1.5.4 VERTIDOS DE HORMIGÓN

Maier’s study explores the extent to which architectural depictions in Roman state reliefs can be used to reconstruct the historical buildings that they represent. His study covers 29 architectural depictions, derived from 22 reliefs from 17 monuments. His study deals primarily with state relief, although he also includes the Tomb of the Haterii and

18 _{Zanker 1968, 14, 18-20, 22; 1988, 200-1; Hölscher 1988, 378; Kuttner 1995, 20; Fishwick 2003 (2007),} 70; Meneghini 2007a, 48-50.

often draws on coins as comparanda. Maier restricts his study to those depictions that in

his opinion can be identified as representations of particular historical structures. Maier begins his study with a summary survey of the textual and physical evidence for 19 ancient structures that have identifiable ancient depictions. These

structures include 17 in Rome, the Temple of Athena Nike in Athens, and the Bridge over the Danube built by Apollodorus of Damascus. He classifies these structures as sacred or profane, and with or without extant archaeological remains. Maier then presents the known depictions in relief for each of these buildings, describing each example in detail and organizing the depictions according to the building identified.

After presenting the reliefs, Maier discusses how various features of the buildings under consideration are portrayed in relief. He notes which building features are

frequently represented and how consistently; when possible, he also compares the manner in which these features are depicted with any archaeological evidence for these features. His main goal is to explore whether there are consistent patterns in how depictions of buildings varied from the actual structures they sought to represent. Having suggested several such patterns, such as the reduction in number of columns to save space, or the exaggeration of the proportions of the pediment, he then attempts to extrapolate from the depictions a detailed reconstruction of the represented buildings.20

Maier assumes a good deal of intended fidelity between the depictions and the actual buildings represented. His conclusions regarding the obvious sculptural departures from architectural reality are related mostly to composition: for example, pediments on

depictions of temples are exaggerated so that the statues could be seen and the building identified more clearly. Since Maier is mostly concerned with the buildings that the depictions represent, rather than the depictions themselves or their reliefs, he does not address at length any questions of chronology,21 provenience, or iconography.

I.1.2 M.D.GRUNOW (2002):“ARCHITECTURAL IMAGES IN ROMAN STATE RELIEFS, COINS, AND MEDALLIONS:IMPERIAL RITUAL,IDEOLOGY, AND THE TOPOGRAPHY OF ROME”

Grunow’s unpublished dissertation explores how identifications of depicted buildings could be integral to the ideological messages of the monuments that include these depictions. Her study deals primarily with state reliefs, but also draws significant support from coins and medallions. She specifically addresses reliefs from at least 26 monuments (including the Column of Trajan and the Arches of Septimius Severus at Rome and Leptis Magna, although she mentions these last three monuments only briefly).22 All but three sculptural monuments covered are in Rome.23

Grunow argues against the idea that the significance of architectural depictions is limited to questions of topography and reconstruction. She provides an overview of previous scholarship on architectural depictions, discussing past approaches and attitudes towards the material, including the focus on identifiable depictions. In particular she questions the traditional division between studies of architectural depictions in relief and those on coins and medallions, and argues that the three media are in fact similar

21 _{Maier does provide dates for the reliefs in the appendix, without detailed argument.}

22 _{Grunow does not present a catalog, so it is not clear exactly what monuments or how many coins and} medallions are included in her analysis.

23 _{The three monuments outside Rome that are covered by Grunow’s study are the Arch of Trajan at} Beneventum, the Arch of Septimius Severus at Leptis Magna, and the Arch of Galerius at Thessaloniki.

(although not identical), both in terms of message and of composition and technique.24 Her study thus fully integrates coins with reliefs.

Grunow takes a new approach to the study of architectural depictions by

proposing a methodology for determining whether or not a building was intended to be identifiable. She identifies six categories of methods employed by artists to allow a viewer to recognize a building:

1. identifying legends

2. distinctive architectural features 3. sculptural iconography

4. juxtaposition with identifiable structures 5. scene type and participants

6. ancient sightlines from the represented buildings to the relief25 Grunow makes the important point that “because architectural images can be made recognizable as specific buildings from as little as one or two identifying features, artists were only loosely bound to structural realities,” even in cases where identification was crucial.26 Grunow discusses the various uses, combinations, and media for each category of identifying features. She ultimately argues that the vast majority of architectural representations, at least in the three media that she discusses, were intended to be identified (although she does not give any numerical basis for this conclusion).

After outlining her methodology, Grunow turns her attention to identifiable buildings. She presents a chronological discussion of various reliefs where the particular temples included would have had important dynastic significance: the depictions of

24 _{Grunow (2002, 10) goes so far as to argue that “coins and medallions, therefore, are essentially small} portable reliefs struck in metal.”

25 _{Grunow 2002, 15.} 26 _{Grunow 2002, 16.}

specific temples, she argues, connected the reliefs to the actual temples themselves, and thus to earlier successful imperial projects. For example, she argues that the Valle-Medici Reliefs should be assigned to the Ara Gentis Iuliae, and that the Augustan Temple of

Mars Ultor depicted in the reliefs was crucial to the dynastic message of that altar. Grunow argues further that under Antoninus Pius there was a change in the emphasis of the depicted architecture, from recalling a particular building to serving as a unifying compositional background for scenes of the emperor and heir sacrificing together.

Grunow also discusses how the high frequency of depictions of buildings in the city of Rome called attention to the importance of Rome, both for the general populace and for the emperor in particular. She presents by dynasty the various buildings in Rome that are depicted in relief, coins, and medallions, and discusses the possible significance of the choices of building to depict. For example, she argues that under Domitian, architectural depictions were popular, both in relief and in coins, because they called attention to the extensive rebuilding program throughout the city.

In her analysis, Grunow assumes that the only differences between identifiable and unidentifiable images lies in the inclusion or omission of various features, with any included features always rendered as faithfully to their subject as possible. For example, she argues (contra A. Kuttner) that the temple on the Boscoreale Cup with Tiberius cannot be the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus because the depiction has Ionic columns, while the actual building had Corinthian; in other words, if the artists had

bothered to include the columns of a specific temple, they necessarily would have rendered them in the correct order.27

Although Grunow acknowledges the existence of architectural depictions that were not intended to be identified as a particular building, her broader theoretical concern with the frequency and significance of the inclusion of particular historical buildings ultimately restricts her discussion to depictions that can be identified. In this her study is similar to that of Maier. Interestingly, in her subsequent work, Grunow has placed more focus on generic depictions, with firmer emphasis on the idea that not all depicted buildings were meant to be identified.28