The process—to the extent to which a specific process is ever employed—of establishing whether or not a given depiction was meant to be identifiable is often not straightforward. Of the six means of rendering a depiction identifiable distinguished by Grunow, only two, in my opinion, are truly reliable for state reliefs. Legends are
obviously applicable only for coins. Ancient sightlines are prohibitively speculative, given that the original locations of most state reliefs and buildings in Romeare not known with any degree of precision. While Grunow suggests that particular actions or scene types may have been associated with only one location, she is able to provide few
examples, and ultimately admits that at best this is usually supplementary evidence.29 As will be seen in subsequent chapters, much the same situation pertains for juxtaposition of structures, in that few, if any, convincing examples can be demonstrated. This leaves only distinctive architectural features and sculptural iconography. These are the two primary means that will be employed in this study. Even for sculptural iconography, it is
sometimes debatable whether or not depicted sculptural decoration is truly distinctive. For state reliefs, the idea that not all depictions were meant to be identifiable is rarely even mooted. In many cases where a depiction cannot be identified, the general assumption is that modern scholars lack the necessary information to make the
identification, not that no identification was ever intended. A clear example can be seen for the Arch of Beneventum, in the interpretation of the temple that features the
lightning-shield in the pediment (see ch. 2). This depiction has been identified with various historical temples to Jupiter or Mars, despite no clear evidence that the depiction was ever meant to be associated with a particular historical building.
This focus in scholarship on identifiable depictions has some advantages. The connection between a depiction and a building known from the literary or archaeological records can offer evidence for important problems in the study of Roman topography, architecture, sculpture, and even religion (e.g. the development of the imperial cult). On a
29 Grunow 2002, 51.
more emotive level, the chance to see images of monumental buildings that have disappeared long ago is particularly enticing. While this focus is understandable, it has had the unfortunate effect of relegating an important class of depictions, those of generic architecture, to the background of scholarship.
This tight focus on identifiable buildings has also meant that, far from being exhausted by centuries of scholarship, the topic of architectural depictions in state reliefs still presents a wealth of material that is underexplored or even unexplored entirely. The necessity of leaving aside questions of topography and architectural reconstruction for generic depictions, furthermore, forces one to ask different questions of the material. These questions can then be used to reevaluate identifiable depictions as well. I.2.2 ANEW METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING ARCHITECTURAL DEPICTIONS: SPECIFICITY
Evaluating generic architecture requires a different approach than evaluating identifiable depictions, since the very features of identifiable depictions that attract the most attention—elaborate sculptural decoration, distinctive architectural forms—are by definition not present. A new methodology must be developed that allows for a
systematic evaluation of all depicted architecture, in order to determine which aspects of that architecture were considered important enough to include and potentially emphasize. This in turn may lead to questions of why those aspects were considered important, an
issue undoubtedly related to the function of a given depiction.30
30 In his examination of the advertising campaign launched to encourage smooth adoption of the Euro, Marunowski (2008, 55) defines “communion” as “a fundamental technique of argumentation, one that refers to a state of being in which individuals and social groups are drawn together on the basis of shared values and beliefs. The goal of establishing communion with respect to a particular audience is to generate a sense of community among its members.” He then outlines a process for identifying how communion is
Architecture is not depicted randomly. Behind each depiction, there is a choice of which features to include and which to emphasize. In some cases, specific features can be included or emphasized that have nothing to do with the identification of any building, but are connected conceptually to specific types of architecture. For example, the inclusion of a colonnaded façade and a pediment indicates that a depicted structure should probably be understood as a Greco-Roman temple, since colonnaded pedimental façades are architectural features associated with such temples. This holds true even if the depicted pediment is blank. Adding a prominent stepped podium to the temple makes it explicit that the depiction represents a specifically Roman building type. A depiction, in other words, can be specific without being identifiable.
Certain aspects of a depicted structure are often manipulated in order to make the structure specific and facilitate the depiction serving some function within its context. For instance, in the example given above, a depicted temple may be specified as a Roman temple in order to emphasize particularly Roman religious aspects of the scene of which the temple is part. The following list presents the most important aspects of a depicted building that can be specified or tailored or specified in accordance with the function of a given depiction. The list proceeds from the most general aspects to the most particular:
1. Construction material (e.g. stone31 masonry) 2. Building type (e.g. temple)
employed; this process starts with “a general appraisal of the… artifact under scrutiny” and proceeds with questions: (a) “What elements have been selected for presentation?”; (b) “Which elements stand out or are most salient?”; (c) “What values, if any, do the selected elements espouse?” The coincidence between Marunowski’s method and my own was a happy discovery of my research, one which offers the potential for further exploration.
31 In this study I do not distinguish between construction in stone and construction in concrete (which in Roman architecture was traditionally faced in stone), in part because such a distinction is not possible in depicted architecture, in part because the connotations of both types of construction would be very similar.
3. Form and structural (i.e. non-decorative) features (e.g. tetrastyle podium temple with central door)
4. Decoration
a. Embellishments (e.g., molding, column fluting, fasciae)
b. Column order
c. Figural ornaments
i. Without human figures
ii. With human figures
These various aspects can appear in various combinations and can be emphasized to differing degrees. For example, two different depictions of an honorary arch can include the same statuary, but the statuary may be enlarged in one depiction. This must also be taken into consideration in the analysis of a depiction, beyond the mere presence or absence of features.
The number, combination, and nature of aspects that are specified for a given depiction—e.g., the extent to which a depiction is specific—will be referred to in this analysis as the “specificity”of the depiction. A wall that is marked with hatching and has no other distinguishing features would have a low specificity: only construction material (1). An amphitheater with stone hatching and elaborate molded decoration would have a higher specificity: construction material (1), building type (2), and decoration
(embellishments) (4.a). An honorary arch with Doric/Tuscan32 columns and statues of captured barbarians would have a very high specificity: construction material (1),
building type (2), decoration (column order, figural decoration with human figures) (4.b, 4.c.ii).
32 In this study I also do not differentiate between Doric and Tuscan column orders, since any such distinction is rarely, if ever, fully clear in depicted architecture.
The most specific buildings would obviously be identifiable buildings. Rendering a depiction identifiable sometimes can be achieved by very simple means, in the cases of very distinctive historical buildings. For example, a depiction of the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus could be rendered identifiable through building form (a colonnaded façade with three doors) alone. Similarly, it is conceivable that narrative or juxtaposition to other identifiable buildings could render a very general structure identifiable. In practice, however, identifiable buildings tend to have a very high specificity; i.e., they have numerous distinctive, specific features, typically including figural statuary, that tie them to a historical building.
Founding the interpretation of a depiction on an analysis of its specificity has several advantages. In the first place, it provides a common basis for comparison of both identifiable and generic depictions. It is also applicable to depictions whose
categorization as identifiable or generic is a matter of dispute, and indeed may provide insight into that very question. Specificity can also be analyzed for depictions that, although clearly meant to be identifiable, can no longer be associated with a particular historical building, either because of damage or, more commonly, a modern lack of crucial background information. Similarly, the specificity of a depiction is contained within a depiction itself, and thus can be analyzed independent of context. While contextualization is always desirable, this is useful for fragmentary reliefs. I.2.3 BRIDGING THE THEORETICAL GAP BETWEEN ACTUAL AND DEPICTED ARCHITECTURE
The aspects of depicted architecture that make up an analysis of its specificity were chosen for two reasons. From a logistical standpoint, they are the aspects of
depicted architecture that experience has shown vary frequently. On a more theoretical level, however, these are the aspects whose variance often holds great significance for the function of the depiction.
Different types of architecture have their own connotations within a given
context. By including features specific to a certain type of actual architecture, a depiction can appropriate those same connotations. Evoking those connotations can be an important part of the contextual function of a depiction. It makes sense, then, that the same
architectural features that have been identified as significant for actual architecture often are manipulated in depicted architecture. Theoretical approaches to the symbolism of actual architecture thus can help in understanding the symbolism of depicted architecture.
To return to the list of features that make up the specificity of a depiction: the construction material of actual architecture has been shown to hold great cultural significance in certain situations. In 20th century Western Cameroon, for example, elites strategically adopted—or rejected—new European construction techniques,
demonstrating the potential role of such techniques in negotiations of identity and power.33 Similarly, building types and forms are often imbued with powerful cultural
symbolism and can serve as a marker of cultural identity. Scholarship on the compulsory relocation of Crow Indians to reservations in the 1880s has documented the importance of the forced adoption of “civilized” architectural patterns (specifically rectilinear rather than circular forms) in official plans for the tribe’s acculturation.34 Beyond structural considerations such as construction material and building form, architectural style and
33 Malaquais 1999.
decoration can carry heavy symbolic weight. This can be seen clearly in debates over the use of local or imported architectural styles for American embassies in the Middle East, which have highlighted imperialist tensions in the area.35
As these examples show, the importance of symbolic links between architecture and culture can take on particular significance in imperialist interactions.36 Culturally charged architecture has been cited as an assertive sign of dominance on the part of the occupying power; as a sign of acculturation on the part of the occupied elite; as a means of resistance in the face of perceived occupation; and everything in between. A common thread in all of these interpretations is the use of architecture to assert cultural difference. While one certainly should not draw overly neat equivalencies between modern
colonialism and the Roman Empire, the latter was clearly involved in the conquest and administration of foreign territories and people. As such, any sense of Roman identity, what it meant to be Roman, was shaped within a context of interaction with non-Romans, including their architecture. Without saying that Roman imperialism and the experiences in French-colonial Africa are interchangeable, studies of the intersections of architecture, culture, and imperialism across multiple chronological and geographical regions can still help frame thinking about depictions of architecture in Roman art.
35 Loeffler 1990; Robin 1992; Isenstadt 1997; see also Lutz 2006.
36 The topic of architecture and cultural symbolism is obviously immense, even if one only considers colonial contexts. I have found the following scholarship particularly useful in framing my thinking on architecture and culture. For discussion of architecture and culture in colonial Africa, see Malaquais 1994; 1997; 1999; Myers 1997; Reid et al. 1997; Le Roux 2004; Babou 2005; McLaren 2005. For colonial North and South America, see Blackman 1976; Low 1995; Atkin and Herselle Krinsky 1996; Carter et al. 2005; Nair 2007; Riggs 2007. For colonial India, see Metcalf 1984; Scriver 2001; 2006. For Jewish architecture in Europe, see Davidson Kalmar 2001; Kadish 2002. For American embassies, see Loeffler 1990; Robin 1992; Isenstadt 1997; Lutz 2006.
The extensive study of the cultural symbolism of actual architecture has not been matched by a concomitant interest in depicted architecture. Potential cultural symbolism may be mentioned in passing in descriptive studies of particular architectural depictions, but a targeted exploration of the cultural impact of architectural depictions is rarely undertaken. Three articles are worth mentioning in this context. H. Liu has argued that the water mills depicted in several imperial paintings of the Northern Song Dynasty in China call attention to imperial patronage of the sciences; the extreme technical precision in the rendering of the mills recalls not only carefully cultivated hydro-engineering expertise, but also the social and cosmic order achieved by beneficial imperial rule.37 In her discussion of the construction scenes in the ceiling murals in the Umayyad Palace at Qusayr ‘Amra, H. Taragan argues that such images should not be interpreted as literal representations related to the construction of the palace, but are instead part of a long artistic tradition connecting rulers who undertake architectural projects with greatness and religiously sanctified rule.38 G. Esperdy has traced how architects and designers behind the fictive architecture of Hollywood movie sets in the 1930s consciously attempted to “better” American taste in architecture by exposing their lower-class audiences to the cutting edge of conceptual architectural design.39 These articles act as inspirational examples of more conceptual approaches to depictions of architecture,
37 Liu 2002.
38 Taragan 2008. Technically the Qusayr ‘Amra murals represent architectural activity, rather than architecture itself; no completed structures are shown.
39 Esperdy 2007. Admittedly, it is debatable whether studio movie sets should be considered depicted architecture in the strictest sense. Movie sets are an architectural fiction, however, and in spirit are very comparable to architecture depicted in paintings or sculpture, in that they represent, rather than serve as, architectural structures. Like depicted architecture, movie sets can be manipulated easily to serve some sort of alternative purpose, without too much concern for structural logistics. Architectural magazines
specifically celebrated the fact that “movies offered an opportunity for imaginative, even fantastic, architectural exploration since set design was unburdened by exigencies of program and construction” (Esperdy 2007, 199).
rather than a focus on topography or reconstruction.40 This present study thus combines approaches to the cultural symbolism of actual architecture with the systematic analysis of architectural depictions within Roman state reliefs.
I use “culture” here in a broad sense that incorporates (a) the customary practices, activities, and beliefs that can be associated with a particular society; and (b) the material consequences and symbols generated by participation in those practices, activities, and beliefs. The Roman Empire obviously incorporated numerous different cultures.
Nevertheless, there were certain practices, beliefs, and their material manifestations that came to be associated strongly with Rome, both the physical city and the more abstract concept. The adoption, appropriation, and evocation of these beliefs and their material correlates could signal participation in Roman culture, although this process was rarely, if ever, simple.41 To the extent that such participation in Roman culture in turn signaled loyalty to Rome, such cultural participation overlapped the interests of the elite in the capital.
The elite in Rome would have had an interest in strengthening loyalty to Rome for all inhabitants of the Roman Empire, including and perhaps especially those in the
capital. One way of accomplishing this may have been to encourage a common sense of Roman identity. By Roman identity, I mean the sense of belonging to, and sharing
40 A focus on reconstructing lost ancient architecture from depictions is hardly restricted to the study of the ancient Mediterranean; for Tibet, see Alexander 2002; for Kashmir, see Pal 1982; Goepper et al. 1996; for Indonesia, see Tjoa-Bonatz et al. 2009.
41 Discussion of issues of cultural identity and the adoption of Roman cultural practices in the Roman has taken place primarily in the context of scholarship on “Romanization.” For an introduction to such scholarship, particularly the Roman West, see Haselgrove 1984; Millett 1990; Webster and Cooper 1996; Woolf 1997; 1998; 2011; Grahame 1998; Laurence and Berry 1998; Fentress 2000; Keay and Terrenato 2001;van Enckevort 2005; van Dommelen and Terrenato 2007; Oltean 2007; Revell 2008.
interests with, a certain group of people (other “Romans”). Roman identity need be only one of many identities a given individual may have adhered to or privileged at any time, but it was certainly an important one, and a concept that cannot be dismissed. Promoting a wide sense of Roman identity in the capital could reinforce social cohesion, and with luck reassure the peaceful support of official policies and directives. Put another way, the cultivation of a common view that Rome, and everything associated with the city, was uniquely magnificent and worth protecting could bolster support for the elites (including the emperor) who were entrusted with the care of the city. Illustrating the superiority of Roman architecture, for example, could enhance the prestige of the elite class and campaigns that provided that architecture. Highlighting the disadvantages of rejecting Roman identity would reinforce this approach. It is against a backdrop of these concepts of Roman culture and identity that I see architectural depictions contributing to
authoritative visions of what it meant to be Roman, as expressed in state reliefs.
In interpreting the architectural depictions of state reliefs as potentially symbolic, I am indebted to the work of scholars such as T. Hölscher, S. Settis, and P. Zanker, scholars who have rejected a long tradition of treating state reliefs as impartial records of historical events and who instead have emphasized the role of state reliefs as vehicles for complex political and ideological messages.42 My own research fits comfortably within this well-established tradition. As discussed above, research on architectural depictions generally has been unaffected by such theoretical approaches, however. This study will seek to correct this lapse, integrate the study of architectural depictions within more