constantine, which not only incorporates the Marcus Aurelius Panels, but also adds new reliefs depicting the emperor addressing his people and giving out gifts. In imperial coinage the story is different. Under Hadrian numismatic group scenes were still prominent, but show limited continuity with Trajanic group scenes. New types, such as the Disciplina Augusti were created (BMC 602) (Pl. 29, 16a), and old types that were taken up again, such as the Adlocutio, show significant innovations in design (BMC 1310) (Pl. 29, 16b). In particular the Congiarium type was modified to include a personification and a legend proclaiming the emperor’s liberalitas (Pl. 29, 16c) (Kloft 1970; Metcalf 1993; Schmidt-Dick 2008). The emphasis thus moved from a concrete historical event to the associated abstract imperial virtue. After Hadrian, group scene types become more and more sporadic. New types were rarely created and old types were rarely reproduced. Designs, furthermore, became increasingly stylized, with increasing emphasis on the emperor. This can be seen clearly in the evolution of the Congiarium/Liberalitas type, which continued to be popular. In the type the emperor becomes bigger, and the common man becomes smaller. By the time of the coins of Severus Alexander, the common man, and the message of his direct interaction with the emperor, had become almost unrecognizable (Pl. 29, 16d). The popularity of group scenes on imperial coinage thus appears to have been primarily a Trajanic phenomenon. This may be due to the logistical concern that the complicated designs were difficult to produce. It is notable that under Trajan no group scenes appeared on the denarius, the denomination that saw the greatest production. Beckmann has suggested that the absence of complicated designs on Trajanic denarii may be related to the denomination’s production in extremely high volumes in short amounts of time, calling for types whose dies could be easily and quickly replicated.67 Indeed, most types for Trajanic denarii were simple single

67 Beckmann 2009: 153–154 . Beckmann (2009: 153) points out that the quality of work- manship in denarii dies is often lower than that for aurei dies. For the role of aurei designs in testing new topics, which then crossed over onto sestertii, etc., see Woytek 2009: esp. 131. 130 Elizabeth Wolfram Thill figures (Beckmann 2009: 153). This suggests that the complication of group scenes put limits on their production even in Trajan’s time, and subsequent authorities may have not thought the group scenes worth the hassle of their production. This raises a related issue: it may have become apparent that it was difficult to understand the group scenes in the limited space of the coin flan, even forsestertii . This is suggested by the simplifying transformation of the congiarium/liberalitas designs. It is also suggested by the fact that many of new group scene designs that were introduced on coins after Trajan featured clearer compositions (although not necessarily easier production). For example, in Hadrianic adlocutio designs there is a clear separation (in both distance and scale) between the emperor and his audience, especially when compared to Trajanic examples (Pl. 29, 16b). The crowded Trajanic group scenes simply may have been too difficult to see and comprehend. Whatever the cause in the decline in the popularity of group scenes on coins, the close compositional interaction between monumental relief and coins seen in the Trajanic period would not be repeated. This means that the Trajanic period represents an exceptional high point of integration for an artistic climate dedicated to the proclamation of the emperor’s magnificence. Surprisingly, the Trajanic period nevertheless has not yet seen the sort of definitive, synthesizing work that Zanker has provided for the age of Augustus.68 The emphasis on the common man would also not be repeated. Yet it is interesting that more than a hundred years after Augustus established himself asprimus inter pares, someone in the Trajanic period apparently still deemed it politically useful to emphasize practical connections between the emperor and the common civilian and soldier. This recalls the ideal of the emperor that we see in the probably apocryphal story preserved in Dio, where a widow tells a protesting Hadrian that if he is too busy to attend to her needs, then he should not be emperor.69 The Trajanic emphasis on the common man, furthermore, seems to have been quite successful. To this day, hundreds of years after he was granted the title Optimus, Trajan is still known not only as one of the good Roman emperors, but as possibly the best. By the Middle Ages even the Hadrian story became attributed to Trajan, meaning that Trajan ultimately got all the credit for helping the poor widow (and the special heavenly intercession of Gregory the Great).70 It is difficult to tell if the imagery of the group scenes on Trajanic coins and monumental relief had any tan-

68 Zanker 1988. There have been several attempts to synthesize the political policies, messages, and artistic output of the Trajanic period; see e.g. Paribeni 1975; Scheiper 1982 (nega- tively reviewed in Hölscher 1984; Lahusen 1986); Seelentag 2004; Galinier 2007. None of these have yet become definitive in the field. 69 Dio LXIX, 6. 70 Hammond 1953: 130. Hammond (1953: 130–131 n.10) makes the interesting sugges- tion that the post-classical insertion of Trajan into the myth may have been inspired in part by the Anaglypha alimenta motif itself, since the reliefs may still have been visible in the Forum until quite a late date. The Emperor in Action 131 gible, effective beneficial correlates in real life. Was Trajan an emperor who cared for the logistical needs of his people as no emperor before him ever had? Or are we still in the thrall of a well-orchestrated spin job? Acknowledgments This paper has benefitted greatly from numerous sources of support and collabo- ration. The paper has its origins in my participation in the American Numismatic Society’s 2010 Eric P. Newman Summer Graduate Seminar. I am grateful to everyone at the Society, especially Dr. Peter van Alfen and Rick Witschonke, for the opportunity and support to take part in a wonderful seminar. I am also grateful to my fellow participants, particularly John Tully, for their insightful comments about my topic. I would like to extend special thanks to Dr. Bernhard Woytek, my seminar advisor: Dr. Woytek not only guided me to this topic, but has continued to monitor my project and share with me his unparalleled knowledge of Trajanic coinage. The Institute for Humane Studies also provided invaluable support for this project. A grant from the Institute’s Hayek Fund for Scholars helped make my seminar participation possible, and the paper was refined during my time as an IHS 2011 Summer Graduate Research Fellow. This paper was presented in part at the 112th Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America in San Antonio (January 2011). My participation in that meeting was sponsored by grants from the Archaeological Institute of America and the Classics Depart- ment of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. I am thankful for all these sources of support, and I hope this paper does them justice. I extend thanks also to Dr. Cristian Gazdac for his helpful insights on a draft version of this paper, and the anonymous reviewers at the AJN for their comments. Any mistakes that remain, of course, are my own. Unless otherwise indicated, all illustrations are taken from Woytek 2010. List of Illustrations Sacrifice scenes Plates 11–12 1a. Military Oath type [MIR 41] (Woytek 2010, pl. 5.41e). 1b. Domitian sacrificing with soldiers [BMC 344] (ANS 1944.100.42581; photo by author). 1c. Trajan sacrificing with army [Column of Trajan, Scene LIII] (Museo della Civiltà Romana casts; photo by author). 1d. Trajan performing sacrifice [Beneventum Arch passageway] (Rotili 1972, pl. LIII). 2. Statue Group type [MIR 184] (Woytek 2010, pl. 31.184a1). 132 Elizabeth Wolfram Thill

Alimenta program scenes Plates 13–14 3a. Alimenta type; Trajan, female figure, and two children design MIR[ 358] (Woytek 2010, pl. 79.358a). 3b. Alimenta type; Annona and child design [MIR 355] (Woytek 2010, pl. 78.355b-2). 3c. Alimenta type; Trajan and two children design [MIR 345] (ANS 1954.256.15; photo by author). 3d. Trajan instituting alimenta program. Note woman holding child on right [Beneventum Arch passageway] (Rotili 1972, pl. LIV). 3e. Trajan concerned for Italia’s future (?) [Beneventum Arch NE side, middle row] (Rotili 1972, pl. XCIV).

Trajan with kneeling personification Plate 15 4a. Italia Restituta type [MIR 366] (Woytek 2010, pl. 81.366b). 4b. Trajan, kneeling personification, and river gods [Beneventum Arch NE face, attic] (Rotili 1972, pl. CXX).

Trajan and Armenia type [MIR 590] Plate 16 5a. Trajan and Armenia type; compositional variant 1 (Woytek 2010, pl. 118.590t-1). 5b. Trajan and Armenia type; compositional variant 2 (Woytek 2010, pl. 118. 590v-23). 5c. Trajan and Armenia type; compositional variant 3 (Woytek 2010, pl. 118. 590v–33).

Adventus scenes Plates 17–18 6a. Adventus type [MIR 260] (Woytek 2010, pl. 52.260m2). 6b. Adventus scene [Beneventum Arch SW face, first row] (Museo della Civiltà Romana cast; photo by author). 7. Profectio type [MIR 496] (ANS 1944.100.43617; photo by author).

Adlocutio scenes Plates 18–21 8a. Adlocutio type; design 1 [MIR 11] (Woytek 2010, pl. 2.11a). 8b. Adlocutio type; design 2 [MIR 43] (Woytek 2010, pl. 5.43b). The Emperor in Action 133

8c. Adlocutio scene [Column of Trajan, Scene X] (Museo della Civiltà Romana casts; photos by author). 8e. Adlocutio design; Caligula [BMC 33] (ANS 1944.100.39335; photo by author). 8d. Adlocutio scene [Column of Trajan, Scene LXXIII] (Museo della Civiltà Romana casts; photos by author). 8f. Adlocutio design; Nero [BMC 304v] (ANS 1944.100.39779; photo by author). 8g. Adlocutio design; Galba [BMC 249v] (ANS 1995.17.1; photo by author).

Congiarium type Plates 21–22 9a. Congiarium type; design 1 [MIR 64] (Woytek 2010. pl. 9.64c1). 9b. Congiarium type; design 2 [MIR 160] (ANS 1944.100.44701; photo by author). 9c. Congiarium type; Nero, design 1 [BMC 136] (ANS 1937.158.467; photo by author). 9d. Congiarium type; Nero, design 2 [BMC 139] (ANS 1954.203.156; photo by author).

Circus Maximus type Plates 22–23 10a. Circus Maximus type; design 1 [MIR 182] (ANS 1964.183.1; photo by author). 10b. Circus Maximus type; design 2 [MIR 175] (Woytek 2010, pl. 29.175g1).

Submission of Foreign Powers scenes Plates 23–25 11a. Rex Parthus type [MIR 509] (Woytek 2010, pl. 103.509v1). 11b. Rex Parthis Datus type [MIR 594] (ANS 1944.100.44763; photo by author). 11c. Dacian submission before Trajan [Column of Trajan, Scene LXXV] (Museo della Civiltà Romana casts; photo by author). 11d. Seated Trajan with army attendants [Column of Trajan, Scene VI] (Museo della Civiltà Romana casts; photo by author). 11e. Seated Trajan with army attendants [Column of Trajan, Scene CV] (Museo della Civiltà Romana casts; photo by author).

Imperial Acclamation scenes Plates 25–26 12a. Imperial Acclamation type [MIR 549] (Woytek 2010, pl. 111 549v1). 134 Elizabeth Wolfram Thill

12b. Trajan receiving acclamation from soldiers [Column of Trajan, Scene LXX- VII] (Coarelli 2000, pl. 90).

Presentation of Foreign Powers scenes Plates 26–27 13a. Regna adsignata type; compositional variant 2 [MIR 593] (Woytek 2010, pl. 119.593v3). 13b. Trajan receiving allies; note sella castrensis [Column of Trajan Scene XLIV] (Museo della Civiltà Romana casts; photo by author). 14. Trajan receiving merchants. [Beneventum Arch SW face, middle row] (Ro- tili 1972, pl. CIII).

Anaglypha reliefs Plate 28 15a. Adlocutio scene [Anaglypha reliefs] (photo by author). 15b. Alimenta motif [Anaglypha reliefs] (photo by author).

Post-Trajanic numismatic group scenes Plate 29 16a. Disciplina Augusti type; Hadrian [BMC 602] (ANS 1944.100.45513; photo by author). 16b. Adlocutio design; Hadrian [BMC 1310] (ANS 1977.284.5; photo by author). 16c. Liberalitas type; Hadrian [Strack 593] (ANS 1953.52.6; photo by author). 16d. Congiarium/Liberalitas design; Severus Alexander [BMC 594] (ANS 1998. 110.9; photo by author). References Angelicoussis, E. 1984. The panel reliefs of Marcus Aurelius.Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 91: 141–205. Balty, J.C. 2000. L’ Armée de la Colonne Aurélienne: Images de la cohésion d’un corps. In La colonne Aurélienne. Autour de la colonne Aurélienne. Geste et image sur la colonne de Marc Aurèle à Rome, edited by V. Huet and J. Scheid, 197–203. Bibliothèque de l’École des hautes études. Section des sciences religieuses 108. Turnhout: Brépols. Baumer, L. E. 1991. Adlocutio: Ikonographie und Programmatik der kaiserlichen Heeresansprachen an der Trajanssäule. In Narrative Systematik und politisches Konzept in den Reliefs der Traianssäule. Drei Fallstudien, edited by L. E. Baumer, T. Hölscher and L. Winkler, 278–287. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 106: 261–295. ______. 2007. Mehrschichtige Botschaft. Anmerkungen zu Komposition und Deutung der sogenannten Cancelleriareliefs. Antike Kunst 50: 93–106. The Emperor in Action 135

______. 2008. L’iconographie politique de Domitien. Essai d’interprétation des reliefs dit ‘de la Cancelleria’. Revue archéologique 189–193. Beckmann, M. 2003. The battle scenes on the Column of Marcus Aurelius. Ph.D. diss., McMaster University. ______. 2009. The Significance of Roman Imperial Coin Types. Klio 91: 144–161. ______. 2011. The Column of Marcus Aurelius: The genesis and meaning of a Roman Imperial monument. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. BMC = Mattingly, H. 1923–1940. Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bonnefond, M. 1987. Transferts de Fonctions et Mutation Idéologique: le Capitole et le Forum d’Auguste. In L’Urbs: Espace Urbain et Histoire (Ier siècle av. J.- C.–IIIe siècle ap J.-C.). Actes du colloque international organisé par le Centre national de la recherché scientifique et l’École française de Rome (Rome, 8–12 mai 1985), 251–278. Rome: L’École française de Rome. Bossu, C. 1989. L’ objectif de l’Institution alimentaire. Essai d’évaluation. Latomus 48: 372–332. Carnabuci, E. 2006. La Nuova forma del Foro di Augusto: considerazioni sulle destinazioni d’uso degli emicicli. In Forma Urbis Romae: nuovi frammenti di piante marmoree dallo scavo dei Fori Imperiali, edited by R. Meneghini and R. Santangeli Valenzani, 173–195. BullCom Supplementi 15. Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider. Charlesworth, M. P. 1937. The virtues of the Roman Emperor: Propaganda and the creation of belief. Proceedings of the British Academy 23: 105–135. Cheung, A. 1998. The political significance of Roman imperial coin types. Scwhweizer Münzblätter 48: 53–61. Claridge, A. 1993. Hadrian’s column of Trajan? Journal of Roman Archaeology 6: 5–22. ______. 2007. Hadrian’s lost Temple of Trajan. Journal of Roman Archaeology 20: 54–94. Clarke, J. R. 2003. Art in the lives of ordinary Romans: Visual representation and non-elite viewers in Italy, 100 BC–AD 315. Berkeley: University of California Press. Coarelli, F. 2000. The Column of Trajan. Rome: Colombo. Coulston, J. C. N. 1988. Trajan’s Column: The sculpting and relief content of a Roman propaganda monument. Ph.D. diss., Newcastle University. ______. 1990. Three new books on Trajan’s Column. Review ofLa Colonna Traiana e gli artisti francesi da Luigi XIV a Napoleone I, Trajan’s Column. A New Edition of the Cicorius Plates, by F. Lepper and S. Frere, and La Colonna Traiana, edited by S. Settis, A. La Regina, G. Agosti and V. Farinella. Journal of Roman Archaeology 3: 290–309. Crawford, M. H. 1983. Roman imperial coin types and the formation of public opinion. In Studies in numismatic method presented to Philip Grierson, edited 136 Elizabeth Wolfram Thill

by C. N. L. Brooke, B. H. I. H. Stewart, J. G. Pollard and T. R. Volk, 47–64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crump, G. 1985. Coinage and imperial thought. In The craft of the ancient historian. Essays in honor of Chester G. Starr, edited by J. W. Eadie and J. Ober, 425–441. New York: University Press of America. Duncan–Jones, R. 1964. The purpose and organisation of the alimenta. Papers of the British School at Rome 32: 123–146. Elkins, N. T. 2010. Architectural coin types: Reflections of Roman society. Ph.D. diss., University of Missouri. Fehr, B. 1998. Ein böser Bube und zwei verdiente ältere Herren: Die Cancelleria- Reliefs als Rebus. In Archäologische Studien in Kontaktzonen der antiken Welt, 717–732. Veröffentlichungen der Joachim-Jungius-Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften Hamburg 87. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Fittschen, K. 1972. Das Bildprogramm des Trajansbogens zu Benevent. Archäologischer Anzeiger 742–788. Florescu, F. B. 1965. Das Siegesdenkmal von Adamklissi Tropaeum Traiani. Bonn: Habelt. Flory, M. B. 1984. Sic exempla parantur: Livia’s shrine to Concordia and the Porticus Liviae. Historia 33: 309–330. Galinier, M. 2007. La colonne Trajane et les forums impériaux. Collection de l’École française de Rome 382. Rome: L’École française de Rome. Garnsey, P. 1968. Trajan’s alimenta: Some problems. Historia 17: 367–381. Gauer, W. 1974. Zum Bildprogramm des Trajansbogens von Benevent. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 89: 308–335. Gorrie, C. 2007. The restoration of the Porticus Octiavie and Severan imperial policy. Greece and Rome 54: 1–17. Gros, P. 2000. La militarisation de l’urbanisme trajanien à la lumière des recherches récentes sur le Forum Traiani. In Trajano: Emperador de Roma, edited by J. Gonzáles, 227–249. Saggi di storia antica 16. Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider. ______. 2005. Les enjeux historiques du débat de l’ordonnance du Forum de Trajan. Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles- lettres: 173–197. ______. 2006. Le “Modele” du Forum d’ Auguste et ses applications italiques ou provinciales. Etat de la question apres les dernieres decouvertes. In La Transmission de l’idéologie impériale dans l’occident romain, edited by M. Navarro Caballero et J.-M. Roddaz, 115–127. Pessac: Ausonius. Hammond, M. 1953. A statue of Trajan represented on the ‘Anaglypha Traiani’. Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 21: 125, 127–183. Hannestad, N. 1986. Roman art and imperial policy. Jutland Archaeological Society Publications 19. Højbjerg: Jutland Archaeological Society. Hassel, F. J. 1966. Der Trajansbogen in Benevent. Ein Bauwerk des römischen Senates. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. The Emperor in Action 137

Hastrup, T. 1962. Forum Iulium as a manifestation of power. Analecta Romana Instituti Danici 2: 44–61. Heitz, C. 2005–06. Des Kaisers neue Kleider. Romanitas und Barbarentum am Trajansbogen von Benevent. Anhang: Die Felltracht der Signiferi. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 112: 207–224. 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. Holliday, P. 1997. Roman triumphal painting: Its function, development, and reception. Art Bulletin 79: 130–147. Hölscher, T. 1984. Review of Bildpropaganda der römischen Kaiserzeit unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Trajanssäule in Rom und korrespondierender Münzen, by R. Scheiper. Gnomon 56: 181–183. ______. 1991a. Einleitung. In Narrative Systematik und politisches Konzept in den Reliefs der Traianssäule. Drei Fallstudien, edited by L. E. Baumer, T. Hölscher and L. Winkler, 261–266. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 106: 261–295. ______. 1991b. Vormarsch und Schlacht. In Narrative Systematik und politisches Konzept in den Reliefs der Traianssäule. Drei Fallstudien, edited by L.E. Baumer, T. Hölscher and L. Winkler, 287–95. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 106: 261–295. ______. 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. ______. 1999. Alle Welt für Traian. Beobachtungen zur Darstellung von Fremdvölkern an traianischen Staatsdenkmälern. In Imago antiquitatis. Religions et iconographie du monde romain. Mélanges offerts à Robert Turcan, edited by N. Blanc and A. Buisson, 281–289. Paris: De Boccard. ______. 2002. Bilder der Macht und Herrschaft. In Traian. Ein Kaiser der Superlative am Beginn einer Umbruchzeit?, edited by A. Nünnerich-Asmus, 127–144. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. Isager, J. 2006. The whole world gathered in one place. Pliny’s vision of Rome as a museum. Acta ad archaeologiam et artium historiam pertinentia 20: 65–78. 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. 138 Elizabeth Wolfram Thill

______. 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. Kloft, H. 1970.Liberalitas Principis. Herkunft und Bedeutung. Studien zur Prinzipats-ideologie. Kölner Historische Abhandlungen 18. Cologne. Koeppel, G. 1969. Profectio und Adventus. Bonner Jahrbücher des rheinischen Landesmuseums in Bonn und des Vereins von Altertumsfreunden im Rheinlande 169: 130–194. ______. 1984. Die historischen Reliefs der römischen Kaiserzeit, II. Stadtrömische Denkmäler unbekannter Bauzugehörigkeit aus flavischer Zeit.Bonner Jahrbücher des rheinischen Landesmuseums in Bonn und des Vereins von Altertumsfreunden im Rheinlande 184: 1–65. ______. 1985. Die historischen Reliefs der römischen Kaiserzeit, III. Stadtrömische Denkmäler unbekannter Bauzugehörigkeit aus trajanischer Zeit. Bonner Jahrbücher des rheinischen Landesmuseums in Bonn und des Vereins von Altertumsfreunden im Rheinlande 185: 143–213. ______. 1986. Die historischen Reliefs der römischen Kaiserzeit, IV. Stadtrömische Denkmäler unbekannter Bauzugehörigkeit aus hadrianischer bis konstantinischer Zeit. Bonner Jahrbücher des rheinischen Landesmuseums in Bonn und des Vereins von Altertumsfreunden im Rheinlande 186: 1–90. ______. 2002. The Column of Trajan. Narrative technique and the image of the emperor. In Sage and emperor. Plutarch, Greek intellectuals, and Roman power in the Time of Trajan, 98–117 A.D., edited by P. A. Stadter and L. Van der Stockt, 245–257. Symbolae facultatis litterarum lovaniensis. Series A 29. Leuven: Leuven University Press. La Rocca, E. 1998. Il Foro di Traiano ed i fori tripartiti. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 105: 149–173. ______. 2000. Il Foro di Traiano in base alle più recenti ricerche. In Trajano: Emperador de Roma, edited by J. Gonzáles, 251–285. Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider. ______. 2004. Templum Traiani et columna cochlis. Revue archéologique 111: 193–238. Lahusen, G. 1986. Review of Bildpropaganda der römischen Kaiserzeit unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Trajanssäule in Rom und korrespondierender Münzen, by R. Scheiper. Historische Zeitschrift 242: 390–392. Lehmann-Hartleben, K. 1926. Die Trajanssäule. Ein römisches Kunstwerk zu Beginn der Spätantike. Berlin and Leipzig: de Gruyter. Levick, B. M. 1982. Propaganda and imperial coinage. Antichthon 16: 104–116. Lipps, J. 2008. Zur Datierung der spätantiken Portikus des Caesarforums. Literarische Quellen und archäologischer Befund. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 114: 389–405. Lusnia, S. S. 2006. Battle imagery and politics on the Severan Arch on the Roman The Emperor in Action 139

Forum. In Representations of war in ancient Rome, edited by S. Dillon and K. Welch, 272–299. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Magi, F. 1945. I rilievi flavi del Palazzo della Cancelleria. Rome: Presso la Pontificia accademia romana di archeologi. Mattingly, H. 1923. Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum. Vol. I. Augustus to Vitellius. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ______. 1930. Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum. Vol. II. Vespasian to Domitian. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ______. 1936. Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum. Vol. III. Nerva to Hadrian. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ______. 1940. Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum. Vol. IV. Antoninus Pius to Commodus. 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. Meneghini, R. 1993. Nuovi dati sulle biblioteche e il templum Divi Traiani nel foro di Traiano. Beiträge zur Assyriologie 19–21: 13–21. ______. 1995. Archaeological research in Trajan’s Forum in 1991. In The Places of Imperial Consensus: The Forum of Augustus, the Forum of Trajan, edited by E. La Rocca, L. Ungaro and R. Meneghini, 120–124. Rome: Progetti Museali Editore. ______. 1998. L’ Architettura del foro di Traiano attraverso i ritrovamenti archaeologici piu’ recenti. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 105: 127–148. ______. 2001a. Il Foro di Traiano. Ricostruzione architettonica e analisi strutturale. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 108: 245–268. ______. 2001b. Lanuova immagine architettonica del Foro di Traiano. In Tra Damasco e Roma. L’ architettura di Apollodoro nella cultura classica. 20 dicembre 2001–20 gennaio 2002, Khan Assad Bacha, Damasco, edited by F. Farina, 48–65. Rome: “L’ Erma” di Bretschneider. ______. 2002. Nuovi dati sulla funzione e le fasi construttive delle «biblioteche» del Foro di Traiano. Mélanges de l’École française de Rome, Antiquité 114: 655– 692. ______. 2007. I Fori Imperiali nell’antichità, 6. Il Foro di Traiano. In I Fori imperiali: gli scavi del comune di Roma (1991–2007), edited by R. Meneghini and R. Santangeli Valenzani, 83–113. Rome: Viviani. Meneghini, R., L. Billi, and S. Colletti. 1996. Templum Divi Traiani. Bullettino della Commissione archeologica comunale di Roma 97: 47–88. Meneghini, R., L. Messa, and L. Ungaro, eds. 1990. Il Foro di Traiano. Rome: Fratelli Palombi Editori. Meneghini, R., and R. Santangeli Valenzani, eds. 2007. I Fori Imperiali: Gli scavi del Comune di Roma (1991–2007). Rome: Viviani Editore. 140 Elizabeth Wolfram Thill

Metcalf, W. E. 1993. Whose liberalitas? Propaganda and audience in the early Roman Empire. Rivista italiana di numismatica e scienze affini95: 337–346. Morgan, M. 1971. The Portico of Metellus: A reconsideration. Hermes 99: 480–505. Noreña, C. 2011. Imperial ideals in the Roman West. Representation, circulation, power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Packer, J. 1981. Numismatic evidence for the Southeast (Forum) Façade of the Basilica Ulpia. In Coins, culture, and history in the ancient world. Numismatic and other studies in honor of B. L. Trell, edited by L. Casson, 57–67. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. ______. 1997a. The Forum of Trajan in Rome: A study of the monuments. 3 vols. California Studies in the History of Art 31. Berkeley: University of California Press. ______. 1997b. Report from Rome: The Imperial Fora, a retrospective.American Journal of Archaeology 101: 307–330. ______. 2003. Templum divi Traiani Pathici et Plotinae. A debate with R. Meneghini. Journal of Roman Archaeology 16: 108–136. ______. 2008. The Column of Trajan. The topographical and cultural contexts. Review of La colonne Trajane et les forums impériaux, by M. Galinier. Journal of Roman Archaeology 21: 471–478. Paribeni, R. 1975 (reprint). Optimus princeps: saggio sulla storia e sui tempi dell’imperatore Traiano. New York: Arno Press. Patterson, J.R. 1987. Crisis: What crisis? Rural change and urban development in Imperial Appennine Italy. Papers of the British School at Rome 55: 115–146. Pollini, J. 1983. Review of Typology and Structure of Roman Historical Reliefs, by M. Torelli. American Journal of Archaeology 87: 572–573. Ponti, G.L. 1995. Observations on the monolithic columns of the Temple of Trajan. In The places of imperial consensus: The Forum of Augustus, the Forum of Trajan, edited by E. La Rocca, L. Ungaro and R. Meneghini, 115–119. Rome: Progetti Museali Editore. Richardson Jr., L. 1976. The evolution of the Porticus Octaviae.Amercan Journal of Archaeology 80: 57–64. ______. 1977a. The architecture of the Forum of Trajan. Newsletter of the Archaeological Institute of America 6: 101–107. ______. 1977b. Hercules Musarum and the Porticus Philippi in Rome. American Journal of Archaeology 81: 355–361. Richmond, I. 1982. Trajan’s army on Trajan’s Column. London: British School at Rome. 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. Scheiper, R. 1982. Bildpropaganda der römischen Kaiserzeit unter besonderer The Emperor in Action 141

Berücksichtigung der Trajanssäule in Rom und korrespondierender Münzen. Bonn: Habelt. Schmidt-Dick, F. 2008. Vom congiarium zur liberalitas. Numismatische Zeitschrift 116/117: 103–113. Seelentag, G. 2004. Taten und Tugenden Traians: Herrschaftsdarstellung im Principat. Hermes. Einzelschriften 91. Stuttgart: Steiner. Settis, S. 1988. La colonna: Strategie di composizione, strategie di lettura. In La Colonna Traiana, edited by S. Settis, A. La Regina, G. Agosti and V. Farinella, 116–255. Saggi 716. Turin: Giulio Einaudi. Simon, E. 1960. Zu den flavischen Reliefs von der Cancelleria. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 75: 134–156. ______. 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. Smith, R. R. R. 1983. Review of Typology and Structure of Roman Historical Reliefs, by M. Torelli. Journal of Roman Studies 73: 225–228. Sobocinski, M. G. 2006. Visualizing ceremony. The design and audience of theludi saeculares coinage of Domitian. American Journal of Archaeology 110: 581–602. Sobocinski, M. G., and E. Wolfram Thill. Forthcoming. Monumental reliefs. In The Oxford Handbook of Roman Sculpture, edited by E. Friedland, M. Grunow Sobocinski and E. Gazda. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Speidel, M. P. 2005–06. Trajan’s Column and the Arch at Benevento. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 112: 189–206. Staccioli, R. A. 2006. Un ingresso trionfale per il Foro di Traiano. Strenna dei Romanisti 67: 615–625. Stamper, J. 2005. The architecture of Roman temples. The Republic to the Middle Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Strack, P. L. 1931. Untersuchungen zur römischen Reichsprägung des zweiten Jahrhunderts. Vol. I. Die Reichsprägung zur Zeit des Traian. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer. Sutherland, C. H. V. 1959. The intelligibility of Roman Imperial coin types. ournalJ of Roman Studies 49: 45–54. Torelli, M. 1982. Typology and structure of Roman historical reliefs. Jerome Lectures 14. Ann Arbor: 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, 145–178. Center for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts. Symposium papers 29. Washington D.C.: National Gallery of Art. Toynbee, J. M. C. 1957. The Flavian reliefs from the Palazzo della Cancelleria in Rome. Charlton Lectures on Art 39. New York: Oxford University Press. 142 Elizabeth Wolfram Thill

Ulrich, R. 1993. Julius Caesar and the Creation of the Forum Iulium. American Journal of Archaeology 97: 49–80. Uzzi, J. D. 2005. Children in the visual arts of Imperial Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. VanderLeest, J. 1995. Hadrian, Lucius Verus, and the Arco di Portogallo. Phoenix 49: 319–330. Ventura Villanueva, A. 2006. El “Forum Augustum”: reflexiones sobre su configu- ración arquitectónica y su funcionalidad judicial (a propósito de la “Basílica Antoniarum Duarum”). Romula 5: 59–84. Westall, R. 1996. The Forum Iulium as representation of Imperator Caesar. Mit- teilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 103: 83–118. Wightman, G. 1997. The Imperial Fora of Rome: Some design considerations. Jour- nal of the Society of Architectural Historians 56: 64–88. Wolfram Thill, E. 2010. Civilization under construction: Depictions of architecture on the Column of Trajan. American Journal of Archaeology 114: 27–43. Woolf, G. 1990. Food, poverty and patronage: The significance of the epigraphy of the Roman alimentary schemes in Early Imperial Italy. Papers of the British School of Rome 58: 197–228. Woytek, B. 2005. Zitate flavischer Reverstypen in der Münzprägung Traians. Mitteilungen der Österreichischen numismatischen Gesellschaft 45: 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, 113–136. 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. Zanker, P. 1968. Forum Augustum: das Bildprogramm. Monumenta artis antiquae 2. Tübingen: Ernst Wasmuth. ______. 1970. Das Trajansforum in Rom. Archäologischer Anzeiger: 499–544. ______. 1988. The power of images in the age of Augustus. Translated by A. Shapiro. Jerome Lectures 16. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Plate 11

1a 1b

The Emperor in Action Plate 12

The Emperor in Action Plate 13

The Emperor in Action Plate 14

The Emperor in Action Plate 15

The Emperor in Action Plate 16

The Emperor in Action Plate 17

The Emperor in Action Plate 18

The Emperor in Action Plate 19

The Emperor in Action Plate 20

The Emperor in Action Plate 21

The Emperor in Action Plate 22

10a

The Emperor in Action Plate 23

10b

11a

11b

The Emperor in Action Plate 24

11c

11d

The Emperor in Action Plate 25

11e

12a

The Emperor in Action Plate 26

12b

13a

The Emperor in Action Plate 27

13b

The Emperor in Action Plate 28

15a

15b

The Emperor in Action Plate 29

16a 16b

16c 16d

The Emperor in Action