The new types with barbarians found on coins from the age of Augustus through the reign of M. Aurelius and L. Verus and their relationship to contemporary sculpture are the subject of this chapter. Not all new types of this period will be treated. Roman imperial sculpture does not offer us, as the coinage does, a complete series of dated monuments. A very large part of Roman sculpture is now lost. Among the new coin types, we have selected those which show a very close connection to extant works of the contemporary sculpture or else to works of sculpture for whose existence we have considerable evidence. These are the types which are treated at greater length. Mention is made also of several other types not only in the text, but especially in the footnotes, whenever this seems to give a better understanding of the topic under discussion. The conclusions we draw from the study of the above mentioned new types appear on p. 23.
A triple arch appears on coins struck in Spain in 18/17 b. c. 1 ( Plate I, 1). This representation is very similar to the one found on denarii from the mint of Rome struck by the moneyer L. Vinicius in 16 b. c. 2 ( Plate I, 2). These are so similar that several authors believe that both types give the image of the same arch. 3 It seems, however, that the difference between the two is far too great to be explained only by the fact that the coins originate from two different mints. The two side passageways have a markedly different aspect. 4 Furthermore, on the Spanish coins the two figures on the side of the central quadriga are certainly to be identified as barbarians because they are naked and have long hair and possibly beards. On the Roman coins they are very crudely drawn and on most specimens they look more like Roman soldiers than barbarians. The two types, therefore, probably reproduce two different buildings. 5 While no satisfactory explanation has yet been found for the arch on L. Vinicius' denarius, no doubt is possible as to the one on the Spanish coins since the legend is clear enough.
It is the arch erected near the temple of Divus Julius in honor of the recovery of the standards lost by Crassus at Carrhae. 6 The sculptures of this arch had a widespread influence. This is demonstrated by the fact that no figure of a barbarian presenting a Roman standard appears on any monument earlier than the arch.
The Parthian presenting a standard to Mars on the cuirass of the Augustus from Prima Porta was probably directly derived from the two standard bearers represented on the monument which appears on the Spanish coin. Their similarity is certainly striking. 7
Among the coins Augustus issued celebrating his settlement of Partho-Armenian affairs are denarii struck at Rome in 18 b. c. 8 On the reverse they show a kneeling Parthian holding a Roman standard ( Plate I, 3). The type is new for a Roman coin. 9 It is connected by its legend (caesar augustus sign rece) with the event celebrated by the arch of Augustus. We also have good reason to connect the coin with this monument because of its type. This arch, which is not extant, may be connected with two triple arches erected at Pisidian Antioch. A triple arch was erected in that city by C. Julius Asper, consul of a. d. 212. 10 From each of the two spandrels of the central archway come blocks with the relief figure of a barbarian kneeling and holding a Roman standard ( Plate II, 1). The similarity between the barbarian of the right spandrel 11 ( Plate II, 2) and the figure on the denarii is certainly striking both in regard to costume and to the type of standard he holds. The arch of Asper was certainly an imitation of an earlier one, also erected at Antioch, 12 in the age of Augustus. Remains of the sculptural decoration of this monument, too, are extant. Slabs once in the spandrels show kneeling barbarians. It seems possible that the prototype for these arches of Antioch was the arch of Augustus near the temple of Divus Julius. This arch very probably was decorated with figures of kneeling barbarians in the spandrels and at least one of them was a Parthian standard bearer similar to the one on the arch of Asper. This figure was very likely the model of the denarii referred to above. Possibly, another type of Augustus can be connected with the decorations of the spandrels in the same arch. The settlement of Armenia's affairs was also part of the political successes of 20 b.c. A kneeling Armenian is represented on denarii which were struck at Rome in 18 b. c ( Plate II, 3). 13
|*||Res Gestae Divi Augusti, C. Barini rec., V, 40–42.|
|1.||BMC, I, p. 73, nos. 427–429, pl. 10, 2, 3.|
|2.||BMC, I, pp. 14f., nos. 77, 78, pl. 3, 4.|
|3.||Recently L. Laffranchi, in Riv. Ital. Num., 27, 1914 pp. 317f.; Kaehler, col. 380, no. 9; L. B. Holland, in A. J. A., L, 1946, pp. 52ff.|
|4.||M. Stuart, in A. J. A., XLIX, 1945, p. 233.|
|5.||Recently M. Bemhart, in Deutsches Jahrb. f. Num., 1938, pp. 151f.; G. Lugli, Monumenti minori del Foro Romano, pp. 77ff.; A. Degrassi, in Rendiconti Pont. Acc. Arch., 1945–1946, pp. 57ff.; G. Gatti, in Rendiconti Pont. Acc. Arch., 1945, pp. 105ff.|
|6.||Cf. Kaehler, loc. cit.|
|7.||The derivation of this figure from the arch has already been suggested by E. Loewy, in Röm. Mitt., 42, 1927, p. 215. On the Prima Porta Augustus, see lately A. Alföldi, in Röm. Mitt., 52, 1937, pp. 48ff.; V. Müller, in Am. Journ. Phil., 62, 1941) pp. 496ff.|
|8.||BMC, I, p. 8, nos. 40–42, pl. 2, 2; idem, p. 11, nos. 56–59, pl. 2, 11, 12; idem, pp. 3f., nos. 10–17, pl. i, 7–9.|
|9.||Kneeling barbarians holding Roman standards are later found on coins of L. Caninius Gallus (BMC, I, p. 27, nos. 127–130, pl. 4, 16) and Domitian (BMC, II, p. 42, nos. 231–233, pl. 7, 6). Also on a gem in Berlin (A. Furtwängler, Die antike Gemmen, pl. 37, no. 25; D. Mustilli, L'iconografia e l'epopea di Augusto nella glittica, p. 15, pl. II, 7); on a gladiatorial helmet in the Museum of Naples (W. Schmid, in Sirena Buliciana, pp. 49ff., figs. 3–5; Schumacher-Klumbach, Germanendarstellungen, I, no. 150; V. P. Bienkowski, Germania, II, 1918, p. 14); on a lamp in the Wollman Collection (Schumacher-Klumbach, op. cit., no. 95). The gladiatorial helmet and the lamp have been rightly connected with the recovery of the standards lost by Varus.|
|10.||Th. H. Robinson, in Art Bulletin, IX, 1926, pp. 45ff., figs. 69ff .; Kaehler, col. 454, no. 5b|
|11.||Plate II, 2 shows the upper part of the kneeling barbarian (Robinson, op. cit., fig. 69), Plate II, 1, a reconstruction by F. J. Woodbridge of the arch (Robinson, op. cit., fig. 67). For the lower part of the barbarian see Robinson, op. cit., fig. 71.|
|12.||Robinson, op. cit., pp. 21ff., figs. 41, 42; Kaehler, col. 453, no. 5a.|
Josephus 1 informs us that Vespasian and Titus spent the night preceding the celebration of their triumph for the capture of Jerusalem in the temple of Isis in the Campus Martius. 2 The triumph took place at the end of June in the year 71 a. d. Coins showing the temple of Isis on the reverse were struck to commemorate this event. 3
The inscription on the attic of a triple arch represented on one of the reliefs from the tomb of the Haterii family 4 ( Plate III, 1) reads arcus ad isis. It is generally agreed that the Arcus ad Isis was on the Via Labicana near the temple of Isis in the third region. 5 Because of the location of the other monuments represented in the Haterii relief, it seems rather unlikely that the arch was located near the temple in the Campus Martius. The fact that the arch was erected near a sanctuary of Isis rather reflects the high consideration Isis enjoyed from Vespasian. When this arch was erected, we do not know. It might have been erected before the triumph, possibly very soon after the capture of Jerusalem (7/8 September 70). That it was erected for Vespasian and Titus' victory over the Jews is demonstrated by the fact that in the Haterii relief we see on the attic of the arch, on each side of the central quadriga, a palm-tree with prisoners tied at its foot. The palm-tree stands as a symbol for Judaea. It is probable that it was erected before 79, the year of Vespasian's death, since two arches were erected after this date which also commemorated the victory over the Jews. One was erected at the entrance of the Circus Maximus. 6 The other, erected after Titus' death, is, of course, the one on the Sacra Via. 7
The Jewish war was widely celebrated on coins also. Types referring to it form two main groups. The first is composed of coins issued by Vespasian and Titus before Vespasian's death and especially in the years 71 to 73. The second consists of coins of Titus issued in 80/81. Therefore, broadly speaking, the first group corresponds to the Arcus ad Isis, the second to the arch in the Circus Maximus. The first group presents several representations new to coins, while the coins of Titus Augustus repeat, as far as representations of barbarians are concerned, the most famous type of the issues of Vespasian's reign, a standing prisoner and a mourning woman at the foot of a palm tree 8 ( Plate III, 2). Leaving aside, therefore, the coins of Titus Augustus, it is important to examine those issued during the reign of Vespasian. In most of these the palm tree appears over and over again as a symbol for Judaea and obviously as a substitution for the trophy. 9 This substitution is found for the first time on asses struck at Tarraco and at an unidentified Gaulish mint, and also on denarii of the mint of Rome in 69/70. 10 On these coins a mourning Judaean appears at the foot of a palm-tree ( Plate III, 3). The similarity of this motif, barbarians at the foot of a palm-tree, on the attic of the Arcus ad Isis and on the coins, is certainly striking.
Possibly, several of the coin types issued in honor of the victory over the Jews during Vespasian's reign, were influenced by this arch. It is noteworthy, for instance, that the type showing a standing prisoner and a mourning woman ( Plate III, 2) presents, for the first time in the history of Roman coins, two barbarians together in this attitude. 11 It should also be mentioned in this connection that the sculptor of the Haterii relief worked in a crude way and his details are generally sketchy.
It seems very probable that the most important new element found on the issues commemorating the Jewish war, the palm-tree, was borrowed from the sculptural decoration of the Arcus ad Isis.
|13.||BMC, I, p. 4f., pl. i, 10–12; p. 8, no. 43, pl. 2, 3.|
|1.||Josephus, De bello judaico, VII, 5, 4.|
|2.||On this temple, see Platner-Ashby, pp. 283ff.; Lugli, Monumenti, III, pp. 107ff.; D. F. Brown, Architectura Numismatica, I, (New York University, 1941, diss. unpublished), pp. 95ff.|
|3.||Brown,, op. cit.|
|4.||See specially Kaehler, col. 401, no. 45; Strack, I, p. 93; Spano, in Atti Accad. Arch, di Napoli, 24, 1906, pp. 259ff.; Cf. F. Castagnoli, in Bull. Com., LXIX, 1941, p. 59 and for illustration P. Gusman, Vart décoratif de Rome, II, pl. 115.|
|5.||See for instance Lugli, Monumenti, III, p. 389; Platner-Ashby, p. 40; Kaehler (loc. cit.) is uncertain whether the arch was set up in the vicinity of the temple in the Campus Martius or near the one in the third region. On the sanctuary of the third region, see Platner-Ashby, pp. 285f. It seems that a good solution to the rather entangled question of the exact location of this sanctuary is given by Lugli's hypothesis that two sanctuaries of Isis existed in the third region.|
|6.||Kaehler, col. 385f., no. 22; Platner-Ashby, p. 45.|
|7.||Kaehler, col. 386, no. 23; K. Lehmann-Hartleben, in Bull. Com., LXII, 1934, pp. 89ff.|
|8.||Sestertii of Vespasian: BMC. II, pp. 115f., nos. 532–539, pl. XX, 4–7; idem, pp. 116f., nos. 540–542, pl. 20, 9; idem, p. 185, nos. 761–764, pl. 33, 1–3; sestertii and as of Titus struck 80–81 A. D.: BMC. II, p. 256, nos. 161–163, pl. 48, 8; idem, pp. 256f., nos. 164–170, pl. 48, 9, 10; idem, p. 266, no. ‡; idem, p. 294, no. 308, pl. 57. 4.|
|9.||See the preceding and following note. The palm-tree may appear also as the single decoration of the field (see BMC. II, pl. 24, 1–3, 6); in the centre, with the emperor on one side and Judaea or a standing male prisoner on the other (see BMC. II, pl. 2, 10, 14; pl. 18, 20; pl. 19, 7; pl. 20, 8, 10; pl. 25, 1; pl. 33, 4; pl. 37, 1, 7; pl. 39, 1; pl. 40, 1; H. A. Cahn, in Num. Chron., VI Series, VI, 1946, p. 11, no. 8, Pl. 1, 5); on bronze coins where the emperor and suppliant Jews also appear (BMC. II, pl. 26, 2); with Judaea standing (BMC. II, pl. 12, 11, 12; pl. 13, 8, 9).|
|10.||BMC. II, p. 181, no. §, pl. 32, 1; idem, p. 193, no. ‡; idem, pp. 6f., nos. 43, 44, pl. i, 13. The type appears later on coins issued in 71, 72, 73, 77/78 and also on undated ones.|
|11.||Generally, on Republican coins, whenever two barbarians are represented at foot of a trophy – it has been pointed out above that on the Judaea Capta coins the palm-tree is a substitution for the trophy – they are both seated or else one is seated, the other kneeling. Standing prisoners appear at foot of a trophy, but in scenes of a different kind, as on denarii of S. Sulpicius Galba (BMCR, I, p. 488, nos. 3907f., pl. XLVIII, 21) and L. Aemilius Paulus (idem, p. 418, no. 3373, pl. XLIII, 8). The motif of the standing man and seated woman at foot of a trophy was on the contrary, already well known in sculpture. To the monuments showing this motif quoted by K. Woelcke (in Bonner Jahrbücher, 120, 1911, p. 178) a few others should be added: the decoration on a shield on a relief at Parma (E. Loewy, in Jahrb. d. Kunsthist. Sammlungen in Wien, N. F. II, 1928, pl. III) and, later, the groups on the arch of M. Aurelius at Tripoli (G. Caputo, in Africa Italiana, 1940, p. 46, figs. 24, 29; Kaehler, col. 443, no. 50; of the earlier bibliography on this arch, see specially S. Aurigemma, in Bollettino d'arte, XIX, 1926, p. 554, fig. 6 and F. Noack, in Warburg Vorträge, 1925/1926, p. 200). See also the base found at Corinth ( Corinth , Results of Excavations, IX, no. 224).|
Domitian's triumph over the Chatti in 83 a. d. was widely celebrated on the coins of the period. Several new types appear showing barbarians. Among these, the type showing a standing prisoner and a mourning woman at the foot of a trophy, is especially interesting ( Plate IV, 1). It appears on sestertii struck in 85, 86 and 87. 1 Its similarity with the Judaea Capta type examined above is obvious. Nevertheless, at a closer examination, many differences between the two appear and several elements new to Roman coins are noticeable on the Germania Capta, type. The trophy represented is different from any other trophy represented before on a Roman coin because of the German "sagum" so prominently displayed. On republican and earlier imperial coins, a cuirass or a short tunic is generally found in its place. Moreover, the weapons scattered in the lower part of the field are different from those represented on the Judaea Capta type. Coins of 85 a. d. also show an arch, a tetrapylon, surmounted by two quadrigae, drawn by elephants ( Plate IV, 2). This type appears for the first time on sestertii of the same issue as the first of the above quoted coins showing a standing prisoner and a seated woman at the foot of a trophy and later, without any important change, in 90/91 and in 95/g6. 2 In Kaehler's opinion 3 this tetrapylon is the porta triumphalis which is also represented after the age of Domitian on several monuments commemorating an emperor's entry into or departure from the city. 4 This theory is certainly not contradicted by the fact that the construction of the tetrapylon was connected with Domitian's victory over the Chatti.
The most detailed representation of the monument is that on one of the Aurelian reliefs of the arch of Constantine ( Plate IV, 3). 5 On the attic, at the left, a group of a standing prisoner and a mourning seated woman at the foot of a trophy is visible. The prisoner wears the costume of the Germans. The group does certainly differ in several details from the one on the coins ( Plate IV, 1), especially as far as the arms are concerned. The prisoner's hands are tied in front, while on the coins they are tied in back. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that the general composition of the scene, the costume of the man, the attitude and dress of the woman are the same. It is very likely that one coin type reproduces one group of the arch—another certainly existed on the other side of the elephants' quadriga, and the Aurelian sculptor did not have space enough for it – and the other coin type reproduces the arch itself.
It has been noticed above that the trophy on the type in Plate IV, 1 is different from any other trophy represented before on a Roman coin because of the German "sagum" so prominently displayed. This same kind of trophy appears on other coins of Domitian commemorating the same war. That this trophy was influenced by the sculpture of the period is shown by one of the two trophies of the period of Domitian which now decorate the balustrade of the Capitol in Rome, the so-called "trofei di Mario." This trophy also has the "sagum." 6
|1.||BMC. II, p. 362, no. 294, pl. 70, 8; idem, p. 369, nos. 325, 326, pl. 72, 8; idem, p. 376, no. 361, pl. 74, 2; idem, p. 380, no. 372, pl. 75, 4; idem, p. 385, no. 395, pl. 76, 6.|
|2.||BMC, II, p. 364, no. † pl. 71, 6; p. 399, no.*; p. 407, no. †, pl. 81, 1. Onthis arch see especially Kaehler, col. 374; cf. M. Bernhart, Handbuch zur Münzkunde der römischen Kaiserzeit, p. 133; J. Liegle, in Antike, 1936, p. 219, fig. 20b.|
|3.||loc. cit. in note 1. The same theory is also propounded by F. Castagnoli in Bull. Com., LXXI, 1943–1945, pp. 137ff.|
|4.||Stuart Jones (in Papers Brit. School at Rome, III, 1906, pp. 259ff.) has already identified the arch represented on two medallions of M. Aurelius (G., II, p. 27, nos. 2, 3, pl. 59, 5), on two Aurelian reliefs of the arch of Constantine (H. P. L'Orange, Spätantike Bildschmuck des Constantinsbogens, pl. 47a, b) with the tetrapylon on the sestertii of Domitian. The tetrapylon is again represented on the Constantinian friezes of the same arch (see L'Orange, op. cit., pp. 74 and 79ff., pls. 13b and 18d). Cf. also Martial, VIII, 65.|
|5.||L'Orange, op. cit., pl. 47b; Strong, pp. 253ff., fig. 158; Hamberg, op. cit., pp. 83ff., pl. II; M. Wegner, in Arch. Anz., 1938, p. 180; J. Dobias, in Revue Numism., 35, 1932, p. 155; etc.|
|6.||The connection between the trophy of the coins and the one on the Capitol has been suggested by K. Lehmann-Hartleben (Röm. Mitt., 38/39, 1923/1924, p. 192). On the "trofei di Mario" see also Strong pp. 128f., fig. 82; W. Helbig- W. Amelung, Führer durch die öff. Sammlungen klassischer Altertümer in Rom, I, pp. 409ff.; P. Bienkowski, De simulacris barbararum gentium apud Romanos, p. 39, fig. 19; M. J. Macrea, in Anuarul Institutului de studii clasice, II, 1933/1935, p. 109. In this connection, see also the interesting coin type showing a male barbarian in front of a trophy found on an aureus of Domitian (Basel Münzhandlung Sale Cat., 6, 1936, pl. 16, no. 1639).|
Many new coin types showing figures of barbarians were struck during Trajan's reign. They commemorate his wars on the Danube and in the East. Most of them present symbolical figures or groups. Some show scenes of a narrative character. On denarii dated to 107/111, a Dacian prisoner appears as the only figure on the reverse 1 ( Plate V, 1). He is standing left, with his hands tied in front. This is the only representation on a Roman coin of a standing prisoner with hands thus tied. The only example to occur in sculpture earlier than the age of Trajan, is in the group on the attic of the tetrapylon of Domitian 2 ( Plate IV, 3). Because of his attitude and his nationality, the Dacian on the denarii immediately recalls the well known statues on the attic of the arch of Constantine 3 ( Plate V, 3). They formerly decorated the Forum Traiani, probably the colonnades. Their exact date is not known. The Forum was dedicated in 113 a. d. Work on the new Forum had possibly already begun during the reign of Domitian, 4 certainly by 107. There is no reason to believe that the statues did not already exist at the time the denarii ( Plate V, 1) were issued. In this case we have, therefore, the prototype of a new coin type among the extant works of sculpture.
It is interesting now to investigate whether the colossal statues of the Dacians were new creations of Trajan's period. Similar statues were used later as decorations of public buildings of various kinds. 5 It is possible, however, that they were first used on a triumphal arch, in the same place the Dacians of the period of Trajan now occupy on the arch of Constantine. In fact, a triple arch appears on a sestertius of 100 a. d. 6 The aspect of the attic suggests that statues had been set up in front of it 7 ( Plate V, 2). Neither the location of this arch nor the occasion for its construction is known since Trajan had not achieved any major military success up to this date. 8 It is well known that most of the many arches Domitian erected in Rome were destroyed after his death. 9 It is not unlikely that some were only defaced. We know of an inscription which has been connected by Mommsen with an arch erected for Domitian's victories over the Dacians and the Chatti. 10 It is possible that the arch represented on Trajan's sestertius reproduces an arch erected by Domitian, rededicated by Trajan and decorated, on the attic, with colossal statues of Dacians.
Although they will be treated later again, in connection with the barbarian as an "attribute," 11 mention should be made now of three new Trajanic coin types. They have already been interpreted by several scholars. Mattingly and Strack regard them as direct reproductions of honorary statues of Trajan, now lost. One is found on a sestertius ( Plate VI, 2) struck between 104 and 111. 12 In this type, the statuary origin is suggested by the big base decorated with festoons. On this base, military eagles and standards are visible. In the center, there is a second base (?) on which Trajan stands clad in a toga. He holds the triumphal insignia, the laurel branch and sceptre. Two small barbarians appear, one on either side of the emperor. In some specimens, they seem to be kneeling and appear to be supported by shields. A flying Victory on the right above is crowning Trajan. She is probably an addition or a variant due to the die-engraver. The eagles, the standards and the barbarians are very likely part of the original composition. 13
On aurei and sestertii struck between 103 and 111, 14 Trajan appears with his foot on a Dacian ( Plate VI, 3). The closest numismatic precedent for this type is the sestertius on which Domitian is represented with his foot on the river Rhine. 15 Trajan's type shows a new detail, only the head and shoulders of the barbarian are visible. This detail is also found on another type of Trajan, 16 but it disappears afterwards. It is certainly peculiar. From an artistic point of view, it is also rather awkward. The coins of Trajan show a generally high standard of artistic ability. Why did the die-engraver choose such an awkward detail ? Why didn't he represent the whole figure of the emperor's enemy? The whole figure would have been far more effective. The meaning of the scene would have been far more readily understandable. A careful examination of the coin types – those earlier as well as those later than the type of Plate VI, 3 – does not give, at least to the writer, an explanation of the reason the die-engraver used the half figure of the barbarian. The fact that this detail disappeared so soon from the coins seems rather to suggest that the die engravers did not consider it the best device to represent the emperor's enemy on a coin.
However, there is an explanation for this peculiar detail. A statue of Hadrian was found at Hierapytna (Crete). It is now at Constantinople. 17 The emperor appears in military dress. He is standing with his left foot on a defeated barbarian ( Plate VI, 1). Should an artist wish to reproduce this statuary group on a very small and flat surface he would have to resort to some devices. The emperor would have to be represented more or less in profile otherwise his attitude would not be very clear. An exact reproduction of the whole figure of the recumbent barbarian would hardly be possible. On a small and flat field this recumbent figure would be hardly recognizable. The artist would most probably limit himself to that part of the figure which is more clearly visible from every angle, the head and the shoulders. It is interesting to notice that even on a mechanical photographic reproduction such as Plate VI, 1 the head and the shoulders are the most clearly visible parts of the recumbent barbarian.
Thus, the statue of Hierapytna gives the explanation, we have been seeking in vain, of Trajan's coin type. From the above said, the statue found at Hierapytna shows both the emperor and his defeated enemy in about the same attitude of Trajan and his Dacian. It seems to us that the only possible explanation for the half figure of the barbarian on Trajan's coin is the assumption that a statue of Trajan as model of the type existed. This statue must have been very similar to the one of Hadrian found at Hierapytna.
It has been pointed out above 18 that coin types showing a riding emperor and his enemy or enemies are to be interpreted as an abbreviation of a more complex battle scene. This kind of representation is found on coins of the Flavians since 72/73. 19 A type on a denarius of 101/102 20 ( Plate VI, 4) shows several differences from earlier similar types ( Plate VI, 5), and is, therefore, to be considered new. Trajan is not represented in military dress, fighting and spearing his enemy, but, clad in a toga, raising his hand. His horse is pacing and not galloping. He seems totally unaware of the suppliant enemy who is merely his symbolic accessory rather than his enemy. Mattingly and Laffranchi 21 suggest that the type might be a reproduction of a statue of Trajan. It is believed that most types in which the horse appears pacing or standing still reproduce equestrian statues 22 and we know of an "equus Traiani" which was erected in the center of the Forum. 23
Narrative scenes with barbarians appear most frequently on coins referring to Trajan's Eastern war. The rex parthus type issued in gold and bronze 24 commemorates the appearance of the Parthian prince Parthamasiris before Trajan at Elegeia in 114 25 ( Plate VII, 1). The "regna adsignata" type, also on gold and bronze coins 26 portrays the investiture of three kings by Trajan following the success of the campaign of 115, an otherwise unrecorded event ( Plate VII, 2). The "rex parthis datus", on sestertii only, 27 records ( Plate VII, 3) King Parthamaspates' investiture. These types are among the very few on imperial coins which represent barbarians as individuals and not as mere symbols of the vanquished race. On the "rex parthis datus" coins, however, the figure of personified Parthia appears on the left. There is no attempt at individual characterization of the barbarian princes in any of the three types. All three types are to be considered new.
Although scenes of homage as well as investitures had been represented before on Roman coins, the composition of earlier types was simpler than that of the types of Trajan's period. For instance, Artaxias' investiture by Germanicus appears on a denarius struck by Caligula at Caesarea. 28 Here, only Germanicus and Artaxias are re- presented and both are standing. Similarly, the scenes of homage on earlier coins did not have such an elaborate composition as the "rex parthus." 29 The reliefs of the column of Trajan show scenes which are very similar to the three coin types under consideration 30 ( Plate VIII; Plate VII, 4), although they have a far greater number of figures. That the reliefs of the column provided the model for the die-engraver is chronologically possible. The exact date at which the sculptured frieze was completed is not known, 31 but the date of the dedication of the monument was May 18, 113 a. d. 32
|1.||BMC. III, pp. 82f., nos. 381–383, pl. 15, 13.|
|2.||See above, p. 13.|
|3.||Seven of the eight statues on the attic have been restored, and one is entirely modern (cf. Bull. Com., 1918, pp. 161ff., pl. V). The lower part of the original eighth statue is in the Museo Capitolino (H. Stuart Jones, The Sculptures of the Museo Capitolino, p. 31, no. 21, pl. 7; cf. the statue in the Villa Borghese, Arndt-Amelung, Einzelaufnahmen, no. 2867). A similar image, probably of a somewhat later date, is in the Museo Laterano (A. Della Seta, I monumenti dell' antichità classica; II, fig. 516); three heads (two of these were found in the Forum Traiani) are in the Braccio Nuovo (W. Amelung, Die Sculpturen des Vaticanischen Museums, nos. 9, 118, 127) cf. also a torso in the Chiaramonti (Amelung, op. cit., I, pl. 57, no. 356) and a head in the British Museum (Catalogue no. 1770). They are remains of similar statues. For the porphyry Dacians, now in Paris and Florence, and their possible connection with the "porticus porphyretica" of the Forum of Trajan, see R. Delbrück, Antike Povphyrwerke, pp. 43ff., pls. 3, 4 and p. 135; cf. R. Paribeni, Optimum Princeps, II, pp. 82f.; for the prisoners in the Museo Nazionale of Naples, Paribeni, op. cit., II, pp. 78f., fig. 9; Guida Rutsch, p. 22, nos. 76, 77. On the Trajanic statues of prisoners in general, M. Pallottino, Arte figurativa e ornamentale, p. 95.|
|4.||See Lugli, Centro, p. 280. Cf. Platner-Ashby, pp. 237ff.|
|5.||A colossal statue of an Oriental barbarian found at Ephesus (J. Keil, in Jahreshefte öst. Inst., XXVIII, 1933, Suppl. col. 37f., no. 4, fig. 22) has certainly the Dacian of Trajan as prototype. At Ephesus the torso of another colossal barbarian was found (Keil, op. cit., cols. 38f., no. 5, fig. 21). Cf. also the "stoa of the colossal figures" at Corinth ( Corinth , Results of Excavations, IX, pp. 101ff., nos. 217f.) where barbarians appear as supporting figures on the upper story.|
|6.||BMC, III, p. 152, no. †; Strack, I, p. 92, pl. IV, no. 331. See Kaehler, col. 387, no. 25.|
|7.||Kaehler, loc. cit.|
|8.||The victory over the Suebi of 97 is the only one which could be taken in consideration.|
|9.||Dio Cassius, LXVIII, 1.|
|10.||CIL, VI, 1207; cf. Kaehler, col. 387, no. 24 and L. Morpurgo, in Bull. Com., 36,1908, p. 124, 4.|
|11.||See p. 23ff.|
|12.||BMC. III, p. 174, no. 826, pl. 30, 5. On this coin, see also Strack, I, p. 112, no. 364, pl. V; A. Alföldi, in Röm. Mitt., 49, 1934, p. 68, pl. II, 1; W. H. Gross, Bildnisse Trajans , p. 14, pl. 44g; cf. also H. Lehner, in Bonner Jahrbücher, 122, 1912, pp. 430f. This is the first coin where an emperor appears with two barbarians symmetrically represented at his feet, one on each side. The only precedent for the type can be seen among the coins issued by Faustus Cornelius Sulla, where the moneyer's father appears seated on a tribunal with king Bocchus on the left, and Jugurtha on the right (BMCR. I, p. 471, nos. 3824f., pl. XLVII, 18; cf. L. Cesano, in Studi di Numismatica, I, 1942, p. 241).|
|13.||The flying Victory would suggest a painting or a relief rather than a statuary group. But not only is a statue suggested by the large base, but also by the statuesque appearance of the figure of Trajan.|
|14.||BMC, III, p. 65, no. 242, 243, pl. 13,13; idem, p. 173, no. 822; idem, 174, nos. 823, 824, pl. 30, 3. Cf. also Strack, I, p. 113; G. Rodenwaldt, in Jhb., 37, 1922, p. 27 and pp. 23ff. of this paper.|
|15.||BMC. II, pl. 71, 2; pl. 72, 12; pl. 75, 5; pl. 76, 7.|
|16.||On these, Pax sets her foot on the Dacian (see BMC. III, pl. 13,4; pl. 29,3,4; pl. 36, 5. Cf. Roma with her foot on the head of a barbarian in BMC. III, pl. 28, 4.|
|17.||G. Mendel, Catalogue du Musée Ottoman , II, pp. 316ff., no. 585; for bibliographical references see Mostra Augustea, Catalogo, II, p. 14, no. 3.|
|18.||See pp. 4f.|
|19.||See BMC. II, pl. 25, 2; pl. 26, 3.|
|20.||BMC. III, p. 48, no. 137, pl. 11, 12.|
|21.||Cf. preceding note; see L. Laf franchi, in Numismatica, VIII, 1942, p. 45.|
|22.||Laffranchi, op. cit., p. 44.|
|23.||Ammianus Marcellinus, XVI, 10. Cf. R. Lanciani, Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome , p. 315. "Pacing horse" types of later emperors will be studied on p. 26.|
|24.||BMC. III, p. 103, *; p. 106, † (see for illustrations: Riv. Ital. Num., 27, 1914, pl. IV, 16; Strack, op. cit., I, pl. III, 220); idem, p. 215, †, pl. 40, 8.|
|25.||C. A. H., XI, p. 243 and pp. 236ff. on the Eastern war in general. Cf. also R. Paribeni, op. cit., II, pp. 278ff.|
|26.||BMC. III, p. 115, nos. 588ff., pl. 19, 19; p. 120, nos. 613ff., pl. 20, 10; idem, p. 222, nos. 1043f., pl. 42, 10.|
|27.||BMC. III, p. 223, nos. 1045ff., pl. 43, 1. Cf. C. A. H., XI, p. 249.|
|28.||BMC. I, p. 162, no. 104, pl. 28, 1. This is the only investiture scene earlier than the types of Trajan. Its composition, with only two figures, both of which standing, is found again on coins of Antoninus Pius (BMC. IV, pp. 204f., nos. 1272ff., pl. 29, 2 and 8 and p. 367, no. §). The composition of Trajan's coin, with the emperor seated on a platform and additional figures, appears again on the coins of L. Verus showing the investiture of Sohaemus as king of Armenia (BMC. IV, p. 426, nos. 300ff., pl. 58, 11; idem, pp. 562f., nos. 1099ff., pl. 75, 8 and pl. 76, 1; idem, p. 566, nos. 1125f., pl. 76, 6 A). Medallions of Verus, struck in 166 (G., II, pl. 74,1 and 75, 10; cf. J. M. C. Toynbee, Roman Medallions, p. 110, pl. 42,4) show an adlocutio rather than the investiture of a foreign prince. After L. Verus, investitures disappear from the Roman coins, although the appointment of Abgar X by Gordianus III is represented on the local coins of Edessa (A. R. Bellinger, The Eighth and Ninth Dura Hoards, NNM. 85, 1939, pl. 3, 52, 54). Strack (op. cit., III, p. 66) notices that in investitures of Parthian and Armenian princes on Roman coins, the barbarian has his back turned toward the emperor and his hand raised to the diadem. He suggests that this reproduces a real act of court ceremonial during the investiture of Oriental princes. This suggestion requires a confirmation from other sources, which cannot be found in extant works of sculpture. The gesture of raising the hand to a diadem or a tiara appears also on monuments which are earlier than the Roman imperial times and does not represent an investiture (See the base of Lysip's statue of Poulydamas in G. D. K. Treu, Die Bildwerke von Olympia, III, p. 209, pl. LV, 1–3). Generally, in Roman sculpture, no definite line can be drawn between investitures and homage scenes. It seems very probable that one of the reliefs of the arch of Trajan at Benevento (A. Meomartini, I monumenti di Benevento, p. 132, pl. XXIII) is to be interpreted as portraying the investiture of a Northern chief because of the similarity with the above quoted type of Antoninus Pius. The scene in one of the Aurelian reliefs of the arch of Constantine (L'Orange, op. cit., pl. 46a) has also been interpreted as an investiture by several scholars (see A. Domaszewski, Religion des röm. Heeres, p. 6; M. Wegner, in Arch. Anz., 53, 1938, pp. 176ff.; J. Dobias, in Revue Num., Series IV, 35, 1932, pp. 159ff., etc. See also Hamberg, op. cit., pp. 87ff.).|
|29.||Cf., for instance, BMC. I, p. 84, nos. 492ff., pl. 12, 13–14 (of Augustus); BMC. II, p. 137, no. *; idem, p. 147, no. 652, pl. 26, 2 (of Vespasian and Titus).|
|30.||K. Lehmann-Hartleben, Trajanssäule, pl. 23, no. 44; pl. 35, no. 75 (cf. Plate VIII of this paper); see also pl. 46, no. 100 (cf. Plate VII, 4).|
|31.||See Lehmann-Hartleben, op. cit., pp. 4 and 113; E.Strong, Art in Ancient Rome, II, pp. 76f.; Lugli, Centro, p. 290.|
|32.||G. Calza, in Notizie degli Scavi, 1932, p. 201. The column certainly provided the model for several coin types which do not really pertain to this study. Among these, a sestertius of 114/115 might be mentioned ( Plate IX, 1). See BMC. III, p. 216, no. *; Strack, I, p. 226, no. 453, pl. 8. The type was later imitated on a medallion of Hadrian (Strack, II, no. 443, pl. XVI; Toynbee, op. cit., pl. 26, 9) and also on coins of M. Aurelius (Cf. J. Dobias, Intern. Num. Congress, 1936, pp. 177ff.). This sestertius shows a pile of arms. Never before has a pile of arms of an almost square shape appeared as the single decoration of the field. This pile of arms occupies a large portion of the field. The type seems almost the numismatic translation of the base of the column of Trajan (on this base, see Hamberg, op. cit., pp. 123f.). The only difference lies in the conspicuous place occupied on the coin by the quiver and arrow. This is obviously a reference to Trajan's Eastern war.Another instance of the close similarity between a coin representation and an official relief may be found on the arch of Benevento. It gives one more proof of the identity of ideas and subjects in official sculpture and coins. On the attic of the arch, on the side facing the country, Trajan appears receiving the submission of a female personification, kneeling between two rivers (Meomartini, op. cit., p. 160, pl. XXVI; Strong, II, pl. XL). The similarity between the relief and the coin type of Trajan ( Plate IX, 2) with the legend armenia et Mesopotamia in potestatem p r redactae (BMC. III, pp. 221f., nos. 1033ff., pl. 42, 6–8) was noticed a long time ago and pointed the way to the right interpretation of the relief (A. Domaszewski, Die Religion des röm. Heeres, pp. 56f.; idem, in Jahreshefte öst. arch. Instituts, II, 1899, pp. 184f., fig. 93). It shows Trajan receiving the submission of Mesopotamia, or, possibly, that of Armenia, (see J. M. C. Toynbee, Hadrianic School, pp. 15ff.; Hamberg, op. cit., pp. 69f.) standing between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. The coin type, struck in 116/117, is new. Similar representations appear later on medallions of L. Verus (G., II, nos. 23, 24, pl. 74, 8; idem nos. 34, 35, pl. 75, 6) where M. Aurelius and L. Verus appear between the Tigris and the Euphrates and on denarii of Caracalla (MS., IV, 1, p. 236, no. 175; idem, p. 227, no. 96). The two river gods, without the emperor, appear on bronze coins of Geta (MS., IV,1, p. 340, no. 171, pl. 16, 5. Cf. also the medallions of Alexander Severus and Gordianus III: G., II, p. 81, no. 17, pl. 99, 6; p. 88, no. 18, pl. 104, 1; p. 89, no. 24, pl. 104, 7–8). Despite their similarity, however, the relief of Benevento and Trajan's type do not seem to be derived from a common model. It is true that an arch was erected at Rome by the senate for Trajan's successes in the East in 116 A. D. (Kaehler, col. 388, no. 28, Cf. Dio, 68, 29). This arch could have had some influence on the arch of Benevento, at least in part, should the theory be accepted that 114 is the year in which the arch of Benevento was voted, rather than the year in which it was dedicated (see G. A. S. Snijder, in Jhb., 41, 1926, pp. 94ff. and, against this theory, Hamberg, op. cit., pp. 67ff.). The appearance of the figure of Trajan on the coin is certainly statuesque. It is possible to advance the hypothesis that the prototype might have been a statuary group, in which Trajan appeared with the two river gods and Armenia at his feet.|
The study of coin types is bound up with the study of the types on medallions. 1 Any consideration of the former necessitates study of the latter. It is especially important in studying medallions to investigate the early history which the type might have had in the regular coinage. From the period of M. Aurelius and L. Verus, medallions show, more often than coins, multifigured scenes with barbarians.
A new type appears on medallions of M. Aurelius and L. Verus dated to 167 2 ( Plate IX, 3). The legend on M. Aurelius' medallion reads tr p xxi imp iiii cos iii; on L. Verus' specimens tr p vii imp iiii cos iii. Struck in honor of L. Verus' triumph in the Eastern war, it shows both M. Aurelius and L. Verus in the triumphal procession. In the background, two prisoners, at the foot of a trophy, are carried on a ferculum. It is easy to connect this type with a fragmentary relief in the Museo delle Terme. 3 Here, a triumphal ( Plate IX, 5) procession is also represented, and two prisoners at the foot of a trophy are carried on a ferculum. The relief is generally believed to be of the age of M. Aurelius and the hypothesis has been advanced that it belonged to a triumphal arch. In this case, it must have been an arch erected in honor of L. Verus' eastern victories, as the pointed cap on one of the prisoners indicates. An arch was erected for L. Verus in the first regio, but we know nothing more about it. 4 At present, therefore, it can only be pointed out that the new depiction of the prisoners carried on a ferculum found on the medallions of L. Verus was also represented in a work of contemporary sculpture.
Other medallions of L. Verus do not appear to be connected with a definite monument. Yet they do reflect in the general construction of a scene some tendencies of contemporary relief. The great frieze 5 which once decorated the Forum of Trajan and Trajan's column show battle scenes in which the Romans and barbarians are shown in two zones almost separated by a diagonal line. The Romans are represented in the upper zone. The tendency towards a battle relief divided in two parts appears increasingly often on a number of sarcophagi dating to the end of the second century. They were probably influenced by state reliefs celebrating the wars of M. Aurelius. 6 It is interesting to note that, as early as 165, medallions were struck in honor of L. Verus' eastern victories which show many similarities to these later sarcophagi. 7 A specimen from the Panfilo Catacombs ( Plate IX, 4) gives the impression of a crowd of enemies separated by an almost diagonal line from the emperor and his followers. This is especially noteworthy because on these medallions the emperor is shown for the first time charging against several enemies. On earlier coin types only one barbarian is represented. Several later types, both on coins and medallions, show a mounted emperor spearing more than one enemy. 8
|1.||Medallions are included, for instance, by Strack in his Untersuchungen zur Reichsprägung des II. Jahrhunderts, and by Mattingly in the introduction to Vol. IV of the catalogue of the British Museum.|
|2.||G., II, p. 33, no. 50, pl. 63, 1; idem, p. 47, nos. 17ff., pl. 74, 4 and 73, 2.|
|3.||R. Paribeni, Le terme di Diocleziano e il museo nazionale romano, 1932, p. 121, no. 182; cf. idem, p. 249) no. 754. On this relief, see also G. Cultrera, in Bollettino d'arte, III, 1909, pp. 6ff.; Strong, p. 292, fig. 180; A. L. Abaecherli, in Boll. Studi Medit., 1935/1936, pp. 1ff . Probably, on both the relief and the medallions, the group on the ferculum does not represent real prisoners, but a similar statuary group carried in the procession (See Cultrera, op. cit.).|
|4.||On this arch, see Kaehler, col. 390, no. 31. It is unknown whether the arch was set up for the triumph of 166 or after L. Verus' death. It is only hypotethical to connect the Torlonia relief (Strong, p. 257, fig. 164; see Wegner, op. cit., col. 168ff., fig. 3) with this arch. The zoccoli in the church of SS. Nereo and Achilleo and in the Casino Borghese were connected with the arch by F. Cumont (in Atti Accad. Pontif. Arch., Memorie, III, 1932, p. 81); they seem, however, to be too small for a triumphal arch (see H. P. L'Orange, Der Spätantike Bildschmuch des Constantinsbogens, p. 133, note 1).|
The coin types which have been examined in this chapter are NEW and show representations very similar to those found in the con- temporary official sculpture. There is reason to believe that several of them were actual reproductions of statues. This was suggested in the case of the standing Dacian on Trajan's coin ( Plate V, 1) which resembles the statues once standing in Trajan's Forum ( Plate V, 3). The type in which Trajan appears with his foot on a Dacian ( Plate VI, 3) has been compared with the statue of Hadrian found at Hierapytna ( Plate VI, 1). The presence of a base or the statuesque appearance of a figure helps bear out the theory of the sculptural origins of some coin types ( Plate VI, 2, 4).
Aside from these types which seem to be actual reproductions of statues, it seems that a direct influence from monumental sculpture can be found on others. Evidence has been provided by the reliefs of the arch of Pisidian Antioch for a type of Augustus ( Plate I, 3; Plate II, 1, 2), by the Haterii relief for the Judaea Capta coins ( Plate III, 1, 2), by an Aurelian relief from the arch of Constantine for the Germania Capta coins of Domitian ( Plate IV, 1, 2) and by a relief in the Museo delle Terme for medallions of L. Verus and M. Aurelius ( Plate IX, 3, 5). Some new coin types seem to be abbreviations of larger narrative contexts, as has been pointed out in the investiture and homage scenes on Trajan's coins ( Plate VII, 1ff.) or the types where the emperor appears riding and spearing his enemy ( Plate VI, 5; Plate IX, 4).
It is impossible, however, to omit mention of another possibility, namely, that both the sculptural representations and the coin types might be derived from a common prototype, the much discussed, but so little known, triumphal painting. The relationship between the painting and the sculpture has been the object of several studies. Among others, those of Rodenwaldt, Lehmann-Hartleben and Hamberg consider this problem. It seems, however, that this problem is outside of the scope of the present study.
|5.||Strong, pp. 142ff., figs. 88ff.; M. Pallottino, in Bull. Com., LXVI, 1939, pp. 17ff.; R. Bianchi Bandinelli, Storicità dell'arte classica, pp. 208ff.; P. G.Hamberg, Studies in Roman Imperial Art, pp. 169ff.; M. Pallottino, Arte figurativa e ornamentale, pp. 89ff.|
|6.||See especially G. Rodenwaldt, in Abhandlungen preuβ. Akad. d. Wiss., 1935, no. 3, pp. 24ff.|
|7.||G., II, p. 49, no. 39, pl. 75, 8, 9. The specimen from the Panfilo Catacombs: J. M. C. Toynbee, Roman Medallions, p. 136, note 97, pl. XX, 3; cf. C. Serafini, in Scritti in onore di B. Nogara, p. 423, no. 10, pl. 65, 8.|
|8.||Cf. also, for the age of M. Aurelius, the coin type struck at Alexandria in the name of L. Verus where Victory is represented riding and fighting four enemies (G. Dattari, Numi Augg. Alexandrini, no. 3744).|
As has been pointed out above, 1 barbarians on coins dating from the end of the second century are increasingly small in size and appear as accessories to the larger figures of the emperor, Victory or other divinity.
"Small barbarians" are found in several contexts. In most cases the only thing represented other than the barbarians is a Roman authority. This figure, emperor or divinity, is usually represented as standing or walking. One or two, but seldom more, barbarians may appear seated or kneeling at his feet ( Plate VI, 2; Plate XIII, 2, 4; Plate XVII, 1). In another motif the Roman authority has his foot on the defeated enemy ( Plate VI, 3; Plate X, 1; Plate XIII, 3); this representation has its beginning with Domitian, appears on several coins of Trajan 2 and is especially frequent from the second half of the third century. The type representing a walking emperor or a divinity dragging a small enemy by the hair ( Plate X, 2) does not appear before the time of Constantine. 3 Several types show a combination of these motifs. For instance, gold medallions of Constantine show the emperor dragging one enemy by his hair and at the same time trampling down a second one 4 ( Plate X, 3).
In all these motifs the barbarians appear as accessories to the Roman emperor or divinity not only because of their small size, but also because there is no relationship of action between the Roman authority and his enemy. That is, the emperor or god seems rather unaware of the presence of the barbarian even when he is represented dragging his small enemy by the hair. That no real action is intended is shown, for instance, by the above mentioned medallions of Constantine, on which the emperor is in the very difficult position of walking, having a foot on one enemy and dragging the other, all at the same time. In another instance, the barbarian appears seated or kneeling under the hoof of the emperor's horse ( Plate X, 4), apparently oblivious of the action.
It should be pointed out that there are two main classes of types showing the emperor riding. One shows him on a horse that is not galloping but pacing and the emperor is not fighting his enemy but seems totally unaware of him as on Plate X, 4. On these coins the barbarian is usually of exceedingly small size. The "galloping-horse" series represents the barbarian in normal size 5 ( Plate VI, 5; Plate X, 5). The "pacing horse" motif appears on only a few coin types: those of Trajan, 6 Caracalla, Gallienus, Carausius, Allectus, Probus and Constantine I ( Plate VI, 4; Plate X, 4).
Small barbarians also appear, without taking part in the action, in multifigured scenes. This occurs especially on medallions but also on a few coins dating from the period of M. Aurelius to the end of the third century. For example, they are found in scenes in which one or sometimes two emperors appear with their following of soldiers, 7 in a few triumphal processions, 8 occasionally in scenes of "adlocutio" and in multifigured scenes of "adventus." 9 Finally, it should also be mentioned that on a few coin types of the third and fourth centuries small barbarians are represented in the exergue. 10 In this case, the emperor or emperors appear in the center of the field.
It is evident that the small physical size of the barbarian is a device which emphasizes his abject position in contrast to the victorious emperor or divinity. This tendency was already apparent on some coin types of the first century a. d. 11 but does not appear in its full development until the time of Trajan. Under the reigns of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius there are only a few types with barbarians large or small. Under M. Aurelius and L. Verus both large and small barbarians are present. From the time of M. Aurelius and Commodus the small barbarian is much more frequent. There is hardly an emperor who does not have several coin types with small figures of barbarians either at or under the foot of the Augustus, the Caesar or Victory. The coins representing "small barbarian" figures increase in number during the third and fourth centuries and continue to the last of the Western emperors. Little by little the meaning of the type changes. At first the barbarian is a symbol of a people recently vanquished by the emperor. Later the connection with an actual victory is less often found. The legends which accompany the emperor or Victory are more frequently general in meaning: victoria avg, victorioso semper, victor omnium gentivm, etc. It is well known that the change in legend accompanied the change in the concept of the triumph. Triumphs were no longer celebrated in order to commemorate a certain event. They were celebrated periodically and all races of barbarians were made to participate in them. 12 It is evident that the barbarian becomes the symbol of the emperor's victories in general, of his most celebrated virtue, the victorious power. Since the barbarian is the almost constant companion of nearly every emperor, it can be said that he really becomes the attribute of the emperor and his special goddess, Victory. The definition of the barbarian as an attribute is not a matter of interpretation. Without doubt the die-engraver consciously considered it so. For instance, in 183/184 two issues in silver were made by Commodus. In the first issue, we see the figures of Minerva ( Plate X, 6), Aequitas, Felicitas and Victory ( Plate X, 7) without any attribute. The second issue repeats several of the types of 183 but with something added which has the purpose, in Mattingly's words, "to bring out thespecial character of its figure." 13 In this issue, Minerva has an owl at her feet ( Plate X, 8), Aequitas has a globe, Felicitas a modius or a prow. It is indeed significant that Victory is represented with a small captive 14 ( Plate X, 9).
The symbolical value of the "small barbarian" as it appears in statuary groups has been set forth by several authors. 15
Many have also noticed the similarity between these representations and those on the coins. It is generally admitted that in statuary groups such as the one found at Hierapytna 16 ( Plate VI, 3) there are, as on the coins, symbolical representations of the victory of the emperor over his barbarian enemies. In regard to sculpture there are several problems to be considered. Did representations of small barbarians appear frequently enough to warrant the use of the term "attribute''? It has been mentioned above that other divinities besides the emperor and Victory appear with the barbarian attribute. Did the same divinities appear with the same attribute on sculpture also?
That the "small barbarian" was taken over from sculpture by the die-engraver is certain, for two reasons. First, this type appears in its full development on the coins of Trajan which are reproductions of honorary statues of the emperor. 17 Secondly, the appearance of the "barbarian-attribute" on the coins was preceded by some figures of barbarians of rather small size. This tendency had been present in sculpture also before the age of Trajan. A "small barbarian" is portrayed with Domitian in a group found at Olympia. 18 In Cilicia, another fragmentary statuary group has been found. It shows an emperor and a kneeling captive woman at his feet. It is probably to be dated to the end of the first century a. d. 19 It is likely that these statues had been preceded by other similar monuments. 20 It should be pointed out that the representations in which the enemy appears of small size have been generally called "oriental". Many similarities may be seen between the Roman representations and those in the art of the Orient, especially Egyptian, but an actual derivation of motifs from Oriental art can not be demonstrated. First of all, a difference in size between the more important figures and the minor ones is traceable even to classic Greek art. 21 Reliefs portraying the gods and their adorants represent the latter as of smaller size.
In this connection, a passage of Plinius 22 is worth mention. Plinius tells us that, after the victory over the Samnites, Spurius Carvilius made from their arms a large statue of Jupiter in the Capitol and "e reliquiis limae suam statuam fecit quae est ante pedes simulacri eius (sc. Jovis)". Obviously, Carvilius' image must have been much smaller than the one of Jupiter. The tendency to represent the vanquished smaller in size than the victor is present in mythological representations of the Hellenistic age, as in statuary groups of the labors of Herakles. 23 The motif most frequently linked with Oriental or Egyptian art is the one which shows the emperor with his foot on a barbarian, as in the group of Hierapytna. 24 Even on classical work, such as the Strangford shield, the warrior, commonly identified as Perikles, has his left foot on a fallen Amazon. 25 Nor can it be forgotten that a warrior appears with his foot on a defeated enemy in a group decorating an Etruscan candelabrum. 26 This group is in the Museo Archeologico in Florence and is probably to be dated to the second half of the fourth century b. c. On coins of the later empire the motif of the emperor or Victory dragging a barbarian is frequent. This, again, can be traced back to the Amazonomachies of classical Greek art. 27 Therefore, it is clear that sculpture did not directly borrow these victory motifs from the Oriental or Egyptian arts. They were a result of the Roman conception of the emperor and the barbarian and can be traced back to classical Greek art.
The representation of the barbarian as a general symbol of victory rather than of a victory over a certain people probably took place earlier in the statuary than on the coins. On statues the reference to an actual victory is less pronounced than on coins since statues in many cases lack the commemorative purpose so many coins have, especially in the early empire. The barbarian as a symbol of victorious power is certainly already present in the statue from Hierapytna. To this statue, others are more or less related, for example, a fragment from Ramleh now in the British Museum, 28 a fragmentary statue at Pola, 29 a statue found at Kisamos, 30 and others. 31 These statues, however, have generally been dated to the periods of Trajan and Hadrian. To succeeding periods belong a fragmentary group found at Chiragan and now in the Museum of Toulouse, 32 a statuette in the Museum of Torino 33 and a few other examples. 34 Most of these cannot be accurately dated. Anot very well known statuette in the Museum of Ostia 35 ( Plate XI, 1) shows a similar symbolical motif. With the emperor there is represented a small city wall, the^ symbol of the foreign cities he has defeated.
A famous monument of the tetrarchs shows that a continuity of the motifs representing the emperor with small barbarians existed in the official sculpture. On the arch of Saloniki, the four tetrarchs appear ( Plate XI, 2). The scene, 36 as Schoenebeck has already pointed out, is not a battle but a symbolical triumphal representation. Galerius is engaged in a duel with Narses which never actually took place. It is a symbolic motif borrowed from the triumphal art of Persia. 37 The three other warriors are certainly Galerius' colleagues. The figure on the far left is probably Maximianus Herculius because the figure of Hercules is visible on the shield behind him. The other warrior on the left could be Constantius since part of a lion appears on the fragmentary shield behind him. 38 The three rulers all have small barbarians at or under their feet.
The first known example of monumental sculpture to show Victory with small barbarians belong to the period of the first tetrarchy. One of the reliefs in the Boboli Garden in Florence 39 shows Victory with her foot on a kneeling prisoner. One side of the base erected in the Forum for Diocletian's "vicennalia" of 303 40 represents two Victories holding a shield and each Victory has a small captive at her feet. Later, several examples of small barbarians with Victory are found on the pilasters of the arch of Constantine 41 (Plate XII) and on the base of the column of Constantine at Constantinople. 42 The base of the column of Arcadius, also at Constantinople, had representations of both emperor 43 and Victory 44 with small barbarians. The tendency towards abstract and symbolical representations in the later empire is certainly general. 45 It is not surprising that the typical symbolical motif of the emperor or Victory with the barbarian attribute should be more popular on coins of the later empire 46 and that it should appear for the first time on reliefs on monuments as late as those of the tetrarchs. Of course, the motif of emperor or Victory with the barbarian as an attribute may have occurred on monumental reliefs before the period of the tetrarchy. 47 Unfortunately, there is a well-known gap in monumental sculpture in the third century.
Coin types have been mentioned which show the barbarian as an attribute of the emperor riding a pacing horse. 48 It has been pointed out that this motif is not very frequent compared to the more popular "galloping horse" type and that it is very likely that the first coin type showing the pacing horse motif was inspired by a statue of Trajan. Some of these coins show the legend adventvs or profectio avg. However, the motif, as already emphasized, is certainly not narrative but purely symbolical. 49 It is possible that these coins also, as does the one of Trajan, reflect the existence of statues of emperors with small barbarian under the hoof of the horse. This statuary motif certainly existed, for the well known passage of the "Mirabilia" 50 does not leave any doubt as to the presence of a small barbarian under the hoof of the horse of the statue of M. Aurelius on the Capitol. 51 Objections raised on technical grounds are by no means conclusive. 52 Another famous statue, the so-called Regisole, had originally, in Giglioli's opinion, a small barbarian under the hoof of the horse. 53 This was possibly a statue of Severus. It was originally in Ravenna, transferred to Pavia during the Longobardic period and destroyed in 1796. In reproductions of the statue a small dog appears under the hoof of the horse. This was probably a mediaeval substitution for a small barbarian.
It is significant that the pacing-horse motif with the barbarian attribute, appears on only a few coin types. This probably indicates that it was not a common statuary motif.
Not only the emperor and Victory but also some other divinities appear on coins with small barbarians at their side or under their feet. For instance, we have Minerva on a type ( Plate XIII, 1) of Domitian. 54 Pax and Roma on coins of Trajan. 55 Sol appears for the first time with barbarians on coins of Aurelian 56 ( Plate XIII, 2), Jupiter on coins of Diocletian 57 ( Plate XIII, 3). Occasionally, we find types of this kind for Mars, Virtus 58 and Venus 59 ( Plate. XIII, 4). The presence of the barbarian as an attribute on types with divinities can be explained in only one way, as a transfer of the attribute from the emperor. Victory has the barbarian as an almost constant attribute because she was associated with every emperor. It seems natural that the virtues of the emperor, such as Pax, should occasionally have the barbarian as an attribute. The gods are shown with the barbarian either because, like Mars, they were closely associated with all the emperors, or because they were at first closely connected with one single emperor, as was Sol with Aurelian and Jupiter with Diocletian.
It is well known that the Roman emperor took many of his emblems from the gods. However, sufficient attention has not been paid to the fact that the emperor himself influenced the iconography of the gods although this has been recognized in regard to the cuirass which Jupiter Dolichenus, Heron and other deities, Syrian and Egyptian, borrowed from the Roman emperor. 60 The influence of the ruler on the iconography of the gods is an age long trend. A cuirass may have been borrowed even from the Hellenistic ruler by some of these divinities. More significant for the present purposes is the fact that even in republican times the gods borrowed something from the triumphator, although temporarily. Hercules was honored in the Forum Boarium as Hercules Triumphalis and his statue, decorated with the triumphal insignia, was carried in the triumphal procession. 61 The statue of Jupiter Capitolinus was clad with the triumphal costume at certain festivities. 62 The next step is a statue of a god with permanent triumphal insignia. Moreover it is impossible to forget the widespread influence that triumphal art exercised on traditional mythological subjects. Some images of Nemesis treading down Hybris may have been influenced by the emperor with the barbarian. 63 The triumphal procession on official monuments certainly influenced some scenes of the triumph of Dionysos. 64 Influenced by the monuments celebrating M. Aurelius' wars, some representations of the Amazonomachy on sarcophagi and in statuary groups show some unusual and noteworthy elements. 65
The assumption that the transfer of the barbarian attribute from the emperor to gods associated with him took place in sculpture, is, therefore, logical and several monuments confirm this theory. An important class of these monuments belongs to provincial art. A statuary group found at Jioux, 66 now in the Museum of Limoges shows Jupiter standing with his hand on the head of a small prisoner ( Plate XIV, 1).The group has been rightly interpreted by Delage 67 as a representation of the emperor in the guise of Jupiter. The group is certainly connected with the well-known " Juppitergigantensäulen". 68 There is no doubt that the similarity between coin types showing divinities with the barbarian attribute and the group of Jioux is great. It is logical to assume that, however deeply rooted in local beliefs the conception of the god-emperor as vanquisher might be, the origin of the motif is in the official art of Rome. The Jupiter of Jioux is not an isolated monument. Other remains of similar statuary groups were found in Gaul. 69 Mars appears with a small barbarian at his feet in a relief in the Museum of the Saalburg 70 ( Plate XIV, 2). A relief with the figure of Minerva might also be mentioned in this connection. 71 Some indications as to the existence of representations of gods with the "barbarian attribute" come from the minor arts. A statuette in the Louvre shows Roma (?) with two small barbarians. 72 The great Celtic god appears trampling on a figure possibly a barbarian in a sceptre in Cambridge. 73 The personification of Treviri is shown with a small captive in the Chronograph of 354 74 ( Plate XV).
Although the barbarian as an attribute of the gods is relatively frequent on coins it is only sporadic among extant works of art. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that any coin type showing such motifs was inspired by a monument of the official sculpture. How invalid such an assumption would be is shown by the coin types of Aurelian. It is generally admitted that several of the coins of this emperor give the image of the cultus statue in the new temple dedicated to Sol. 75 Sol appears with one barbarian-attribute on some coins, with two on others. Some coin types show Sol without any attribute. 76 Evidently, the barbarian must be an addition of the die-engraver. Without doubt, the barbarian as an attribute of the emperor appears more frequently on coins than in other arts, because the die-maker limited by his medium would naturally choose a symbolical device. The barbarian attribute was the most economical way of depicting the emperor as "semper invictus" 77 or of pointing out the association of the emperor and a divinity. 78 As in the case of other attributes, 79 the die-maker might allow himself a certain amount of liberty in depicting the barbarian. He might add an attribute whenever he wanted to emphasize one of the aspects of the emperor or a god, or whenever purely technical reasons demanded this addition. 80
|*||Part of the content of this chapter has been the subject of a paper read at the meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America in 1945 and appears, summarized, in A. J. A., L, 1946, p. 287.|
|1.||See pp. 5f.|
|2.||See pp. 16f.|
|3.||Mars and Victory are represented dragging a small enemy by the hair on coins of Maxentius (see Maurice, I, p. 188, no. VI; and p. 271, no. XVII). Also an emperor riding can be seen dragging a small enemy by the hair. But this motif is rare. It appears on medallions of Gallienus and Probus (G., I, p. 54, no. 31, illustrated in G., III, pl. suppl., 6; G., II, p. 120, nos. 43, 44, pl. 121,10). It is interesting to compare these medallions with the republican type of A. Licinius Nerva. (BMCR, I, p. 514, nos. 3999ff., pl. I, 12, 13).|
|4.||G., I, p. 17, nos. 20–22, pl. VII, 4.|
|5.||On these types see p. 4.|
|6.||On Trajan's type the barbarian is not exceedingly small.|
|7.||For instance, on medallions of M. Aurelius and L. Verus (G., II, p. 43, 2, pl. 71, 3,4), on coins or medallions of Severus, Caracalla, Geta, Maximinus and Maximus, Gordianus III.|
|8.||See the medallions issued in the name of the two Philippi and Otacilia (G., II, p. 97, no. 4, pl. 109, 1), of Valerian (G., II, p. 105, nos. 5, 6, pl. 112, 8).|
|9.||See the adlocutio in bronze medallions of Gallienus (G., II, p. 106, 1, 2, pl. 113, 4, 5; cf. L. Laffrancbi, in International Num. Congress, 1936, p. 206, note 1). See pp. 44f. for types showing barbarians, not as attributes, in "adlocutio" scenes. For the multifigured adventus see the medallions in G., II, pp. 99f., no. 3, pl. 109, 10 and G., I, p. 55, no. 1, pl. 27, 10.|
|10.||See p. 69, note 5, and 56, note 3.|
|11.||11 As of Vitellius (BMC, I, pl. 64, 8, 9); gold and silver coins of Vespasian (BMC, II, pl. 7, nos. 13–15; idem, pl. 47, 1) with Victory setting a shield on a trophy and a mourning captive below; also some specimens of the type in which a Jewess appears seated to the right of a palm-tree and the emperor to the left of the palm as BMC, II, pl. 20, 10; see also the eight-denarius piece of Domitian (BMC, II, pl. 62, 3) and the bronze medallions with the same type (G., III, pl. 143, 7) ( See Plate XIII, 1).|
|12.||The beginning of the assimilation of the triumphs and the Vota may be traced back even to the period of the Severi. It is quite evident in the second half of the third century and in the age of Constantine. See A. Alföldi, in Röm. Mitt., 49, 1934, pp.96ff.; . Kaehler, col. 471; idem, in Winckelmann's Program, 96, 1936, p. 21.|
|13.||BMC, IV, p. CLVIII.|
|14.||For Victory on coins of 183 without the attribute, see BMC, IV, p. 708, no. 114; on coins of the second issue of 183/184 with the small barbarian, BMC, IV, p. 711, nos. 127, 128, pl. 94, 8. Minerva without the owl: BMC, IV, p. 706, no. 103, pl. 93, 11; with owl: BMC, IV, p. 709, no. 120, pl. 94, 4. Compare also BMC, IV, pl. 93, 14 with idem pl. 94, 5, etc.|
|15.||Among these, the following should be mentioned: A. Loehr, in Eranos Vindobonensis, 1:893, pp. 56ff.; K. Lehmann-Hartleben-K.Kluge, Die antiken Groβbronzen, II, pp. 85ff.; G. Rodenwaldt, in Jhb., 37, 1922, pp. 17ff.; A. Grabar, L'empereur dans l'art byzantin, pp. 43 pp. 125ff.; H. Schoenebeck, in Byzant. Zeitsch., 37, 1937, pp. 365ff.|
|16.||See p. 17.|
|17.||See pp. 16ff.|
|18.||Treu, Bildwerke von Olympia, p. 246, pl. LX, 3.|
|19.||J. Keil-A.Wilhelm, Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua, III. Denkmäier aus dem Rauhen Kilikien, p. 63, fig. 100, pl. 33.|
|20.||This is suggested by the figure of Armenia (or Parthia) seated at foot of the imperial throne in the "Grand Camée de France" (see for bibliography, Catalogo Mostra Augustea, II. p. 58, no. 19a).|
|21.||See K. Lehmann-Hartleben, Trajanssäule, p. 79.|
|22.||Plinius, N. H., XXXIV, 7.|
|23.||W. Amelung, in Röm. Mitt., XX, 1905, pp. 214ff.; cf. Helbig-Amelung, Führer durch die Sammlungen klassischer Altertümer in Rom, I, p. 109, no. 166. Hellenistic groups probably influenced the representations of the labors of Hercules on Roman sarcophagi such as the one in Villa Borghese (Strong, pl. LIX) another in Villa Torlonia (S. Reinach, Répertoire des reliefs grecs et romains, III, p. 340, 1–3), another in the British Museum (Reinach, op. cit., II, p. 476, 1). It would be interesting, in this connection, to investigate the meaning of other representations, as for instance, that of the winged monster supporting the throne of Demeter on coins of Demetrius I (see A. B. Brett, in Amer. Num. Society Museum Notes, I, 1945, p. 26, no. 18, pl. IX, 18) or the giant which appears as support in the throne of Zeus of Panamara in the frieze of the Hekateion at Lagina (A. Schober, in Istanbuler Forschungen, II, 1933, p. 47, pl. XXVII, no. 201 and XXVIII, no. 202).|
|24.||B. Schweitzer, in Jhb., 46, 1931, pp. 214ff.; A. Grabar, L'empereur dans l'art byzantin, p. 127, note 2; G. Rodenwaldt, in Jhb., 55, 1940, pp. 42f.|
|25.||A. Picard, La sculpture grecque, II, pp. 313f. and 393f., fig. 132.|
|26.||G. Giglioli, L'arte etrusca, pl. CCXV, 6. In this group it is noteworthy that the victor holds his enemy by the beard.|
|27.||See for instance another group on the above quoted Strangford shield.|
|28.||A. H. Smith, Catalogue of Sculpture, III, no. 1172; cf. P. Bienkowski, in Wiener Studien, 34, 1912, p. 277.|
|29.||Bienkowski, op. cit., in note 28; B. Forlati Tamaro, in Bollettino d'arte, 24, 1931, P. 379, fig. 4.|
|30.||In the Museum of Candia (L.Savignoni, in Monumenti Acc. Lincei, XI, 1901, col. 305, pl. 25, 1; A. Hekler, in Jahreshefte öst. arch. Inst., 19–20, 1919, pp. 232f., fig. 161; G. Mancini, in Bull. Com., 1922, p. 189, no. 76).|
|31.||See a group found at Miletus (Th. Wiegand, in Arch. Anz., XXI, 1906, col. 21; J. F. W. de Salis, in Neue Jahrbücher f. klass. Altertum, 1910, p. 121). A statuary group, formerly in Florence appears in S. Reinach, Répertoire de la statuaire grecque et romaine, II, 2, p. 577, no. 1 (cf. also S. Reinach, L'album de Pierre Jacques, pl. 75 bis).|
|32.||E. Espérandieu, Recueil général des bas-reliefs de la Gaule Romaine, II, p. 58, no. 945; cf. S. Reinach, Répertoire de la statuaire grecque et romaine, III, p. 146, no. 5 and I, p. 361, pl. 654, 3.|
|33.||H. Dütschke, Antike Bildwerke, IV, p. 99, no. 195. This is dated by Bienkowski (loc. cit. in note 28, p. 43) to the third century A. D.|
|34.||Statuettes of barbarians in bronze and the remains of a foot of a relatively large figure (certainly of an emperor or of Victory) are very probably derived from full size statues. These statuettes are studied by P. Bienkowski (Les Celtes dans les arts mineurs, pp. 55f., figs. 98–100: cf. A. Blanchet, in Revue Arch., 21, 1893, pp. 292ff., pl. XIII). Possibly, the colossal bronze emperor at Barletta had a small barbarian under his foot (see J. Koch, in Antihe Denkmaler, III, 1913, pl. XX, XXI; R. Delbrück, Spätantike Kaiserporträts, pp. 219ff., pl. n6ff., believes that the devil-snake is rather to be imagined under the emperor's foot). See also a fragmentary group in S. Ferri, Arte romana sul Danubio, fig. 107 and footnote on p. 104. A group at Langres (Espérandieu, op. cit., IV, no. 3248) shows a vanquished province kneeling and an emperor. However, their relative sizes are normal. An example from the minor arts is provided, for instance, by the silver shield of a signum in Neuwied from Nieder-biber (S. Reinach, Répertoire des reliefs, II, p. 83, 2). See also A. Furtwängler, Die antihen Gemmen, Vol. II, p. 222, no. 12, pl. XLVI.|
|35.||G. Calza, L'Antiquarium diOstia, p. 53, no. 58, pl. on p. 54. Possibly, the "remainsof a column" in front of Minerva on a stele at Stockstadt (E. Espérandieu, Recueil gén. des bas-reliefs de la Germanie Romaine, p. 187, no. 298) are to be interpreted as remains of a city-wall.|
|36.||This is the relief on the northeastern side of the southwest pillar. See Kaehler, col. 449, no. 17 and especially K. F. Kinch, L'arc de triomphe de Salonique, pp. 22ff., pl. VI; H. Schoenebeck, in Byzant. Zeitsch., 37, 1937, pp. 361ff., pl. IV.|
|37.||On this motif, see G. Rodenwaldt, in Jhb., LV, 1940, pp. 53ff.|
|38.||The figure of Hercules, the motifs of the eagle and – less frequently – the lion are found several times in the reliefs of the arch of Saloniki. Possibly, these emblems have in several cases a direct reference to the persons of the rulers rather than being merely symbols of the corps of troops who bore the names of "Iovii" and "Herculii."|
|39.||H. Kaehler, in Winckelmannsprogr. 1936. The above mentioned relief is on pl. III. On the reliefs see also J. Sieveking, in Röm. Mitt., 1937, pp. 74ff.; H. P. L'Orange, Der spätantike Bildschmuck des Constantinsbogens, pp. 210f. The Boboli zoccoli possibly belonged to the "arcus novus" erected in Diocletian's reign. The arch is generally identified with the one which stood until 1491 near the church of S. Maria in Via Lata (see Kaehler, col. 394f., no. 37). On Julio-Claudian reliefs possibly re-used for the decoration of this monument, see A. M. Colini, in Atti Pontif. Acc. Arch., Rendiconti, XI, 1935, pp. 41–61 and D. Mustilli, Il museo Mussolini, p. 190.|
|40.||Strong, pp. 317f., pl. LXVI; H. P. L'Orange, in Röm. Mitt., 53, 1938, pp. 1–34, fig. i, pl. I.|
|41.||Strong, pl. LXVIII; H. P. L'Orange, Der spätantike Bildschmuck des Constantinsbogens, pp. 113, 115, 118ff., 122f., 125, 128f., 130, 131ff., pls. 24, 2; 25, 5; 26, 8; 27, 11; 28, 14; 29, 17; 30, 20; 31, 23.|
|42.||R. Delbrück, Antike Porphyrwerke, pp. 140ff., figs. 57–59, pl. 68.|
|43.||E. H. Freshfield, in Archaeologia, 72, 1921/1922, pl. 17; R. Delbrück Consulardyp tichen, pp. 13f., figs. 6–8.|
|44.||Freshfield, op. cit., pl. 20.|
|45.||See G. Rodenwaldt, in Jhb., 55, 1940, p. 34.|
|46.||On two medallions, one of Constantine I, the other of Constantine II (G., II, p. 135, no. 19, pl. 131, 2; idem, II, p. 142, no. 20, pl. 134, 6), the barbarians are of no smaller size than any Roman would have been if represented in the same context. Also, they are an integral part of the scene. It is indeed significant that these medallions are conceived in a purely naturalistic style. Most medallions of the period illustrate the late tendency to stylization and calligraphism. (See J. M. C. Toynbee, Roman Medallions, pp. 171f.).|
|47.||See below pp. 43|
|48.||See pp. 18 and 26.|
|49.||Only a medallion type of M. Aurelius and L. Verus shows the emperor on a pacing horse in a narrative context, with barbarians of almost normal size (G., II, p. 45, nos. 2, 3, pl. 72, 2). This type is possibly to be related to those representations on official reliefs in which the emperor appears riding in a foreign country and receiving the homage of the natives, such as on the column of Trajan (K. Lehmann-Hartleben, Trajanssöule, pl. 41) or on one of the Aurelian reliefs in the Conservatori Museum (Strong, fig. 161).|
|51.||See especially Loehr, op. cit.; K. Lehmann-Hartleben- K.Kluge, Die antiken Groβ-bronzen, II, pp. 85ff., pl. XXV with earlier bibliography; lately, M. Wegner, Die Herrscherbildnisse in Antoninischer Zeit, p. 190, pl. 22, 23.|
|52.||See A. Rumpf, in Philol. Wochensch., 53, 1933, pp. 127f. It is unnecessary to assume a physical contact between the hoof of the horse and the ".. .regem qui parve stature fuerat retro ligatis manibus" ("Mirabilia," loc. cit.).|
|53.||G. Q. Giglioli, in Bull. Museo Impero Rom., XI, 1940, pp. 57ff. and L. Laffranchi, in Numismatica, VIII, 1942, pp. 42ff.|
|54.||See the medallions quoted on p. 27, note 11.|
|55.||See BMC, III, pls. 13, 5, 6; 28, 1; 29, 3–5; 33, 6; 36, 2.|
|56.||See MS., V, I, pl. VIII, 116, 123, 126, 129.|
|57.||See MS., V, 2, pl. XI, 8 (gold medallion).|
|58.||It is difficult in many cases to decide whether the figure represented is Mars, Virtus or the emperor. For instance, it is surely Mars in MS., V, 2, p. 23, no. 35.|
|59.||Venus, as Victrix, on coins of Caracalla (MS., IV, 1, p. 259, nos. 312a–d, pl. 13, 4). This is a result of the close relationship between Venus Victrix and Victory (see E. Pais, Dalle guerre puniche a Cesare Augusto, pp. 233f; J. Gagé, in Revue historique, 171, 1933, pp. 1ff.).|
|60.||See especially R. Paribeni, in Bulletin Soc. Arch. d'Alexandrie, no. 13, 1910, pp. 177ff.; E. Breccia, in Bull. Soc. Arch. d'Alexandrie, no. 17, 1919, pp. 184ff.; F. W. v. Bissing, Denkmöler ögyptischer Sculptur, pl. 121; idem, in Festschrift Haupt, 1926, p. 295; idem, in Der alte Orient, 34, 1936, pp. 17ff.; F. Cumont, in Syria, I, 1920, pp. 183ff.; idem, in Mélanges Syriens offerts à R. Dussaud , 1939, I, p. 7; M. Rostovtzeff, in Aegyptus, 13, 1933, p. 510; V. Chapot, in Mélanges Maspero, II, pp. 225ff.|
|61.||Plinius, Naturalis Historia, XXXIV, 7; for Hercules triumphalis see especially E. Pais, Fasti triumphales populi romani, pp. XXXVIIff. and X.|
|62.||See Lugli, Centro, p. 22.|
|63.||See A. Grabar, op. cit., p. 127, note 2; cf. P. Perdrizet, in Bull. Corr. Hell., 36, 1912, p. 249; idem, in Bull. Corr. Hell., 1898, p. 599; B. Schweitzer, in Jhb., 46, 1931, p. 175ff.|
|64.||Lehmann-Hartleben-Olsen, Dionysiae sarcophagi, pp. 26ff., fig. 7 and pp. 70ff.; G. Cultrera, in Boll, d'arte, 1909, p. 9.|
|65.||P. G. Hamberg(Studies in Roman Imperial Art, p. 188) notices how the relief of a sarcophagus (?) in the Casino of the Villa Doria Pamphili (Rodenwaldt, in Abhandlung. preuβ. Akad. der Wissensch., 1935, no. 3, p. 24, pl. 8; see also G. Habich, Die Amazonen gruppe des attalischen Weihgeschenks, pp. 69f.) shows both traditional elements of the Amazonomachy and elements of the Roman triumphal relief. The part played by the Amazons is not very clear. This relief was dated by Rodenwaldt to the late Antonine period. On another Antonine monument, an Amazon appears as the enemy of a barbarian. This is the statuary group found at Anzio, now in the Terme Museum ( Plate XIII, 5). See Boll. Studi Medit., 3, 1932, pl. 4, 2; Mostra d'arte antica, 1932, pl. 18; A. Schober, in Jahreshefte öst. arch. Inst., 28, 1933, pp. 105f.; fig. 38; B. Schweitzer, in Jhb., 51, 1936, pp. 158ff., fig. 3). A. Schober (loc. cit.) suggests that it represents an Amazon transformed into the Roman Virtus, riding over a barbarian. B. Schweitzer (loc. cit.) rightly notices, however, that the Amazon is wounded and, therefore, does not appear as a victor. A satisfactory explanation of the fact that the Amazon appears as the enemy of the barbarian has not yet been given. Evidently, a change in the traditional concept of the Amazonomachy occurred at some time in Rome. According to this, the Amazons did not necessarily represent the barbaric element. It is rather tempting to advance an hypothesis. Might not this change be related to the one emperor who considered himself to be the friend of the Amazons, nay, almost an Amazon? Dio (73, 15, 3 and 20, 2) relates that Commodus took the name of Amazonius and gave the name of Amazonius to the month of December. He also required that the senators, when he took part in the spectacles of the arena, should shout "always you win, oh Amazonius." This is mainly confirmed by the author of the Vita (XI, 9), who connects the name of Amazonius to Commodus' passion for his concubine Marcia "quam pictam in Amazone diligebat, propter quam et ipse Amazonico habitu in arenam Romanam procedere voluit." Commodus' Amazonian sympathies (see also Vita Albini, II, 4) are illustrated by extant monuments; the well known bust in the Conservatori (Strong, fig. 233), the medallions showing the jugate obverse portraits of Commodus and an Amazon (certainly Marcia), while a pelta is represented below (G., II, pls. 85, 9, 10; 86, 3; 87, 5). Another medallion of Commodus has an Amazon standing in front of her horse (G., II, p. 71, no. 177, pl. 89, 9 cf. J. M. C. Toynbee, Roman Medallions, p. 144 and note 175). The connection of the changed conception of the Amazonomachy with Commodus is merely an hypothesis. There are certainly difficulties. For instance, a group in the Galleria Borghese shows an Amazon riding over two warriors (W. Helbig-W. Amelung, Führer durch die öffentlichen Sammlungen klassischer Altertümer in Rom, II, p. 253, no. 1565 with earlier bibliography; Schober, op. cit.; Schweitzer, op. cit.; Arndt-Amelung, Einzelaufnahmen, nos. 2779ff.). One of them is certainly a barbarian. However, this group which is greatly restored and worked over cannot be dated. Another group of Amazonomachies shows influence from the triumphal art. On a group of Roman sarcophagi, one of the Amazons appears in the attitude of the "triumphator" (See R. Redlich, Die Amazonensarkophage des 2. und 3. Jahrhunderts, Schriften zur Kunst des Altertums, IV, 1942, p. 36ff.; C. Robert, Die antiken Sarkophagreliefs, nos. 80, 79, 84). These sarcophagi are dated by Redlich to ca. 180.|
|66.||E. Espérandieu, Recueil gén. des bas-reliefs de la Gaule, II, pp. 384f., no. 1581 (with earlier bibliography); F. Delage, in Bulletin Soc. Arch. et Hist, du Limousin, 1932, pp. 219ff., fig. on p. 222.|
|67.||Delage, op. cit., p. 234.|
|68.||On these monuments, see especially S. Ferri, Arte romana sul Reno, pp. 79ff., pp. 216ff. and passim. The hypothesis has been advanced that these groups might be explained as victory monuments erected in honor of the Roman emperors and their victories over the barbarians. The anguipeds would then be symbols of the barbarians (F. Haug, in Mainzer Verbandstag, 1903, Bericht, pp. 52ff.; A. Riese, Die Gigantensäulen, pp. 30ff. and others). The theory that these monuments commemorate particular victories has been generally refuted (see especially F. Hertlein, Die Juppitergigantensäulen, pp. 64ff.). They were probably intended as homage to the major local deity and at the same time to the Roman emperor. On the syncretism of local cults of the western provinces with official religion, see especially M. Rostovtzeff, in Journ. of Rom. Studies, 13, 1923, pp. 91ff.; Bober, Studies in Roman Provincial Sculpture, ms. dissertation, New York University, 1946, pp. 171ff.|
|69.||See the list in Delage, op. cit., p. 227. The monuments mentioned by Delage are (minus an item where the small figure is an anguiped rather than a barbarian): Espérandieu, op. cit., X, no. 7502; idem, II, no. 1237; idem, II, no. 1249; idem, II, no. 1197; idem, VII, no. 5772 and also some terracotta figurines.|
|70.||E. Espérandieu, Recueil etc. Germanie, p. 39f., no. 50.|
|71.||In the Museum of Miltenberg (Espérandieu, op. cit., p. 129, no. 194). Only the head of Minerva's enemy is represented.|
|72.||S. Reinach, Répertoire de la statuaire grecque et romaine, II, p. 272, no. 7 (from the Serapaeum of Memphis).|
|73.||Rostovtzeff, op. cit., pl. III, 1. See also a sardonyx vase in the Berlin Museum with Venus Victrix seated near a trophy with a prisoner (A. Furtwängler, Die antiken Gemmen, I, p. 337).|
|74.||Strzygoski, "Die Calenderbilder des Chronographen vom Jahre 354," Jhb., Ergänzungsheft I, 1888, p. 31, pl. VII.|
|75.||E. Strong, Art in Ancient Rome, II, p. 169.|
|76.||See MS., V, 1, pl. VIII, 114, 116, 123, 126, etc.|
|77.||This is the reason for the appearance of the small barbarians in multifigured scenes (see above p. 26). The victorious power of the emperor had to be celebrated to some extent in monuments not directly connected with a victory. For instance, on the arch of the Argentarii (M. Pallottino, L'arco degli argentari, 1946) Parthian prisoners appear on the West side. It seems natural that on a coin, which is a complete monument by itself, the victorious power of the emperor should be symbolized by the addition of his attribute. The small barbarians in the exergue of some coins (see p. 48) are to be explained in the same way. They bear a certain resemblance to some reliefs where the barbarian prisoners are relegated to a separate lower zone as in the base of the obelisk at Constantinople (Cf. p. 48, note 32) or in the cameo in Vienna (Strong, fig. 57) or in the "grand camée de France" (Strong, fig. 58).|
|78.||See for other solutions of this problem E. Kantorowicz, in Art Bulletin, 1947, pp. 82f.|
|79.||See p. 1.|
|80.||As on the issue of 183/184 examined above (p. 28).|
The investigation of the barbarian attribute leads to some conclusions regarding another of the problems with which this study is concerned. This problem is the significance of the "traditional" types. In other words, when the die-engraver repeats motifs already well known because of their appearance on earlier coins, is this a purely numismatic process without any relationship to sculpture? That this is not the case, is partly implicit in the general characteristics common to both coins and sculpture. 1 It has been observed that several of the most common motifs of the coins – considering them in a general way, without attention to variants – were very common in sculpture. It was evident, for instance, in the motif showing a prisoner or prisoners at the foot of a trophy. The extant monumental remains of Rome showing this motif are scanty. Prisoners at the foot of a trophy appear on the zoccoli of the arch of Constantine. 2 A monumental trophy with a barbarian from the time of Domitian is still extant. 3 There is no doubt that these motifs were extremely frequent in the monumental sculpture. Their use as decorations of the attic on several arches is testified by the representations of these monuments on coins and reliefs. 4 Outside the city of Rome prisoners at the foot of a trophy are still visible on triumphal arches and in reliefs which once decorated them, 5 and some fragmentary monumental trophies are still extant. 6 It is unnecessary to recall how widespread these motifs are in works of art of all periods such as sarcophagi, cuirasses of imperial statues, reliefs and items from the minor arts. They were used as decorations of the capitals of columns also. 7 It may be concluded that the continuity of these motifs on coins indicates a similar continuity in the monumental official sculpture. Furthermore, the study of the barbarian attribute leads to the conclusion that such a continuity may be assumed in cases where extant remains, ancient reproductions of the monuments, products of sculpture, or of the minor arts in general are not as plentiful. Another conclusion, too, may be reached, namely, that a coin with an already known motif indicates that the motif was still in the living "répertoire" of the monumental art at the time the coin was issued.
This study of the traditional types is especially interesting in the second and third periods in the history of the coin types showing barbarians. It has been noticed 8 that from the age of M. Aurelius and particularly from the second part of his reign, the period of his joint rule with Commodus, traditional and symbolic types are the almost exclusive rule on the coins, and that only on the medallions is a certain variety of representations to be noticed. In the light of the observations made on the traditional types, it seems impossible to deny value to the coin types as aids in understanding the history of sculpture even at this time when they are more or less standardized. It seems indeed that the coins may give a lead in the study of the symbolic motifs. Some indications as to the general trend of the more complicated narrative scenes may be given by the medallion types.
The next problem is whether in the second and third periods the new coin types indicate the existence of a more or less contemporary monument. This seems very probable indeed for the age of Severus but after Severus it has not been possible to show a definite connection.
Some especially important new coin types of the second and third periods should be discussed although the connection of most of them with possible monuments is purely hypotethical.
Several new types appear on coins of Severus, Caracalla and Geta. It is in this period that the definite appearance of a motif frequent on coins of the third century takes place. This is the one depicting two Victories holding a shield and two seated prisoners below under the shield. ( Plate XVI, 1). It appears on a denarius of Caracalla struck in 201/206. 9 On earlier types only one prisoner is represented. 10 It is probable that a monument of the age of S. Severus provided the model. There is still extant the base of a column of Diocletian, erected in the Forum, which shows a similar motif. 11 Another motif appears for the first time on coins of S. Severus and Caracalla, that of Victory leading by the hand a small figure of a barbarian, apparently a child 12 ( Plate XVI, 2). No attempt had been made before of translating one of the elements of the sculptural narration of a war into the language of the coins, such as the sparing by the Romans of young barbarians while their elders are led into captivity or killed. Motifs of this kind appear also in the monumental sculpture of this period. 13 Sestertii of Caracalla and Geta show a new kind of personification of Britannia. 14 She is standing with her hands tied behind her back.
The coinage of Probus deserves special notice. A great variety is noticeable on both coins and medallions as far as traditional types are concerned. Several medallions and coins show in interesting scenes the emperor riding and fighting against several enemies. 15 It may be assumed that monumental sculpture flourished to a certain extent in this period. Some new elements are noticeable in Probus' types. Barbarians appear in scenes of "adlocutio" ( Plate XVI, 3). They are part of the representation and not merely attributes as on earlier numis- matic representations. 16 It is noteworthy that up to this time no sculptural representation is known in which barbarians appear in such a context. Also, a new kind of scene of homage occurs ( Plate XVI, 4). Four small barbarians appear two on each side of the standing emperor, on coins inscribed pacator orbis or victorioso semper. 17
The notable battle scene on the 5-aurei piece of Numerianus 18 and the great lead plaque in Paris 19 may possibly be connected with sculpture or painting. On the plaque which is probably a proof of the reverse of a large gold medallion from the time of the first tetrarchy, two emperors appear in the act of giving presents to several barbarians.
Antoniniani of Numerianus show the ruler standing between two captives 20 ( Plate XVII, 1). The legend reads vndique victores. Accordingly, the barbarian on the left has the traditional Oriental pointed cap. The barbarian on the right has the traditional Northern characters. The upper part of his body is naked and he is bareheaded. This is obviously a symbolical representation of the emperor as vanquisher of the barbarians of all races. The details of dress and physical appearance are not very dear on coins of the later empire. Such a sharp difference between two barbarians, is, therefore, seldom found on the same coin. But all the other examples we know appear on coins of the first half of the fourth century. 21 The tendency to represent both Northern and Oriental barbarians on the same monument is apparent in the later empire, as, for instance, in the Constantinian sculptures of the arch of Constantine. 22 Special mention should be made of the well known group of bronze coins with the legend fel temp reparatio, issued by Constantius II, Constans, Constantius Gallus and Julianus. 23 In Mattingly's opinion they were issued to celebrate the eleventh centenary of Rome in 348 a. d. 24 Several of these coins show barbarians on the reverse. Despite several variants, there are four main types: A) a warrior standing and spearing ( Plate XVII, 2) a horseman; B) a warrior leading a barbarian out of a hut; C) the emperor standing with two captives; D) the emperor on horseback spearing two enemies. Type A was struck by all the above mentioned princes. B, C and D by Constans and Constantius II. Two of these types, A and B, are new. On C two barbarians appear on one side of the standing emperor. This is a variation from the usual schemes showing the emperor with a barbarian on either side. Type A is perhaps the most interesting, because although the motif can be traced back to Greek representations of the Amazonomachy, it is rare in Roman sculpture. As for type B, the motif of a Roman leading a barbarian by the hand, is not new, 25 but the addition of the hut and the tree is. The figure is certainly a barbarian because on several specimens the traditional barbaric features such as beard and trousers are clearly visible. Therefore, the scene could be interpreted as the symbolic representation of one of the consequences of victory, frequently mentioned by later writers. Barbarians were often forced to settle within the boundaries of the empire in order to cultivate the soil. The "Panegyricus" of Constantius is very illuminating in this respect. 26 That the coin type under consideration is related to those forced migrations, is shown by the hut and the tree. They are an abbreviation of a whole landscape and indicate the woods and the huts where the barbarians lived. 27 The Roman warrior is leading the barbarian out of his home to his new place in the Roman empire. Perhaps, the whole group of these coins with the legend fel temp reparatio could be connected with some monument erected for the eleventh centenary of Rome.
Another type of the fourth century is found on solidi of the age of Valentinian and Theodosius, with the legend vota pvblica. 28 Two seated emperors are shown full-face ( Plate XVII, 5). On the coins issued in the western mints, no barbarian is represented. On those issued at Antiochia, 29 Constantinople 30 and Nicomedia 31 two barbarians appear as attributes at the feet of theemperors, or in the exergue. 32 The reason for this difference is difficult to understand. It is certainly to be studied in connection with analogous cases found on coin types not pertaining to this paper.
As a result of this study it has been possible to reach several conclusions both as to the coins and as to their usefulness in the study of Roman sculpture. Many coin types belonging to the first two centuries of the empire which were entirely new or which showed important new elements indicate that a more or less contemporary monument of the official sculpture of the city of Rome served as an original. 1 This is a point in support of the "theory of the new types." To distinguish whether a coin type is new or to distinguish a new element in a traditional type involves a long analysis. This analysis, however, has proved to be profitable. For the period after Septimius Severus no definite evidence could be found. It has been possible to show that traditional types on coins are an indication that the motif in question was still in the living "répertoire" of the monumental sculpture at the time the coins were issued.
In the course of our analysis of coin types it has been possible to identify a new symbol of the imperial power, the barbarian attribute. Although the symbolical meaning of the small barbarian found as an accessory to the figures of emperor or Victory had been rightly emphasized by several authorities, his role of constant attribute of the emperor in the later empire had not been pointed out before, nor had attention enough been paid to the fact that this attribute was also transferred from the emperor to the gods who were more closely associated with him. The study of motifs and subjects is only one element in the study of Roman imperial sculpture. Despite many illuminating studies, a general history of Roman imperial sculpture has not been written and factual evidence must have a great place in such a study.
An aspect of the coin types which has not yet been taken into consideration in connection with sculpture is the one of style. In regard to this it will certainly be important to study the difference in style between the various mints. This involves a general study and knowledge of coins rather than an analysis of types such as has been presented in this study. The analysis of coin types combined with a knowledge of their style and an understanding of the current of ideas they reveal will aid a great deal in solving problems concerning the sculpture and may also shed some light on the uncertain dates of the extant works of Roman sculpture.
|1.||For several types there is another possibility, namely that both the sculptural representations and the coin types might be derived from a common prototype, the triumphal painting (see above p. 24).|
|1.||See pp. 3ff.|
|2.||Illustrations in H. P. L'Orange, Der spätantike Bildschmuck des Constantinsbogens, pls. 24, 1; 27, 12; 28, 13; 31, 24.|
|3.||See p. 13.|
|4.||A relief in Stockholm (G. Rodenwaldt, Kunst der Antike, pl. 651) presents an arch with an equestrian statue and a trophy with a crouching prisoner on the attic. The relief reproduces the same arch which appears on coins issued by Claudius in the name of Drusus (BMC, I, p. 178, nos. 95–98, pl. XXXIII, 11, 12) . It is probably the arch erected in honor of Drusus the elder on the Via Appia (See Kaehler, col. 382, no. 12, who connects the arch of the relief with other coins). On this problem, and other arches represented on coins of Claudius, see also Kaehler, col. 384, no. 19, and F. Castagnoli, in Bull. Com., LXX, 1942, pp. 66ff. On the relief of M. Aurelius with the tetrapylon of Domitian see above p. 13. Prisoners at the foot of trophy also appears on the triple arch on coins of 100 A. D. (cf. p. 15, note 6) and on the arch on sestertii of 104/111 (BMC, III, p. 177f., nos. 842ff., pl. 31, 7–9; cf. Strack, I, p. 114, no. 387, pl. VI and Kaehler, col. 387, no. 26).|
|5.||As on the arches of St. Remy, Orange, Carpentras, Tripoli, Leptis Magna and on arches in Italy. The reliefs in Torino (see G. Bendinelli, in Torino , Rassegna Mensile della città, XIII, 1933, no. 11, pp. 3ff., fig. 12; cf. Kaehler, col. 413, no. 27) originally belonged to an arch. See also Sangallo's drawing of the arch at Malborghetto (Rossini, L. Gliarchi trionfali, onorari e funebri, pl. XIV.) Several friezes, such as the one in Bologna (M. J. Macrea, in Anuarul Institutului de studii clasice) originally belonged to arches.|
|6.||See the trophy of La Turbie (N. Lamboglia, Il trofeo delle Alpi and further bibliography in Catalogo Mostra Augustea, II, p. 63, no. 44), of St.-Bertrand-de-Comminges (Ferri, Lugdunum Convenarum; A. Picard, in Comptes rendus de l'Acad, des inscriptions, 1933, p. 138) and that of Adamklissi (E. Strong, Art in Ancient Rome, II, p. 86).|
|7.||For representations of trophies, see E. Caetani Lovatelli, in Bull. Com., 28, 1900, p. 241; K. Woelcke, in Bonner Jahrbücher, 120, 1911, pp. 158ff.; M. J. Macrea, op. cit.|
|8.||See p. 5.|
|9.||MS., IV, 1, p. 233, no. 146; see for illustration Trau Hess Sale Catalogue, 1935, Pl. 29, no. 2248. In this coin, the half figure of Caracalla is visible in the background. The same motif, without the emperor, appears on the following coins of this period: MS., IV, 1, p. 199, no. 796; idem, p. 201, no. 808; idem, p. 288, nos. 465a, b, pl. 15,9 ( Plate XVI, 1); idem, p. 202 no. 818; idem, p. 339, no. 167.|
|10.||See medallions of M. Aurelius and L. Verus: G., II, p. 33, no. 48, pl. 62, 9; idem, p. 34, nos. 54, 55, pls. 63, 5 and 64, 1. The motif, with an altar instead of the palm-tree, is present as late as on coins of the period of Constantine.|
|11.||For this base, see p. 33 note 40. The motif appear son sarcophagi since the middle of the second century (Lehmann-Hartleben-Olsen, op. cit., p. 77).|
|12.||MS., IV, 1, p. 121, no. 237, pl. 6, 22; idem, p. 129, no. 302; idem, p. 236, no. 172.|
|13.||On the arch of the Severi at Leptis Magna (R. Bartoccini, in Africa Italiana, IV, 1935 pp. 101ff., figs. 70, 77), a Roman soldier is leading by the hand a young barbarian, while older captives are carried on a ferculum (Cf. Bober, The Sculptures of the Arch of S. Severus at Leptis Magna, ms. thesis, New York University, 1943, p. 35 and p. 48). The same idea appears on the lid of a sarcophagus in Mainz (G. Rodenwaldt, in Antike Denkmäler, IV, 1929, pl. 41).|
|14.||MS., IV, 1, p. 286, no. 451, pl. 15, 1; idem, p. 291, nos. 481a, b; idem, p. 291, nos. 483 a–e; idem, p. 288, no. 464; idem, p. 342, no. 186. See on this type J. M. C. Toynbee, Hadrianic School, p. 64, pl. XII, 3ff|
|15.||See, for instance, MS., V, 2, p. 46, nos. 283–285 (illustrations in Hamburger Sale Catalogue, 1925, nos. 1555, 1556); G., III, pl. 157, 5, 6. For the medallion G., II, p. 120, nos. 43, 44, pl. 121, 10; cf. the earlier one of Gallienus G., I, p. 54, no. 31, ill. in G., III, pl. suppl., 6.|
|16.||Probus' types with barbarians in "adlocutio" scenes: MS., V, 2, p. 78, no. 580 = G., I, p. 9, l; illus. in H. Cohen, Description historique des monnaies frappées sous l'empire romain, 2nd edition, VI, p. 255; MS., V, 2, p. 51, nos. 320–322; G., II, pp. 115f., nos. 1–3, pl. 119, 1. Barbarians as attributes appeared before on bronze medallions in "adlocutio scenes" of Gallienus (G., II, p. 106, 1, 2, pl. 113, 4, 5; cf. p. 27, note 9 above). Barbarians appear later again, taking part in the action, on coins of Constantius Chlorus (Cohen, op. cit., VII, p. 58, 1) Maxentius (Maurice, I, p. 271, no. 20) and Constantine (A. Alföldi, in Journal of Rom. Studies, 22, 1932, p. 19, 1, pl. II, 21).|
|17.||MS., V, 2, p. 32, no. 136, pl. II, 1; idem, p. 80, no. 591; idem, p. 33, nos. 143f., ill. in Naville Sale Cat., 1938, pl. 19, 466; MS., V, 2, p. 41, no. 224. Cf. the type of Maxentius where Victory appears between six kneeling barbarians (Maurice, I, p. 271, XVIII).|
|18.||G., I, pl. 4, 7, p. 11, no. 1; also in bronze (G., II, p. 123, no. 12).|
|19.||See J. M. C. Toynbee, Roman Medallions, p. 67, note 71 (with earlier bibliography), pl. IX, 7.|
|20.||MS., V, 2, p. 196, nos. 422, 423.|
|21.||The difference is sometimes apparent only in some of the specimens of a coin. See the types of Constantius Chlorus and Galerius with the legend ubique victores (A. B. Brett, in Num. Chron., 13, 1933, p. 330, nos. 127, 128, pl. XXV, 18, 19), of Crispus with the legend principi iuventutis (Maurice, I, p. 319, no. VI, pl. XX, 14); the specimen of the victor omnium gentium of Constantine I (Maurice, I, p. 463, no. XIII, 1, 2) illustrated in Trau Hess Sale Cat., 1935, pl. XLV, 3949; also G., I, p. 16, no. 19, pl. VII, 2, 3; G., II, p. 133, 1; G., II, p. 141, nos. 7–9, pl. 133, 9, 10; Hirsch Weber Sale Cat., 1909, no. 2641, pl. 47.|
|22.||This is also apparent in the great Ludovisi battle sarcophagus (Strong, fig. 200; Paribeni, op. cit. (on p. 22, note 3) p. 119, no. 178; G. Rodenwaldt, in Antike Denkmäler, IV, 1929, pp. 61ff. pl. 41,; P. G. Hamberg, Studies in Roman Imperial Art, pp. 181ff., etc.) illustrated Plate XVI, 6. It has been rightly recognized that the battle represented there does not refer to a specific historic event (see especially Hamberg, loc. cit.) It celebrates the general as "victor omnium gentium" or (cf. the type of Numerianus, Plate XVII, 1) as "undique victor." Barbarians of both Oriental and Northern type are represented on the sarcophagus. The date of the sarcophagus is uncertain. The most widely accepted date is the second quarter of the third century A. D. Later periods as those of Gallienus (A. Della Seta, I monumenti dell'antichità classica, p. 230, fig. 535; L. Kjellberg, Grekisk och Romersk Konst, p. 326) and of Claudius II (R. Paribeni, Optimus Princeps, II, p. 82f.) have also been proposed. It seems that the coins point to a rather late date for the Ludovisi sarcophagus and not only because of similarities in the general idea. On the Ludovisi sarcophagus, on the left, there is a group of a Roman soldier and a barbarian. The Roman grasps the prisoner by the bearded chin. This recalls a similar detail found on a type of Maximinus Daza and Severus II struck at Siscia in 305/308. Here the ruler is represented dragging a prisoner. Another barbarian is seated on the ground. Instead of dragging the barbarian by the hair as usual in representations of this kind, the emperor is holding his enemy's beard ( Plate XVI, 5); cf. Maurice, II, p. 297, XI, 1, pl. IX, 8). Furthermore, on the sarcophagus there is a lack of feeling for the organic structure of the figure. This is evident in the figure of the soldier which has been mentioned. The warrior's limbs appear strangely dislocated. The same lack of "corporeity" is apparent on many coins of the end of the third century. It is especially noticeable on coins of the fourth century and also on the type of Maximinus Daza and Severus II mentioned above ( Plate XVI, 5). Also, the general on the sarcophagus has his right arm and hand extended in a gesture of triumph (and prayer (?) see A. Alföldi, in Pisciculi F. J. Dölger dargeboten, Antike und Christentum, Ergänzungsband I, p. 13; H. P. L'Orange, in Arch. Anz., 1936, p. 604). The same gesture is found in reliefs of the second century A. D. (See G. Rodenwaldt, in Jhb., 55,1940, p. 16 and note 4 and also a marble panel in the Museo Capitolino, H. Stuart Jones, The Sculptures of the Museo Capitolino, p. 49, no. 3, pl. 9) and on sarcophagi with hunting or battle scenes of the third century. However, this gesture of triumph is more frequent on monuments of the end of the third century and later periods (cf. also the equestrian statue of a boy in the Museo delle Terme, Photo Anderson, no. 40839, possibly of the late third century). Several emperors are represented on the coins with their arm and hand in the same attitude as the general in the sarcophagus. Among those, also Constantine I and Licinius (Maurice, I, p. 215, XIII, 1, 2, pl. XVIII, 4). Perhaps, the Ludovisi sarcophagus might be dated at the end of the third century or the beginning of the fourth.|
|23.||See especially Mattingly, in Num. Chr., Fifth Series, 13, 1933, pp. 182ff.|
|24.||This theory has been accepted by J. W. E. Pearce (in Num. Chr., 6th Ser., I, 1941, p. 90 and J. Gagé, in Mélanges Cumont, p. 151.|
|25.||See p. 44 above.|
|26.||Panegyrici latini, ed. Baehrens, VIII, 1, 4; 21, 1, 2; and especially 8, 4 and 9.|
|27.||Compare, for instance, the landscape and buildings in several scenes of the column of Trajan (K. Lehmann-Hartleben, Trajanssäule, pl. 30) and on the column of M. Aurelius (Petersen, op. cit., no. CX). The shape of the hut on the coins is very similar to those depicted in a great number of Christian sarcophagi showing the Good Shepherd. Migrations of the barbarians have been represented also in the column of Trajan, of M. Aurelius, on the arch at Saloniki (See H. Schoenebeck, in Byzant. Zeitsch., 37, 1937, p. 364).|
|28.||These solidi are collected by J. W. E. Pearce, The Roman Coinage from A.D. 364 to 423, p. 14, no. 16; p. 18, no. 20; p. 44, no. 20; p. 69, no.55; p. 85, no. 6; p.91; no. 15. See also J. W. E. Pearce, in Num. Chr., Fifth Series, XX, 1940, p. 146; A. Alföldi, A Festival of Isis, p. 53.|
|29.||For illus. see Hirsch Sale Cat., XXIX, 1910, pl. XXXV, 1506.|
|30.||For illus. see Naville Sale Cat., IV, 1922, pl. VIII, 220; Basel Miinzhandlung Sale Cat., VI, 1936, pl. 26, no. 2061.|
|31.||For illus. see Basel Münzh. Sale Cat., VI, 1936, pl. 26, nos. 2054, 2062.|
|32.||For the meaning of the barbarians in the exergue, see p. 40, note 77. The vota pvblica type make it plausible to assume that the barbarian attribute was a simplified way of expressing the emperor's victorious power which in monuments of other kind was celebrated in independent scenes or in the lower zone of some reliefs. It should be remembered that the date proposed by Delbrück for the base of the obelisk at Constantinople is 369 (R. Delbrück, Kaiserporträts, p. 185, pls. 85–88, figs. 64–66) and 368/369 is the date given by Pearce (loc. cit.) for the vota pvblica type. On the base, kneeling barbarians appear in a lower zone than the rulers who are seated facing. A real relationship between the vota pvblica type and the base cannot be established, because the date of 369 for the base is far from certain (See Bruns, in Istanbuler Forschungen, 1935, pp. 69ff.).|
|Plate||No.||Striking Agent||Date||Reference||Metal||Mint||Source of Illustration|
|I||1||Augustus||18/17 B. C.||BMC I p. 73 no. 427||Ꜹ||Spain||From a cast in the Museo di Roma, Rome.|
|I||2||L. Vinicius||16||BMC I p. 14 nos. 77/78||Rome||From a specimen in the Museum of the American Numismatic Society, New York.|
|I||3||M. Durmius||18||BMC I p. II nos. 56/58||Rome||As above.|
|II||3||L. Aquillius Florus||18||BMC I p. 8 no. 43||Rome||From a cast in the Museo di Roma, Rome.|
|III||2||Vespasian||71 A. D.||BMC II p. 115 no. 535||Æ||Rome||From BMC II. pl. 20, 5.|
|III||3||Vespasian||69/70 A. D.||BMC II p. 6 nos. 43f.||Rome||From a specimen in the British Museum, London.|
|IV||1||Domitian||85||BMC II p. 362 no. 294||Æ||Rome||From a cast in the Museo di Roma, Rome.|
|IV||2||Domitian||95/96||BMC II p. 407 no. †||Æ||Rome||From Bernhart, Handbuch zur Münzkunde der römischen Kaiserzeit: pl. 94,10.|
|V||1||Trajan||107/111||BMC III p. 82f. nos. 383, 384||Rome||From a cast in the Museo di Roma, Rome.|
|V||2||Trajan||100||BMC III p. 152 no. †||Æ||Rome||From Strack, I. pl. IV, 331.|
|VI||2||Trajan||104/111||BMC III p. 174 no. 826||Æ||Rome||From a cast in Prof. Cesano Collection, Rome.|
|VI||3||Trajan||104/111||BMC III p. 65 no. 242||Ꜹ||Rome||From a cast in the Museo di Roma, Rome.|
|VI||4||Trajan||101/102||BMC III p. 48 no. 137||Rome||From a specimen in the British Museum, London.|
|VI||5||Titus||72||BMC II p. 140 no. 634||Æ||Rome||From a cast in the Museo di Roma, Rome.|
|VII||1||Trajan||114/115||BMC III p. 215 no. †||Æ||Rome||From Strack, I pl. VIII, 450.|
|VII||2||Trajan||112/117||BMC III p. 115 no. 588; p. 120 nos. 614f.||Ꜹ||Rome||From a specimen in the British Museum, London.|
|VII||3||Trajan||116/117||BMC III p. 223 nos. 1045f.||Æ||Rome||From a cast in the Museo di Roma, Rome.|
|IX||1||Trajan||114/115||BMC III p. 216 no *||Æ||Rome||From Strack, I pl. VIII, 453.|
|IX||2||Trajan||116/117||BMC III p. 221 no. 1037||Æ||Rome||From a cast in the Museo di Roma, Rome.|
|IX||3||L. Verus||167||G. II p. 47 nos. 17f.||Æ||From G. II, pl. 74, 4.|
|IX||4||L. Verus||165||G. II p. 49 no. 39||Æ||From Toynbee: Roman Medallions, pl. XX, 3.|
|X||1||Honorius||392/423||C. VIII p. 185 no. 44||Ꜹ||Western||From a specimen in the Museum of the American Numismatic Society, New York.|
|X||2||Julianus||361/363†||C. VIII p. 54 no. 79 var.||Ꜹ||Antioch||From a specimen in the Museum of the American Numismatic Society, New York.|
|X||3||Constantine I||335/337* or 325**||G. Ip. 17 no. 20||Ꜹ||Siscia||From G. I, pl. 7,4.|
|X||4||Probus||276/282||MS. V, 2 p. 35 no. 165||Ant.||Rome||From a cast in the Museo di Roma, Rome.|
|X||5||Constantius II||350/353††||C. VII p. 461 no. 140||Æ||Rome||From a specimen in the Museum of the American Numismatic Society, New York.|
|X||6||Commodus||183||BMC IV p. 706 no. 103.||Rome||From a specimen in the British Museum, London.|
|X||7||Commodus||183||BMC IV p. 708 no. 114||Rome||From a specimen in the British Museum, London.|
|X||8||Commodus||183/184||BMC IV p. 709 no. 120||Rome||As above.|
|X||9||Commodus||183/184||BMC IV p. 711 nos. 127, 128||Rome||As above.|
|XIII||1||Domitian||85||G. III p. 13 no. i||Æ||From a cast in the Museo di Roma, Rome.|
|XIII||2||Aurelianus||third period||MS. V, i p. 293 no. 254||Ant.||Siscia||From a specimen in the Museum of the American Numismatic Society, New York.|
|XIII||3||Diocletian||286/296||G. I p. ii no. 7||Ꜹ||Rome||From G. I pl. IV, 14.|
|XIII||4||Caracalla||213/217||MS. IV, i p. 259 no. 3i2d||Rome||From a specimen in Mr. F. Knobloch's Collection, New York.|
|XVI||1||Caracalla||202/210||MS. IV, i p. 288 no. 465b||Æ||Rome||From MS. IV, 1 pl. 15, 9.|
|XVI||2||Septimius Severus||210||MS. IV, i p. 121 no. 237||Ꜹ||Rome||From Hirsch Sale Cat. XX, 1907 no. 621.|
|XVI||3||Probus||276/282||G. II p. 115f. nos. 1f.||Æ||From G. II pl. 119, 1|
|XVI||4||Probus||276/282||MS. V, 2 p. 33 nos. 143f.||Ꜹ||Rome||From Hirsch Sale Cat. XXVI, 1910 no. 802.|
|XVI||5||Severus II||305/308||M. II p. 297, XI, 2||Ꜹ||Siscia||From M. II pl. IX, 8.|
|XVII||1||Numerianus||283/284||MS. V, 2 p. 196 nos. 422, 423||Ant.||Rome||From a specimen in Mr. F. Knobloch's Coll., New York.|
|XVII||2||Constantius II||348 ca. or after*||C. VII p. 466 no. 44||Æ||Rome||From a specimen in the Museum of the American Numismatic Society, New York.|
|XVII||3||Constans||348 ca. or after*||C. VII p. 407 no.18||Æ||Cyzicus||From a specimen in the New York trade.|
|XVII||4||Constantius II||348 ca. or after*||C. VII p. 446 no. 39||Æ||Rome||From a cast in the Museo di Rome, Rome.|
|XVII||5||Valens||368/369†||C. VIII p. 116 nos. 82f.||Ꜹ||Constantinople||From a specimen in the Museum of the American Numismatic Society, New York.|
|†||For the dates of Julianus' coinage see Webb, in Num. Chr. 10, 1910 pp. 238f.|
|*||date given by Maurice: M. II p. 366, XIV.|
|**||date given by Elmer (Num. Zeitsch. 1930 p. 41 no. 9).|
|††||see Laffranchi, in Atti Istituto Italiano di Numismatica 6, 1930, pp. 134ff. on the dates of the coins of the period of Magneiitius.|
|*||see Mattingly, in Num. Chr. 13, 1933 pp. 182f.|
|*||see Mattingly, in Num. Chr. 13, 1933 pp. 182f.|
|†||see Pearce, The Roman Coinage from A.D. 364 to 423 p. 69 no. 55.|
|Plate II, 1||Conjectural restoration of triple city gate at Pisidian Antioch by Frederick J. Woodbridge, Jr. From Art Bulletin, IX. 1926 Fig. 67.|
|Plate II, 2||Standard bearer from triple city gate at Pisidian Antioch. From Art Bulletin, IX. 1926 Fig. 69.|
|Plate III, 1||Relief from tomb of the Haterii family. Photo Alinari 29906.|
|Plate IV, 3||Bas-relief from the Arch of Constantine. Photo Anderson no. 2534.|
|Plate V, 3||Arch of Constantine. Photo Alinari no. 5827.|
|Plate VI, 1||Statue of Hadrian from Hierapytna. From a cast in the Museo di Roma.|
|Plate VII, 4||Relief of column of Trajan. Photo Alinari no. 41833.|
|Plate VIII||Relief of column of Trajan. Photo Alinari no. 41846.|
|Plate IX, 5||Scene of triumph (fragment of bas-relief), Museo Nazionale delle Terme. Photo Anderson 23651.|
|Plate XI, 1||Statuette, Museum of Ostia. From G. Calza, L'Antiquarium di Ostia pl. on p. 54.|
|Plate XI, 2||Relief on Arch of Saloniki. Photo Museo di Roma.|
|Plate XII||Pilaster of the Arch of Constantine. Form L'Orange, Der spätantike Bildschmuck des Constantinsbogens, pl. 28 no. 14.|
|Plate XIII, 5||Statuary group from Anzio, Museo Nazionale delle Terme. Photo Archaeological Institute. Rome. Inst. Neg. no. 34. 1930.|
|Plate XIV, 1||Statuary group from Jioux, Museum of Limoges. From Espérandien, Recueil génerel des bas-reliefs de la Gaule, II. no. 1581.|
|Plate XIV, 2||Relief in Museum of the Saalburg. From Espérandieu, Recueil géneral des bas-reliefs de le Germanie, no. 50.|
|Plate XV||Chronograph of 354. From Strzygoski, Die Calenderbilder des Chronographen vom Jahre 354, pl. VII.|
|Plate XVI, 6||Sarcophagus, Museo Nazionale delle Terme. Photo Alinare 20118.|