Arma virumque: The Significance of Spoils in Roman Culture The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Katz, Rebecca Aileen. 2016. Arma virumque: The Significance of Spoils in Roman Culture. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Graduate School of Arts & Sciences. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:33493290 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Arma virumque: The Significance of Spoils in Roman Culture A dissertation presented by Rebecca Aileen Katz to The Department of the Classics in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the subject of Ancient History Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts May 2016 © 2016 R. A. Katz All rights reserved Dissertation Advisor: Professor Emma Dench Rebecca Aileen Katz Arma virumque: The Significance of Spoils in Roman Culture Abstract This dissertation explores the significance of spoils and the practice of spoils-taking in Roman culture. Working from the premise that spoils in the classical sense (Latin spolia, exuviae) are items singled out for their symbolic value and accordingly subjected to different treatment than other war booty (Latin praeda, manubiae), I begin by examining arma, one of the primary targets of despoliation, in order to show how this symbolic value is generated based on the identity of the spoils’ original owners. From there I show that the value of spoils depends directly upon the virtus (i.e. “manliness” as demonstrated primarily through courage or prowess in combat) of the parties involved in taking and giving them, as shown by cases involving male figures who lack this quality or female figures who exhibit it. In the following two chapters I propose a model of “inheritance by conquest”: that spoils are earned through successful acts of virtus and can thereafter be deployed as handles by which to manipulate the identity of their original owners. In order to demonstrate this model at work, I trace several case studies that highlight the role of spoils as symbolic capital in the context of aristocratic competition, as well as the transformation of two spoils traditions (the laurel-wreath and the spolia opima) during the transition from Republic to Empire. Finally, I look to related phenomena, including headhunting and other human trophy collecting, relic culture, and architectural spolia, to help illuminate the dual nature of spoils as both proofs and remembrances of victory and victim. iii Contents Acknowledgments vi List of Figures viii Introduction 1 I. Dressed to Kill: Arma and the Construction of Identity 11 II. Virtus Unmanned: Warmaidens, Boy Soldiers, and the Engendering of Value 79 III. Victor | Victoria: Inheritance by Conquest 147 IV. Spolia Augusta: Afterlives and Transformations 222 V. Off with Your Head: Men and the Art of Monumental Violence 304 Conclusion 366 Appendix 370 Bibliography 374 iv D M feliculis carissimis v Acknowledgments There are many people who deserve my thanks for their support. First must come Emma Dench, who has been a steadfast and superlative mentor for over seven years. Her sense of humor has kept me sane and her advice has been indispensable at every turn in the road from prospective graduate student to prospective faculty member. I am indebted also to Kathleen Coleman for setting an inspirational example of scholarship. Her encyclopedic knowledge of history and texts both ancient and modern has greatly improved this work, and her careful reading and attention to detail have saved me from numerous errors. (Those that have escaped are of course mine alone.) Christopher Krebs first embarked with me on an exploration of spoils in the ancient world, and I greatly appreciate his willingness to see this project through even from the opposite coast. I am a better thinker for his insightful questions and comments. Carmen Arnold-Biucchi has been a wonderful mentor and a cherished guide to the world of numismatics. Both she and Mary McWilliams have been constant sources of support and good cheer in good times and in bad alike. Words will not suffice for my incomparable cohort: Sarah Lannom, who has shared with me all the trials and tribulations of graduate school; James Townshend, whose wit and wisdom have helped me survive the gauntlet of the Ivory Tower; and Julian Yolles and Tom Keeline, who are always ready to share a good story and who have paved the way ahead. I am grateful also to numerous faculty and friends at both Princeton and Harvard. I must name Ted Champlin, Yelena Baraz, and Brent Shaw for their continued guidance and unflagging vi support, both moral and academic, which have only grown since I left the orange bubble for the crimson; and Amy Koenig and Alex Forte, who have seemed all too happy to lend an ear considering how often they have been subjected to some of the most inane and random thoughts. Megan McNall and Mackenzie Bushy have also been immensely patient with their often eccentric friend and have been instrumental in making me acknowledge the outside world every now and then. None of this would have been possible without my family, especially my parents, who have always been there to support me, who have insisted on seeing me through to the end in this too (as in everything else), and who took exceptional care of my furry companions when I could not. vii List of Figures 1.1: Detail of the census frieze from the Altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus. Rome, late 2nd century B.C. 30 1.2: Cenotaph of M. Caelius T.f. Colonia Ulpia Traiana (Xanten), Germania Inferior, c. A.D. 9. CIL 40 XIII 8648. 1.3: Funerary monument of T. Calidius P.f. Severus. Carnuntum, Pannonia Superior, 40 1st century A.D. CIL III 11213. 1.4: Denarius of the Marsic Confederation. Uncertain mint in Italy, 90–89 B.C. HN Italy 420. 57 2.1: Denarius of P. Crepusius. Rome, 82 B.C. RRC 361/1a. 90 2.2: Sestertius of Claudius. Rome, A.D. 50–54. RIC I2 Claudius 114. 90 2.3: Denarius of P. Fonteius P. f. Capito. Rome, 55 B.C. RRC 429/1. 92 2.4: Detail of the funerary monument of Sex. Valerius Genialis. Britain, late 1st–early 2nd 93 century A.D. CIL VII 68 = RIB I 109. 2.5: Detail of the funerary monument of T. Flavius Bassus. Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium 93 (Cologne), Germania Inferior, late 1st century A.D. CIL XIII 8308. 2.6: Sestertius of Trajan. Rome, A.D. 103–107. Woytek 203b = RIC II Trajan 534. 94 2.7: Tondo from the south side of the Arch of Constantine: Hadrian (recarved as Constantine) 95 hunting a bear. Rome, originally c. A.D. 123–138. 2.8: Tondo from the north side of the Arch of Constantine: Hadrian (recarved as Constantine) 95 hunting a boar. Rome, originally c. A.D. 123–138. 2.9: Cancelleria Relief B (profectio). Detail. Rome, second half of the 1st century A.D. 122 3.1: Torso of an emperor in armor, second half of the 1st century A.D. 148 3.2: Torso of an emperor in armor, second half of the 1st century A.D. Detail. 149 3.3: Anonymous victoriatus with torque. Rome, c. 211–208 B.C. RRC 91/1a. 159 3.4: Denarius of L. Manlius Torquatus (q.). Rome, 113/112 B.C. RRC 295/1. 159 3.5: Denarius of D. Junius L. f. Silanus. Rome, 91 B.C. RRC 337/1a. 161 3.6: Denarius of L. Manlius Torquatus (pr. 49). Rome, 58 B.C. RRC 411/1a. 162 3.7: Anonymous denarius with elephant’s head. Rome, 128 B.C. RRC 262/1. 171 3.8: Denarius of T. Quinctius Flamininus. Rome, 126 B.C. RRC 267/1. 174 3.9: Denarius of M. Caecilius Metellus Q.f. (cos. 115). Rome, 127 B.C. RRC 263/1b. 174 3.10: Denarius of C. Caecilius Metellus (cos. 113). Rome, 125 B.C. RRC 269/1. 176 3.11: Tetradrachm of Philip V. Macedon, c. 188–179 B.C. Mamroth 16. 178 viii 3.12: Denarius of Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius (cos. 109). Uncertain mint in northern Italy, c. 81 B.C. 180 RRC 374/1. 3.13: Tetradrachm of Roman Crete. Gortyn, c. 67 B.C. RPC I 901.2. Svoronos 190. 180 3.14: Denarius of Julius Caesar. Moving mint, 49–48 B.C. RRC 443/1. 184 3.15: Denarius of Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio. Africa, 47–46 B.C. RRC 459/1. 184 3.16: Denarius of M. Durmius. Rome, 19/18 B.C. RIC I2 Augustus 311. 191 3.17: Stater of Ptolemy I. Cyrene, c. 300–298 B.C. Svoronos 1. 191 3.18: Aureus of Augustus. Spain (Colonia Patricia?), July 18 B.C.–17/16 B.C. RIC I2 Augustus 141. 193 3.19: Statue of “Trajan-Hercules.” Rome, A.D. 108–113. 210 3.20: Statue of “Trajan-Hercules.” Rome, A.D. 108–113. Detail. 210 3.21: Bust of Commodus as Hercules. Rome, A.D. 180–193. 212 3.22: Aureus of Commodus. Rome, A.D. 192. RIC III Commodus 253. 215 3.23: Aureus of Maximian. Rome, A.D. 293–294. Cohen VI2 254 var. 218 4.1: Detail of the Augustus of Prima Porta. Rome, early 1st c. A.D. 223 4.2: Dupondius of Octavian. Italy, c. 38 B.C.