ROMAN IMPERIALISM ANDPROVINCIAL ART

F.dired by

Sarah ScottL.' tt i t, er s ity of' Le i c e st er

Jane WebsterLi n iyersity of Leicester

ffiCaprnRrDGEqjry UNIVERSITY PRESS

NTETROPOLITAN ART AND THE DEPICTION OFROME'S 'OTHERS'

. t'"i

: l

iIi l

FOU R

The Hanged Men Dance: Barbarians in Traianic Art

Ia in Ferr is

I N T R O D U C T I O N

This chapter wil l examine some of the key works of Trajanic art, principallyTrajan's Column in Rome, the Arch of Trajan at Beneventum and the so-called Trophy of Tra jan at Adamklissi. A number of other works of art and coinsof Traian's reign wil l i r lso be discussed. It wil l be shown that, leaving aside theobvious differences in art ist ic style, the portrayalof Dacian barbarians on thesemonumerits differs subtly but significantly from one monument ro another, andpossibly becween individual scenes on the same monumenr. These differencesare reflected in the gender or age of the barbarians portrayed and, in part icular,the rvav in which the images are deployed on each monument. In a comparativestudy which emphasises the importance of a contextualapproach to monuments'nvirh shared iconographic themes, taking accollnr both of their locales and thehistoric circumstances informing their construction, i t is argued that rhe imageof the Dacian barbarian was altered or manipulated according to whether i t ap-peared on a monllment in Rome itself, at the very centre of power, in an Italiancontext (as at Beneventum) or in the distant provinces (as at Adamklissi).I t is hoped that there wil l emerge from this study an appreciation of thesignificanr differences in the way in which information abour the imperialprogram was relayed to audiences in the metropolis and in the provinces in thisperiod.

Portrairs of barbarians are frequently, of course, stereotypical; they drawon a stock repertoire of 'barbarian' imagery. As such, these portraits have asvmbolic valtte above and beyond the depict ion of anonymous protagonists inhistorical events', or events that relate to an historical framework. In explor-ing the svmbolic value of these images, i t is not my inrenrion to isolate themfrom their monumental conte.xt. Rather, i t wil l be suggested that, by focussingattention on the barbarian images on the three principal monuments notedabove, i t becomes possible to i l luminate aspecrs of rhese monumenrs that mayotherwise have been subsumed within discussions of historicism and art ist icstyle. With reference to the monuments rhemselves, this chapter lvi l l therefore

s 4

54 lain Ferris

be concerned r,vith characterisation rather than with descript ion and discus-sions of style, though discussion of the art wil l inform the interpretation of i tsintended message. The broad contemporaneity of the three monuments wil l beaccepted here without detailed reference to the extended debates about specificdating (for this, see, for instance, Kleiner r99z and Claridge 1993), as rheyare al l concerned with conveying messages about Trajan's reign and achieve-ments. Trajan's reign has been chosen as the focus for the present study notonly because it marks the period of the greatest extent of the Empire, but alsobecause artworks associated with Trajan provide a large group of early imperialbarbarian portraits. Indeed, the barbarian was almost the icon of the Trajanicage.

In discussing the three works selected here, some allr-rsion to the sculpturesof the Great Trajanic Frieze, the massive statues of Dacians set up in Rome, andthe coin issues of Trajan wil l also be necessary, as these have some bearing onthe study of barbarian images employed during Trajan's reign. These addit ionalsources wil l not. horvever. be discussed in detai l .

In three previous papers on the subject of barbarian images (Ferris r994,1997, and forthcoming) I have developed ideas relating to the creation and ma-nipulation of stereotypical barbarian images in Roman art. These ideas, whichform part of a wider research project (Ferris zooo), wil l be brief ly summarisedin the f irst part of this chapter, as a prel iminary to discussion of the Trajanicmonuments.

THE BARBARIAN STEREOTYPE IN ROMAN ART

Images of barbarians are ubiquitous in Roman art of al l periods. The femalebarbarian is, in fact, the most common mortal female image in Roman imperialart. Barbarian images principally occur in visual commemorations of conquestand victory, and the principal role of the defeated barbarian in such contextsis to act as a visual counrerpoint to the tr iumph of Roman power. Many ofthe motifs of barbarian defeat are stereotypical. They include the image of thecowering barbarian male being trampled by a Roman horseman; the barbarianmale held by the hair as the death blow is about to be delivered by a Romansoldier; the mourning female captive; and paired male and female capriveschained to a batt lef ield trophy. Representational stategies alter somewhat overt ime, and in many later scenes a hierarchical ordering of images is employed,in which the image of the barbarian becomes miniaturised, and indeterminatefigures appear who simply act as attr ibutes of barbarian emperors.

As is ever the case with stereotypes, whether artistic or literary, the barbar-ian stereotype says more about i ts creator than it does about i ts subject. In thiscontext, the ubiquity of barbarian images perhaps partially obscures the fact

I{I

Ii

Id

EI,iI

'i.

;+

The Hanged Men Dance: Barbarians in Trajanic Art

rhat the variat ions and nuances in rhe ways in which barbarians are portrayed,.rnd rhe contexts in which they appear, ref lect changing perceprions of the na-rure of poli t ical and social power relations within the Empire i tself. Images ofL-'arbirr ians can reflect tensions within Roman society i tself, or within certainscct ions of that soc ietv .

These shifts may sometimes be virtual ly imperceptible, and sometimes moreobvious. They do not fol low a l inear trajectory through t ime, nor is there geo-graphical consistency. Patterns can, nevertheless, be determined. For instance,from the era of Marcus Aurel ius and Commodus onwards, there is an unar-guable trend towards the dehumanisation of the barbarian in Roman art. Thereare i l lso noteworthy variat ions in the contexts of the portrayal of female bar-l . 'arians, often centred quite specif ical ly on the female body and its reproducrivecapacity.

I R A J A N - S C O L U M N

An understanding of the characterist ics and symbolic value of metropoli tan art( the ar t o f the 'centre ' ) is cr i t ica l to any s tudy of aspects o i the re la t ionshipl 'retween Roman irnperir i l ism and provincial art. In terms of the present cl iscr"rs-sion, i t is necessary to begin by considering the signif icirnce of certain imageson Trajan's Column in Rome, in order to assess the extent to which (i f at al l)the irrtistic messilges on this monument \,vere irrticulated on broadly contem-porary monuments elsewhere in the Empire. Bv taking this approach, different

PersPectives on the nature of Roman imperial ism, or a[ least on the rhetoricrrnd imagery of thrrt inperial ism, mdy emerge.

The impetus underlying rhe creation of Trir jan's Column can besr be under-stood by considering the wider context of the new forum in lvhich the coltrmnstood, since Trajan's Coltrmn was integral to the design concepr of this new ar-ch i tectura l pro ject (Davies r997) . lnaugurared in e.o. r rz ( though only par t ia l lycomplete by that date), the new forum was the latest and largest of the great

lord laid olrt at the heart of Rome. Trajan's Column, whilst accepted as beingcompleted under the aegis of his successor, Hadrian, \,vas an integral part of theor, 'eral l plan. This massive scheme of building works and accompanying arrisricernbell ishments \\ 'as not simply a cornmemoration of Trajan's Daciarn wars. Fi-nrtnced by che spoils of those wars, i t rvas also an architectural demonstrationof the economic benefits of an enterprise which many Romans had questioned(Davies 1997,62 especia l ly Notes r r -5 and r r9) . The spoi ls o f the wars were,rlso used to build new markets, :rnd thus to make a more explicit l ink betrveenconquest and commerce.

L)n the rel iefs of Trajan's Column the Dacians are often depicred disman-tl ing fortresses. In contrast to this destrtrct ive role, the Roman forces are very

)_)N

I

+

i3t:3:tgf

a

!1,'tsaI ilt;A ,

fi,tgl,:i

J aat.*fra ' ;

ilu( j

56 lain Ferris

XLIV

xI

Fig. 5. Trrrjarn's Column, Rome. Scene XLV: Torture of Roman prisoners (e Shepherd Frere).

frequently (indeed, to the point of exaggeration) depicted as builders and cre-ators. This is part of an overal l narrative thread that stresses a sense of over-whelming order among the victors, and disorder among the defeated. TheDacians are also often depicted in woods or in the mountains rather than incit ies or fortresses. There is a further possible visual opposit ion here, betweennature and culture, and perhaps also between barbarity and civi l isation. Sim-i larly, Dacian women shown torturing Roman soldiers (Scenes XL.IV-XLVI)are perhaps being used as an extreme demonstration of the fury of the 'other'

(Fig. S ). As Hall has noted in her study on the Greek ' invention' of the barbarian,Greek ethnography had often srressed rhat ' the more barbarian a communitythe more powerful i ts women' (Hall 1989, 9j l . l f the depict ions of rortureby Dacian women are intended to symbolise the depths of female cruelty andpower, and to embody the essence of the primitive, then these images are notbeing deployed here in what may be termed a nostalgic way; rhar is, by bothhighlighting and deploring aspects of barbarian behaviour whilst at the sametime showing a fascination for its otherness. Rather, they are perhaps represen-tative of an on-going discourse in Roman society at this time about the justness

of, and motives for, Traian's Dacian wars.There is another aspect to the portrayal of Dacian women on Trajan's

Column, this time set in the aftermath of war. This is a scene of young Daciannoblewomen being transported by the Romans into exile by ship (Scene XXX;

l?The Hanged NIen Dance: Birrbarians in Traianic Art

- l

t 7

I

I

I! i

rl

, t' i

t

Fie. r '. Traian's Colunrn, Ronre. SceneXXX' C-,rptu..a Or.;rn wr)nren f e Sfr"of].r.f lFrerei.

fr#I ' I

iiiff i1tgl'=1 ,hfr't {

I?'7r | l f- F 1

Fig' 6)' The fr-rture f<lr rhe women of Dacia woll ld now lie in the poliricirl, so-cial ' and sexuar framework of Roman socier,v-. Coupred wirh scenes porrrayingrhe sr-ricides of mare Dacia. readers (incruding s..* cxl), this scene perhapsirdicares rhe e'd of the Dacian erite rineag.. Eu. D,Amtrra has nored how ,rhe'rrgin\ hymen has long been a - . t rpho, tor rhe c i ry walrs. . . rhe c laugrr ter ,sor Inatron's chastity may serve rs a sign of rhe porit ical srabil iry of the crtyor srare' (D'Ambra r993, ss). This scene of the .nfor..d exire of rhe women,alongside scenes of the desrrrction of Dacian srronghords, may therefore bedoubly symbolic.

orr,X]',l fit:::J:,t_t1e -c-ontrasting of civilisarion wirh a stare of primitive bar_

Scen e xx xvr ),,' Hil,,i: *,i:,T ffi n jft :|ffi T:::: i;:l; :cial town a'd is gree.ted by the popurace, ,"p..r"nr.d by men, women andchildren' As Karnpen hirs rernarked of rhis image 'behind rhe docurnenrary re-alrsm ' ' ' srands a porit icar message of which ,-h. nuo,n.n in rhe audience area parr; they represenr rhe whole .o--unity of peopre who rive in a civir izedenvrronment, testimony ro rhe benerirs of Roman ,ul. for e'ery man, woln.n.rnd child ' ' ' here rhe presence of women ancl chi ldren signif ies the r.vhole andimplies a happy future as well as the benefirs of Rontttrt- i tas toboth p'bl ic andprivate realms' (Kampen 199r, zzo). The intended message of rhis scene s,reryl ies in i ts stress on transformation; an insighr rhar could be losr from vierv in

_fl

{ga#.a.ilg,g'*il{i{n.l,tJ

$:1:€'+'c€stlx,t,ij:i

]

:':,

-lJ

j

-i

;

r

i 8 Iain Ferris

a too dogmatic pursuit of the oppositional and confrontational aspects of theimagery. Currie, for instance, has said of Scene XXXVI that the Romanisedchildren on the column 'with their bodies under adult control and surveillancechiefly operated as a metonym for the conquered barbarians. They representedat a microcosmic level Roman domination of Dacia' (Currie 1996, 16r). Ac-cording to Currie: 'The adult control by Rome of infantilizedbarbarians waspart of the rhetoric of Roman imperial ism'. (Currie 1996, f iz),,but this wouldseem to be a banal and over-simplistic assertion.

Davies has suggested that in comparison with scenes on the later Columnof Marcus Aurelius, those on Trajan's column deliberately play down 'the

gruesome realities of war' in order to allay Roman civilian fear of the army(Davies 1997, Q and Note rz3). Trajan's column thus principally portraysscenes of 'travel, construction, adlocutio, swbmissio, and sacrifice', with only arelatively small number of batt le scenes being represented (Davies 1997,63).Whilst civilian anxiety about the army may have been a reality (Davies cites thework of Fehr ry85-6 to support this argument), I would suggest that this wasprobably a relatively minor concern in the design of the column friezes, whichwould appear rather to link warfare with economic regeneration in Rome,through building works and an influx of large numbers of new slaves. It is truethat in comparison with scenes on the later column of Marcus Aurelius, thoseon Trajan's column seem to deliberately play down the realities of war, possiblyin order to allay civilian fear of the army. If one looks back to the Augustan and

Julio-Claudian eras, nevertheless, i t is possible to detect in Rome at that t ime(though not in the provinces) an avoidance of the direct portrayal of wars andbattles on maior monuments. The appearance of some mainly formulaic battlescenes on Trajan's Column, and the contrasting, more harrowing and numbingbattle scenes on the column of Marcus Aurelius reflect fundamental changeswithin Roman psyche and society. In the Antonine period, it can be argued,these changes are also to be seen in the dehumanisation of the barbarian foesdepicted on the monument, and in a growing trend towards the debasement ofthe barbarian in Roman art and on coinage from this time onwards (see Ferrisr994,3o and zooo) 86-u6).

The sculptures of the Great Trajanic Frieze are closely related thematicallyto those of the Column. They also commemorate victory in the Dacian wars.Indeed, the Frieze may originally have been ser up in the Trajanic forum(Leander Touati 1987,85), so that both monuments could easily have beencompared by their viewers in a short space of time. Once again,, the Frieze wascompleted in the reign of Hadrian, and formed part of the complex around theTemple of the Deified Trajan at the north end of the Trajanic forum. The largelysymbolic value of the scenes of aduentus and of battle on the Frieze, however,suggests that it should more appropriately be considered a contribution tothe long-standing tradition of battle representations in Graeco-Roman arr

VP)7

The Harnged Men Dance: Barbarians in Trajanic Art

F r e . ' . T h e G r e l t T r l j a n i c F r i e z e , R o t n e . l ' a j r r n r i d e s d o r v n a D . r c i a n c h i e i t a i n ( , l a u c h o r . r n d \ ' l a r kB leedon ) .

(Leander Totrati r9t l7. ' t7) rather than a cirse studv in Trajanic represenrationsof the barbarian world. I ts 'conservative' cltrssical st1' le ir lso contrast with rhenumerotrs innovative techniques and strategies of representation employed onthe Coh-rmn.

As notecl abor, 'e. hou,'ever, rhe appearance of barrle scenes on a permalnentI l lonLlment in Rome at this t ime, as opposed to rhe rnore ephemeral batt le paint-inss carried in tr iumphrrl processions, conrrasrs rvith the art ist ic straregies ofearl ier imperiaI er:as. The presence of the emperor and of Dacian prgtagonisrs,albeit represented in a surprisingly undetai led fashion, of course l inks the Friezeto a very specif ic erar, but nevertheless i t should be seen as an essay in tradir ionirncl continuirv, irnd wil l h;rve been intended ro be vielved in such a l ighr. Thisis inreresting in i tself, rrnd also exemplif ies a diff 'erenr Lrsage of barbarian im-irgerv at this r ime. The l ' iewer of the Frieze, having perhaps raken nore of themessilges conveyed on fhe nearby ColLrmn, would not have encounrered in thiscase overt - or incleecl covert - ;r l lusions to econornrc matters. Rather. the chtrrn-ing sub-register of str icken and dying anonymous Dacian rvarriors, with theirawkward and t l isharmouic poses. rvould have been vierved as generic, t imelessetternies of Rome, overcome by the power imbuecl in the f igr,rre of the emperor.The gerleric natl lre of the imagerv is enhanced by the f ict thrrt, in contrast rc-rthe more accurate portrayal of the 'capture' of Decebalus by Tiberius Clau,-l iusI ' frtr i trnttrs on fhe Column. the Frieze off 'ers the more svrnbolic image of theemperor r id ing dou 'n a Dacian ch ief ta in (F ie. z) .

59

=itll ) r7rlag,

iiiiiit t

tiri-, it l[ \ .r a l' t '

6o Iain Ferris

Around the Forum, a number of giant statues of male Dacians were also set

up. These were probably integrated into the design of the Basilica Ulpia, and

some were later reused as spolia on the fourth-century Arch of Constantine.

These massive figures stand proud and upright, and it seems unlikely that they

were intended to be viewed in the same way as the many images of wretched and

dejected barbarians that are a more characteristic feature of imperial art. In the

majority of cases (examples include some Trajanic coin issues, and the kneel-

ing,, submissive barbarian f igures possibly integrated into other Trajanic mon-

uments around Rome (Schneider t986, ' Iafel

8), defeated Dacians are shown

in subservient poses. As another point of difference, the giant statues al l depict

Dacian males, contrasting strongly with the Augustan and Julio-Claudian strat-

egy of employing female personifications of defeated peopies in architecturalsett ings in the capital. There is an extensive l i terature on the deployment of

the Dacian figures in the Trajanic forum (see, for instance, Packer t997 and

rhe accompanying bibl iography) and on their place in a general iconographic

tradition of using personifications or barbarian figures in this way in both theGreek and Roman worlds.

While the Forum, Frieze and Column were intended for the eyes of themetropolitan viewer, nevertheless there doubtless would have been a great va-riery of individual responses to their dif ferent messages, even in this urbancontext. The works could be viewed and interpreted on a number of levels

ranging from simplicity - a direct response to the overt message only - to so-phist ication - an understanding of the covert messages in al l their complexity.

TRAJAN 'S ARCH AT BENEVENTUM

The second monument to be considered in detai l is Trajan's Arch at Beneventum,in Campania (to the south of Rome), dated by epigraphic evidence to A.D. rr4. [ tis often sometimes erroneously assumed that imperial art in wider Italy followedthe same agenda, and spoke to the same audience, as art in the city of Romeitself. This was not in fact the case. Indeed, there is no better example of amessage targeted specifically at the peoples of Italy (rather than the citizens ofRome)than that projected by the Beneventum arch. The artwork of the arch wasintended to convey a series of messages about the Emperor's social policies, andin particular his alimentary program, as well as about his political and militarypolicies. The al imentary scheme was intended to bring rel ief to impoverishedfamilies in Rome and Italy. It has also been surmised that another aim of thescheme was rather more cynical; namely to increase the birth rate amongst thelower classes, perhaps to guarantee a future level of recruitment into the Roman

army (see, e.g., Torel l i ry97, r5z).The arch reliefs also commemorated triumph in the Dacian wars. This was

achieved not by repetitive portrayal of lvar and battle scenes, as happened on

T'he Hanged Men Dzrnce: Barbarians in Traianic Art

rhc Coiumn rlnd the Great Trajanic Frieze to diff 'erent degrees, but by repeated

r isr.ral depict ions of the rern'ards rhat imperial conquests bror.rght to Italy. The

.rrch commemorates Trajan's concern for a well- ied Ita[y, achieved through

r.r.re1-building, the construction of harbours, the establishrnent of colonies and

. r r . r rge tedsoc ia l p rog ram(Cur r i e 1996 , r64 ) . l ns teado f ba t t l escenes .T ra jan rs

pt.,rtraved being received by Dacian gods and stanc{ing betbre a personif ication

rperhaps) oi Dacia, who kneels in greeting before the victorious Emperor.

There are, however, numerous representations of Romiu and, to a lesser

r--\re f l t barbarian, chi ldren on the arch. In i ts concentration on Ital ian rather than

brrrbarian children, the imagery ma)'have enconraged the viewer to feel a sense

of identif ication with the children. Childhood and adulthood were presentecl

;rs f luid and shift ing ci l tegories not polar oppt>sites. Adults weremetirphorical chi ldren of the emperor ,rnd children \\. 'ere embrvoniccit izens. TI-re Roman empire as represented on the arch entai led a settrf translations of wrrr into peace, barbari irn into Romen, chi ld into,rdult, free man into slave and slave back into free man.

(Currie 19c.6. 168)

Llr i lclren woirld, of course, be erpected in an al imentttr id scene: This lvas part

of rrn iconographic trardition. Here, hor.l'ever, the contrastive use of figr.rres oflr lr l-rarirrn chi ldren represents a sLrbtle departure irom mere rrrt ist ic formalit i '

of erpression.

Enslaved Dacian children r 'rppear as small-scale representations on the fr ieze,

ri ,hich runs ir l l around the monument. Currie suggests that this tr iumphal pro-

cession shows these captured children as l i t t le more than part of the spoils ofw ar. They are ' frozen in the perperual chi ldhood of slaverl ' . . . barharian chil-

. lren were associated with the servi le, the feminine and the defeated.'(CurrierL)96, r73) . Cr . r r r ie 's s t r ik ing phrase - ' i rozen in perpetual ch i ldhood' - pro-

vicies an interesting counterpoint to a state of temporal dislocation which isdetectirble in rhe portrait images of Trajan himself. After a slrrvey of portraits

of Trajan throughout his nineteen-year reign, Kleiner dubbed the Emperor ' the

ageless adult ' , because in portrrr i ts made over this t imespan, Trajan showedl i t t le or no s ign of arg ing (Kle iner r992, zo8) . The conscious manipulat ion oft ime would, therefore, seem to be e part icular hallmark of the design of thearch, and of Trajanic art in general.

Krrmpen lryg+) has drarvn attention to the absence c-rf women from theImperi:r l family on the Trajanic arch at Beneventum. Her discussion of Roman

rrrr ist ic representations of motherhood stresses that the creation of sr"rch imagesis dependent upon numerous, often intenvoven, factors including the nature ofrhe art ist ic genre, the temporalor geographical sett ing, ethnicity, class, poli t ical,

social, and economic por,ver structures, and rel igion. Her study contrasts theAra Pacis Augustae, which depicts the men, women and children of the Imperierlhouse, with the Beneventum arch, rvhich does not (although both monumentsput across specif ic messages about state and family).

6 r

r t l

: 3 :.-r"i ' r ll y '

I

i /fB .t G

rrrg

7:3,rs

6z Iain Ferris

In the case of the Ara Pacis, the presence of members of the Imperial familyemphasises the crucial importance of the family unit itself, and of a securedreproductive future for the imperial line. In the so-called alimenta scene on thearch at Beneventum, fathers appear with children and female personificationshold infants. The Emperor is present, but no female member of the court ap-pears. In the words of Kampen,

the emperor, model for his male subjects, is the complete parent andreproduction resides with men and not with women. This seemsto confirm that the imagery of reproduction in the art of the stateis completely subfect to the needs of the state, and those needs aredetermined and managed by men whose power allows them to insertor remove the female body from the context of reproduction andfamily at will.

(Kampen r994, 14-26)

Trajan's own role as Father of the Country comes across strongly from the archreliefs. There are no ltalian mothers on the arch, despite the fact that men, warand reproduction are its three inseparable themes. Some mortal women do ap-pear on the arch reliefs. Perhaps significantly these are barbarian women.

In summary, therefore, the depiction of Dacians on both Trajan's Column inRome and the arch at Beneventum is employed to stress the economic benefits ofwar, though the benefit suggested, and the specific audience for each monument,may be very clearly differentiated. In each case, the location and context of eachmonument informs the content, and although similar imagery is employed, itis used to achieve differing objectives.

THE TROPAEUM TRAIANI AT ADAMKLISSI

The third monument to be discussed in detail is the so-called 'Trophy of Trajan';the Tropaeum Traiani at Adamklissi in present-day Romania. This is locatedin the former Moesia Inferior, a provincial setting at considerable distance (bothgeographically and artistically) from Italy and the metropolitan centre. As IanRichmond has noted, the Trophy was in fact only one of three monuments in rel-atively close proximity to each other at Adamklissi, the two earlier monumentsbeing a mausoleum and an altar bearing the names of Roman dead, markingsignificant Roman defeats in the emperor Domitian's Dacian wars (Richmond

196o,45). The physical juxtaposit ion of the Trajanic victory monument withthese other two monuments was perhaps also a psychological juxtaposition, away to erase the memory of those earlier military setbacks. It thus representedrevenge, as confirmed by the dedication of the tropaeum to Mars Ultor. Thetropaeum is now generally considered to be of a broad Trajanic date, thoughsome authorities have argued for its being both earlier and later than this period.The monument complex at Adamklissi stood at the node of a number of major

The Hanged Men Dance: Barbarians in Traianic Art

comnrunication routes and, l ike so many monuments in the Roman rvorld, was

sited ro achieve the ma-ximum impact on travellers along these routes, whether

irom within or without the Empire. I t was only at a later date that a seft lement,,

c.r l led Tropaeum Traiani, rvas founded nearby.

L)iscussion wil l concentrate principally on those sculptural scenes in which

brrrberians appear. These take trvo forms: bound captives, occurring on the mo-

nLulent's crenellat ions; and batt le scenes, occurring on a number oi the forty-

nine surviving metopes (from an original f i f iy-four). lv{uch debate has centred

;.1round the 'documentary value' of the sculptural scenes on the monument (see

Rossi r97L, -56). Sorne authorit ies have regarded their value as compromised 1ifnor altogether lacking) because they lack ' that logical and chronological coher-

cnce r,vhich alone could give the iconography the force of a true historical epit-

orne ' (Rossi t972,56) . On the other hand, i t is poss ib le to argue that the episodic

portr iryal of combat on the rel iefs is an art ist ic representation of the concept of

t ime suspended, or of inf inite Empire. As discr-rssed below, the episodic nature

of the iconography may also be argued to represent t ime reversed.

The crenellat ions of the monlrment each bear the f igure oi a single male

barbarian captive, who is not always Dacian, with his arms t ied behind his

back. The other captives are German and Sarmatian al l ies of the Darcians.

In the background, to one side, a styl ised tree is depicted. As suggested with

reference to the less erpl icit irssocizrt ion of Dacians with forests on Trajan's

Column, the tree may here be a device l inking the Dacians to virgin forests and

to rhe naturir l , and rhus uncivi l ised, world. The single bound captive representsir nation in defeat. This would have been emphasised by the repetit ion of themotif around the whole circuit of the monumenr: eln erernal return to a state ofperpetuaI suhjugat ion.

The scenes on the metopes mostly show incidents of one-to-one combat, asrepresentative of larger batt les. Diana Kleiner regards this as being ' in the longtrrrdit ion of metope design, which can be traced back to such Greek exarnplesas the metopes of the Parthenon' (Kleiner 1992,, z_io). Many of the batt le sceneson the Trophy monument, 11s on Trirjan's Column, are stock imirges that formed

;rart of an art ist ic continuum of Gr,reco-Roman batt le topoi (see Leander Touatir. .)87, r9 n.+r irnd 77, fc:r instance). This is part icularly tr l le for those sceneswith elemenrs that are repeated a number of t imes. Linking scenes of the Romanrlrmy at work on camp construction anc' lso on are not present, and indeed giventhe location of the monument, and its intended iudience, rhis is not surprising.

Despite the presence of often-repeated batt le motifs, one or t lvo individualscenes on the monument have a greater resonance and signif icance. On metopeXXXI rvhat appears to be a naked, beheaded Dacian l ies at the feet of a Romansoldier rvhose attention is focussed on a naked barbarian archer perched in atree (Fig. 8). Rossi has suggested that the bodv on the ground is the decayingcorpse of a Roman soldier ki l led in rrn earl ier engagement here, perhaps duringDomitian's reign. and able at last to be present at the scene of retr ibution for

6 i

_i

t

I

Ii+!

}I

tld

tli'

iilauli

t i

illiiia 1

it

l,l

64 Iain Ferris

Fig. 8. Tropaeum Trajani, Adamklissi, Romania. Metope XXXI: Roman soldier, beheaded Dactan,

and archer (after Florescu r96o).

the previous Roman defeat, as some kind of si lent witness (Rossi rg7z,63).

On metope V a Roman cavalryman rides over a headless Dacian body whilst

displaying his severed head as a trophy. This dead Dacian may be the Dacian

leader Decebalus, with the Roman trooper being Tiberius Claudius Maximus,

the famed horseman whose dash to capture Decebalus al ive was unsuccessful.

On metope LIV a Dacian woman cradles a child in the folds of her garment,

her plight perhaps symbolising a curtailed reproductive future, or at least one

transformed under the Roman order. FinallS on metope XLII, an ox-drawn

cart or wagon takes a Dacian family into political and social exile.

The Hanged Men Dance: Barbarians in Traianic Art

On one nretope (IX), Trajan is present in atl loculio ancl on another (merope

XXXVI) on the march. On a th i rc l (metope VI) a horseman, probablv to be

identi l ied as the Emperor, r ides down a Daciirn chieftain. This is doubtless a

rnet;rphor ior the defeat of the Dacian nirt ion by the power of Rome, rhough

sr,rch a scene is in rr broader tradit ior-r oi r ider and fal len foe motifs, and as has

been noted above also appears on fhe Grear Trir janic Frieze in Rome.

Rossi ( t9 tz l has suggesred that the i rpparent s impl ic i ty o f the iconographv

on the trophv nlonLlment is an rrdaptation to localcircumstances and reflects the

need ior rhe message here. iway from the centre, to have r-nore direct inlpirct.

This mLrst indeecl be t l-re case. It could tr lso be rrrgued thrrt the str ipped-dou'n

st"- le rrnd locrrl rrrt ist ic vernrrcnlar of the monument, coupled with i ts detai lecl

render ing of the Dacian and other barbar i ln protagonis ts , was in tendecl to

rr l lor '" ' the 'u' ieurer to recognise the otherness of rhe Dacian enemy in the wArs,

and the clepth of their defeat. There woLrld have been no need l-rere for implicrr

clepict ions of the benefits of Romanifas: There u'zrs prohablv no ar"rdience here

for whom that messrrse \\ 'as appropri i l te.

T H E ' A R T O F D A C I A N D E F E A T

By differences of emphasis, and by the incl irsion, omission or manipr-r l trt ion ot

barbarian and other forms of irnageri ' , each of rhe rhree monuments disctrssed

above tel ls a sr.rbtly different version of the tr iLrmphs and vicrories of the reign

of Tra jan. And vet each is similarly concerned with the outconre of the Drrcien

wars. These differences, i t has been suggestecl, ref lect the geographical, cultnral.

and social context of the monuments themselves, and the anticiprrted ar-rdience

for each. At the si lme t ime, however, the irnage of the defeated Dacian r,vas

itself to become a clefining symbol of Trajan's reign, not only in monumental

contexts, btrt ,r lso on coinage. Interestingh', the sirme cannot be said of the

Parthians, rvhose defeat bv Trajan r,vas arlso of geopoli t ical importance for the

empire.In her str,rciy of barbatrirrns on Roman imperial coins and sculpture, Levi

noted a number of unusual fei l tures of certain images f irst ,rppearing on coin

types of Trajan (Levi r 9Sz1 r4-zo). These included a reverse tvpe of a bound,rnale Dacirrn prisoner, trnd types on rvhich Dilci i ins appear as what Levi terrned'at t r ibutes 'o f rhe Emperor (Lev i i952, r4) . In one type, rwo smal l barb i r r ians

irppear, sometimes kneeling, on either side of the Emperor. C)n other tvpes the

ernperor appears with his foot on a prostrate Dacian male. The composit ion on

some eramples of this type crop the berrbarian f igure dramatical ly so th;rt only

his heircl and shoulders are l ' isible. Other t,r-pes t lre knorvn on r,vhich Trajan and

Roma are depic ted wi th rhe i r f teet p lanted on Decebalus 'severed head (Foss

r9L)o, ror -z) .

o )

a a

: :. d ,o )(g !

l ' 'r*;r G .

t0 ;tg :

I(su

t,rt

66 Iain Ferris

There are also a number of what may be termed 'historical' types; narrative

scenes relating not to the Dacian wars but rather to Trajan's later campaigning

in Parthia. Among this group are coins depicting the appearance of the Parthian

prince Parthamasiris before the Emperor, the investiture of three chiefs byTrajan, and the investiture of Parthamaspates. These types are, according toLevi, 'among the very few on imperial coins which represent barbarians as in-

dividuals and not merely as symbols of the vanquished race' (Levi ry52, r9).

They contrast strongly with the depiction on coins of the wretched f.ate of.Decebalus' head as the gruesome motif for the defeat of the Dacian people.

The three major monuments considered here therefore form only one as-pect of (and a stimulus for) the widespread use of images of Dacians inthe Trajanic period. The sculptures of Trajan's Column principally place theDacian barbarians in the historical context of their defeat. Yet their defeat andthe consequent gathering of the spoils of that defeat, are presented in an originaland compelling style as having a particular and specific relevance to Rome her-self. This is because the setting in which viewers encountered Trajan's Column -

their architectural frame - was funded by the spoils of the Dacian wars. The

transformation of destruction into construction is stressed and emphasised bythe presence of such scenes on the column, albeit involving the Roman army inDacia. Dead bodies and shattered bones in Dacia are in Rome transformed intostone and mortar through the exhaustively catalogued exertions of the armyat war. Any fear of the army felt by the civilian population of Rome would beassuaged by the visible benefits of that army's labours. At the same, the mon-ument's depiction of triumphs in battle may also have served to maintain thatnecessary fear. This also marks something of a break with a tradition (to whichthere are of course one or two exceptions) of non-overt depictions of war andbattle on major imperial monuments in Rome.

The battle scenes on the column, and the more stylised scenes on the GreatTrajanic Frieze, do not dwell overly upon the bloody realities of war, thoughas discussed above the artists did not flinch from including a small number ofscenes which, whilst they jar with modern sensibilities, may have given visualform to some of the most important messages the monument was intended toconvey. The victory is not depicted as being easily won, nor is there an indicationhere that the Dacians were an unworthy or easily defeated foe. This view ofRome's Dacian opponents was further emphasised by the 'proud', rather thandejected, giant figures of Dacian male captives in the Trajanic forum. Victory iswon by the power of the army, of the Emperor and of the state. The suicide ofthe Dacian chieftain Decebalus in order to avoid capture could be termed anact of self-authorship, which would have disrupted the anticipated theatre oftriumph. His post-mortem beheading, as portrayed on the column, importantlyallows this self-authorship to be turned upon itself in a macabre fashion. This

'The Hanged Men Dance: Barbarians in Tiajanic Art

p()rrrayal oi victory over death i tself is further testament to imperial power.

T-he transportation of the head to Rome, for displav in the Emperor's tr iumph,

rn.lrks a iLrrther manifesti ' t t ion of this power.

As to the arch at Beneventum. the social pol icies of the ernperor's reign

rre stressed. though not to the erclusion oi reference to the mil i tarv tr iumphs.' f l iere

is none of the cletrr i l of trrmv ,ct ivity seen on Traian's Column, horvever,

rr.rd the Dacirrn barbarians are clepicted in defeart, not in the process of being

defeated. The deliberate ernphasis placed on contrastive images of I tal ian and

barb: r r ian ch i ldren has been d iscussed in deta i l above.

The two monuments are themselves contrastive, with, as Currie has notecl,' the column fbeing] overu'helmingly martial and Roman in perspective, [while]r l rc arch ce lebratec l peace f rom an l ta l ian point o f v iew' (Curr ie r996, r ;9) . This

need to structlrre the messirge as r,vel l .rs the medir.rm is signif icant in terms of ini-perial ideologies. In this conte.xt, i t is important not to conflate Rome and ltaly.

The monument at Adamklissi is extraordinary in that i t appears not only tobe a victory monllment and war memorial, but also a symbol of revenge. Thenlonlrment is simpll. about mil i trrry power, and the assert ion of that power. The

sheer scale of the trophl ' monument in comparison to the others is also notewor-

rhy in this respect, ; ,rs is i ts sit ing as part of a complex of rel i l tecl rnonurrents,r l l l inked to rhe rrrmy's involvernent in crrrnpaigns in Daciir over the years.

ln such a relatively remote part of the empire, i t is unlikely thar the rnessage ofthe Aclamklissi monument was targeted at anyone other than the soldiers rrndRcrnrrrn off icials stationed in Moesia, and the local populace. Nlany of the latterw'ould dorrbtless have understood the imperial rhetoric behind the simple andrl irect imLlgery ernploved on the monurnent. At an errr l ier date, a similar effectnuv have been achieved bv rheJulio-Clauclian house, rvith i ts dedication of therlrch r l t Orar-rge (Gatl ia Narbonensis). Again, the erpl icit batt le scenes on thatnronument were of a tvpe generally avoided in Rome itself at the r ime.

The style of the sculpttrral panels on the Adamklissi monument !\ ' rrs ver-rtacular, and owed its composit ior-ral directness to the rlecessary shorrhand ofrni l i tary art. I ts messilge, nevertheless, was part of an irnperial prograrn thzrt, inTr.r jan's reign, al lorved for rhe rnanipulation of style in cert l in conteNts in orderfo ensure the reception of an intended visr-ral rnessage bv i ts target irudience.Rornirn rni l i t i rr,v art hrrs been regardecl by cert:r in art historians a' ls somehorv cle-based i l- l content, and as hrrving, frorn the reign of N' l irrcus Aurel ius on\^/ i-rrds, acleleterious inf ' luence on the metropoli trrn rnainstrerrm. These arguments cannotL'te accepte.l as an erplanation for the style of the Adirr-nkl issi rrtr,vorks n'hencontri lsteci n' irh the mrr jor Tra janic monuments in Rorne. There are enough com-I-non themes on the artr,vork of the Atlamklissi monnment, the Great TrajanicFrieze irncl Traj irn's Column to suqgest their cornmon origins in the imperialrhetoric oI that erir.

L - ) /

: i ,

iTtiI

iri'r'iiit*,1r) ta )r'

rht i

68 Iain Ferris

C O N C L U S I O N

Images of barbarians, and the way that these images were deployed, formed

one part of a repertoire of imagery and representation that was as sensitive

to context as it was to meaning. C.H. Berndt and R.M. Berndt have written

that 'the dialectic berween the familiar and the strange, befween home and

abroad, is a universal one... The content of the dialectic varies even within

one society, according to time and circumstance and according to the socialunits and the individual persons concerned'(Berndt and Berndt r97t, rr). In

this context, each of the monuments discussed here demonstrate, in different

social settings, different aspects, or interpretations of aspects, of Trajan's reign,mediated through the use of images of barbarians: on Trajan's Column thetransformation of destruction into construction, on the Beneventum arch ofatrophy into growth, and on the Trophy at Adamklissi of defeat into victory.

Art and monuments are social constructs; they are part of a system of socialrelations extending beyond themselves. Richard Brilliant has said of the rela-tionship between Roman art and Roman imperial policy that 'propaganda isnot used, merely, to create a favourable climate of belief or opinion; it is usedto channel the energies of the public exposed to it and repeatedly - a publicwhose beliefs are conditioned by propaganda so that they will act in concertin some desired manner, that is a manner or direction useful to the creatorsand disseminators of that propaganda'(Bri l l iant r988, rro). In Trajanic artin Rome, in particular, experience and meaning came together as images thatmerged and created a coherent whole, and helped make sense of the world atthis one particular time to a particular category of metropolitan viewer. Equally,away from home, such images were rearranged into an archipelago of seeminglycorrupt fragments which displayed a different version of that self-same reality,each version being dependent on the context in which those altered images weredeployed and the complicity or hostility of the target audiences.

ACKNO\X/LEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Lynne Bevan for commenting on various drafts of thispaper, and Simon Esmonde Cleary for his helpful and particular criticisms ofsome aspects of the paper before its presentation at RAC. I am also gratefulto Sarah Scott, Jane l7ebster, and the anonymous referees from CambridgeUniversity Press whose comments on a second draft of the paper have, I hope,helped improve the final version.

ii