RÖMISCHEN RELIEFS
Quante-Schöttler’s study examines the compositional development of
architectural depictions in state reliefs over time. Although Quante-Schöttler cites Maier as the starting point for her work, she criticizes his study for its exclusive consideration of identifiable architectural depictions and its lack of chronological considerations. She organizes her own discussions of the reliefs chronologically, from Augustus through Constantine, in order to differentiate between dynasties and to trace developments over time. She also emphasizes the importance of considering the entire content of the reliefs,
27 Grunow (2002, 100 n. 3) ultimately concludes that although the temple on the Boscoreale Cup was meant to represent a particular building, that building cannot be safely identified at this point. Kuttner (1995, 127) argues that the eagle-and-globe pediment can only be associated with Jupiter, and that the temple must be the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus on the Capitoline.
28 In her analysis of the
Ludi Saeculares coinage of Domitian, Grunow (Sobocinski) (2006) argues that the
identification of particular temples and locations in Rome as the setting for various rituals was secondary to a message that Domitian had performed the complete set of rituals throughout the city. Similarly, one of the conclusions of her article on the Temple of Fortuna Redux and the Porta Triumphalis (Grunow Sobocinski
2009) is that many representations of triumphs in fact employ generic architecture, as befits a ritual that processed through many different parts of the city.
as well as their original physical and historical contexts, as opposed to analyzing the architectural depictions in isolation. When possible, she discusses the identification of a given depiction; when a safe identification is not possible, she still attempts to discuss the significance of the depiction. She also analyzes briefly individual building types, the frequency of their representation, and their use with certain narrative contents, as well as the development of individual elements for the building types.
Quante-Schöttler argues that the inclusion of architectural depictions as
topographic indicators in state reliefs should be considered an innovation of Roman art, since it is not found in Greek reliefs. She discusses the possible sources of inspiration for this innovation, including triumphal painting, the tradition of Second Style wall paintings, and a Roman artistic concern for “realistic” or “historical” appearance for illustrated events. She emphasizes that while the architectural depictions of Roman state reliefs could represent non-historical buildings (such as what she identifies as the Temple of the Penates on the Ara Pacis Augustae), nevertheless they were generally intended to
represent specific buildings.
The majority of Quante-Schöttler’s study consists of an overview of the reliefs according to emperor or dynasty. She systematically describes not only the various architectural features of the depictions, but also the place of the depictions within the broader composition and action of the relief. She also includes a brief synthesis of the various identified depictions of the Temple of Vesta and the Porta Triumphalis in Rome,
as examples of the variation in depictions of individual buildings, even in cases where the buildings depicted were distinctive and easily identified. Finally, she summarizes the various ways in which important architectural features of temples are generally depicted.
Quante-Schöttler concludes that under Augustus, architectural depictions were used only occasionally and are relatively simple. By the early Julio-Claudian period, however, buildings were sculpted in full relief and with an abundance of architectural detail. The Neronian and Flavian periods are marked by some attempts to render the buildings on an appropriately larger scale than the human figures. She argues that depictions of architecture reached a peak in the Trajanic period (although she does not consider the Column of Trajan to any length); in this period, the architecture is depicted very summarily, and serves primarily as a compositional frame for the emperor. She concludes that under Hadrian depictions of architecture apparently declined in
importance, before a revival under Marcus Aurelius, characterized by an interest in using architecture to create different planes of relief.
Since her primary interest is the compositional development of the depictions, Quante-Schöttler limits her discussion primarily to state reliefs, particularly those with depictions of temples. While Maier, and to a lesser extent Grunow, focus on nearly complete, well-known reliefs, Quante-Schöttler also incorporates many recently excavated, smaller relief fragments with architectural depictions, for a total of 34 monuments, including some private reliefs such as the Tomb of the Haterii and the Lararium of L. Caecilius Iucundus in Pompeii. Although Quante-Schöttler does not restrict her study to identifiable buildings, her interest in the unidentifiable buildings primarily is limited to studying their composition, rather than their significance. For the most part, furthermore, the buildings Quante-Schöttler considers to be unidentifiable are not so much generic, as simply too damaged or decontextualized to be safely identified by the modern scholar.
In summary, the studies of Maier, Grunow, and Quante-Schöttler represent a step forward in the study of architectural depictions in state relief, in that they attempt a comprehensive examination, rather than limiting their discussion to the significance of a particular monument or historical building. Nevertheless, all three authors are still primarily concerned with identifiable buildings, and none specifically explores generic buildings. This study attempts to fill this gap.
I.2 ANEW METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH TO THE STUDY OF ARCHITECTURAL