ROMAN IMPERIALISMAND
PROVINCIALART
F.dired
by
SarahScott
L.'tti t,ersity of' Lei cester
JaneWebster
Lin iyersity of Leicester
ffiCaprnRrDGE
qjry UNIVERSITY
PRESS
N T E T R O P O L I T AANR T A N D T H E D E P I C T I O N O F
ROME'S'OTHERS'
FOU R
The HangedMen Dance:Barbariansin TraianicArt
IainFerris
INTRODUCTION
This chapterwill examinesome of the key works of Trajanic art, principally
Trajan's Column in Rome, the Arch of Trajan at Beneventumand the socalledTrophy of Trajan at Adamklissi.A numberof other works of art and coins
of Traian'sreign will irlso be discussed.
It will be shown that, leavingasidethe
obviousdifferencesin artisticstyle,the portrayalof Dacianbarbarianson these
monumeritsdiffers subtly but significantlyfrom one monument ro another,and
possiblybecweenindividual sceneson the samemonumenr.Thesedifferences
are reflectedin the genderor ageof the barbariansportrayedand, in particular,
the rvav in which the imagesare deployedon eachmonument.In a comparative
studywhich emphasises
the importanceof a contextualapproach
to monuments
'nvirhsharediconographicthemes,taking
accollnrboth of their localesand the
historiccircumstances
informing their construction,it is arguedthat rhe image
of the Dacianbarbarianwas alteredor manipulatedaccordingto whetherit appearedon a monllment in Rome itself, at the very centreof power, in an Italian
context (as at Beneventum)or in the distant provinces(as at Adamklissi).
It is hoped that there will emerge from this study an appreciationof the
significanr differencesin the way in which information abour the imperial
programwas relayedto audiencesin the metropolisand in the provincesin this
period.
.'"it
:l
i
I
il
Portrairs of barbarians are frequently,of course,stereotypical;they draw
on a stock repertoireof 'barbarian' imagery.As such, theseportraits have a
svmbolicvaltteaboveand beyondthe depictionof anonymousprotagonistsin
historical events',or events that relate to an historical framework. In exploring the svmbolic value of theseimages,it is not my inrenrionto isolatethem
from their monumentalconte.xt.Rather,it will be suggested
that, by focussing
attention on the barbarian imageson the three principal monumentsnoted
above,it becomespossibleto illuminateaspecrsof rhesemonumenrsthat may
otherwisehave been subsumedwithin discussionsof historicismand artistic
style.With referenceto the monumentsrhemselves,
this chapterlvill therefore
s4
54
lain Ferris
be concernedr,vithcharacterisationrather than with descriptionand discussionsof style,though discussionof the art will inform the interpretationof its
intendedmessage.
The broad contemporaneityof the threemonumentswill be
acceptedherewithout detailedreferenceto the extendeddebatesabout specific
dating (for this, see,for instance,Kleiner r99z and Claridge 1993),as rhey
are all concernedwith conveyingmessages
about Trajan'sreign and achievements. Trajan's reign has been chosen as the focus for the present study not
only becauseit marks the period of the greatestextent of the Empire,but also
becauseartworks associated
with Trajanprovidea largegroup of earlyimperial
barbarianportraits.Indeed,the barbarianwas almost the icon of the Trajanic
age.
In discussingthe threeworks selectedhere,someallr-rsion
to the sculptures
of the GreatTrajanicFrieze,the massivestatuesof Dacianssetup in Rome,and
the coin issuesof Trajan will also be necessary,
as thesehave some bearingon
the study of barbarianimagesemployedduring Trajan'sreign.Theseadditional
sourceswill not. horvever.be discussedin detail.
In three previouspaperson the subjectof barbarianimages(Ferris r994,
1997,and forthcoming)I havedevelopedideasrelatingto the creationand manipulation of stereotypicalbarbarianimagesin Roman art. Theseideas,which
form part of a wider researchproject (Ferriszooo), will be briefly summarised
in the first part of this chapter,as a preliminaryto discussionof the Trajanic
monuments.
THE BARBARIAN STEREOTYPE IN ROMAN ART
Imagesof barbariansare ubiquitousin Roman art of all periods.The female
barbarian is, in fact, the most common mortal femaleimagein Roman imperial
art. Barbarianimagesprincipallyoccur in visualcommemorationsof conquest
and victory, and the principal role of the defeatedbarbarian in such contexts
is to act as a visual counrerpointto the triumph of Roman power. Many of
the motifs of barbariandefeatare stereotypical.
They includethe imageof the
coweringbarbarianmale beingtrampledby a Roman horseman;the barbarian
male held by the hair as the death blow is about to be deliveredby a Roman
soldier; the mourning female captive; and paired male and female caprives
chainedto a battlefieldtrophy. Representational
stategiesalter somewhatover
time, and in many later scenesa hierarchicalorderingof imagesis employed,
in which the image of the barbarian becomesminiaturised,and indeterminate
figuresappearwho simply act as attributesof barbarianemperors.
As is ever the casewith stereotypes,whether artistic or literary, the barbarian stereotypesaysmore about its creatorthan it doesabout its subject.In this
context, the ubiquity of barbarian imagesperhapspartially obscuresthe fact
I
{
I
I
i
I
d
E
I,i
I
'i
.
;+
The Hanged Men Dance:Barbariansin TrajanicArt
N
)_)
I
+
rhat the variationsand nuancesin rhe ways in which barbariansare portrayed,
.rnd rhe contextsin which they appear,reflectchangingperceprionsof the narure of political and socialpower relationswithin the Empire itself.Imagesof
can reflecttensionswithin Roman societyitself, or within certain
L-'arbirrians
s c c t i o n so f t h a t s o c i e t v .
Theseshiftsmay sometimesbe virtually imperceptible,
and sometimesmore
obvious.They do not follow a linear trajectorythrough time, nor is there geographicalconsistency.
Patternscan, nevertheless,
be determined.For instance,
Marcus
from the era of
Aurelius and Commodus onwards, there is an unarguabletrend towardsthe dehumanisationof the barbarianin Roman art. There
are illso noteworthy variationsin the contextsof the portrayal of femalebarl.'arians,
often centredquite specificallyon the femalebody and its reproducrive
capacity.
i3t
IRAJAN-S COLUMN
:3:
tgf
a
An understandingof the characteristics
and symbolicvalueof metropolitanart
( t h e a r t o f t h e ' c e n t r e ' ) i s c r i t i c a lt o a n y s t u d y o f a s p e c t so i t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p
!1,
'tsa
Roman irnperirilismand provincialart. In terms of the presentcliscr"rsl'retween
sion, it is necessaryto begin by consideringthe significirnce
of certain images
on Trajan'sColumn in Rome, in order to assess
the extent to which (if at all)
the irrtistic messilgeson this monument \,vereirrticulated on broadly contemporary monumentselsewherein the Empire.Bv taking this approach,different
on the nature of Roman imperialism,or a[ leaston the rhetoric
PersPectives
rrndimageryof thrrt inperialism, mdy emerge.
The impetusunderlyingrhe creationof Trirjan'sColumn can besrbe understood by consideringthe wider context of the new forum in lvhich the coltrmn
stood,sinceTrajan'sColtrmnwas integralto the designconceprof this new arc h i t e c t u r apl r o j e c t( D a v i e sr 9 9 7 ) . l n a u g u r a r eidn e . o . r r z ( t h o u g ho n l y p a r t i a l l y
completeby that date), the new forum was the latestand largestof the great
lord laid olrt at the heart of Rome. Trajan's Column, whilst acceptedas being
completedunder the aegisof his successor,
Hadrian, \,vasan integralpart of the
or,'erallplan. This massiveschemeof buildingworks and accompanyingarrisric
ernbellishments
\\'asnot simply a cornmemorationof Trajan'sDaciarnwars. Finrtncedby chespoilsof thosewars, it rvasalso an architecturaldemonstration
of the economicbenefitsof an enterprisewhich many Romanshad questioned
( D a v i e s1 9 9 7 , 6 2 e s p e c i a l l N
y o t e s r r - 5 a n d r r 9 ) . T h e s p o i l so f t h e w a r s w e r e
,rlsousedto build new markets,:rndthus to make a more explicit link betrveen
conquestand commerce.
fi,
tgl
,:i
L)n the reliefsof Trajan'sColumn the Daciansare often depicreddismantling fortresses.
In contrastto this destrtrctiverole, the Roman forcesare very
I ilt
;A,
Ja
at.
*fr
a';
ilu
(j
56
lain Ferris
XLIV
x
I
Fig. 5. Trrrjarn's
Column, Rome. SceneXLV: Torture of Roman prisoners(e ShepherdFrere).
frequently (indeed,to the point of exaggeration)depictedas builders and creators.This is part of an overall narrativethread that stresses
a senseof overwhelming order among the victors, and disorder among the defeated.The
Daciansare also often depictedin woods or in the mountainsrather than in
citiesor fortresses.
There is a further possiblevisualoppositionhere, between
nature and culture, and perhapsalso betweenbarbarity and civilisation.Similarly, Dacian women shown torturing Roman soldiers(ScenesXL.IV-XLVI)
are perhapsbeing used as an extreme demonstrationof the fury of the 'other'
(Fig.S). As Hall hasnotedin her studyon the Greek'invention'of the barbarian,
Greek ethnographyhad often srressedrhat 'the more barbariana community
the more powerful its women' (Hall 1989, 9jl. lf the depictionsof rorture
by Dacian women are intendedto symbolisethe depthsof femalecruelty and
power, and to embody the essenceof the primitive, then theseimagesare not
being deployed here in what may be termed a nostalgicway; rhar is, by both
highlightingand deploringaspectsof barbarianbehaviourwhilst at the same
time showing a fascinationfor its otherness.Rather,they are perhapsrepresentative of an on-going discoursein Roman societyat 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 sceneof young Dacian
noblewomen being transportedby the Romans into exile by ship (SceneXXX;
l?
The Hanged NIen Dance: Birrbarians
in
Traianic Art
t7
I
I
I
!i
rl
,' it
t
-l
Fie. r'. Traian'sColunrn,Ronre.
SceneXXX' C-,rptu..aOr.;rn
wr)nrenf e Sfr"of].r.flFrerei.
Fig' 6)' The fr-rture
f<lrrhe womenof Daciawollld
now lie in the poliricirl,social' and sexuarframeworkof
Romansocier,v-.
Coupredwirh scenes
porrraying
rhesr-ricides
of mareDacia. readers
(incruding
s..* cxl), thissceneperhaps
irdicaresrhee'd of the Dacian
eriterineag..Eu. D,Amtrrahas
noredhow ,rhe
' r r g i n \ h y me nh a sl o n g b e e n
a -.trp ho, tor r hecir y walr s...
r he claugr r ter ,s
or Inatron'schastitymay serve
rs a sign of rhe poriticalsrabiliry
of the crty
or srare'(D'Ambra r993,ss).
This sceneof the .nfor..d exire
of rhewomen,
alongsidescenes
of the desrrrctionof Dacian
srronghords,
may thereforebe
doublysymbolic.
of civilisarionwirh a stareof primitive
bar_
orr,X]',l fit:::J:,t_t1e -c-ontrasting
Scen
exxxvr
Hil,,i:*,i:,Tffi n jft :|ffi T::::i;:l;:
),,'
cial town a'd is gree.ted
by the popurace,,"p..r"nr.d
by men, women and
children' As Karnpenhirsrernarked
of rhis image'behind rhe docurnenrary
realrsm' ' ' srandsa poriticar
messageof which ,-h. nuo,n.n
in
rhe
audienceare
a parr; they represenrrhe
whole .o--unity of peopre
who
rive
in a civirized
envrronment,testimonyro
rhe benerirsof Roman ,ul.
for
e'ery
man, woln.n.
rnd child ' ' ' here rhe presence
of women anclchildrensignifies
the r.vholeand
impliesa happy future as
well as the benefirsof Rontttrt-itas
toboth
p'blic and
private realms'(Kampen
199r, zzo). The intended
message
of rhis scenes,rery
lies in its stresson transformation;
an insighrrhar could be losr
from vierv in
fr#
I' I
iiif
fi1
tgl
'=1
,
hfr
t{
I
?'7
r|lf
-F1
i8
Iain Ferris
a too dogmatic pursuit of the oppositional and confrontational aspectsof the
imagery. Currie, for instance,has said of SceneXXXVI that the Romanised
children on the column 'with their bodiesunder adult control and surveillance
chiefly operatedas a metonym for the conqueredbarbarians.They represented
at a microcosmiclevel Roman domination of Dacia' (Currie 1996, 16r). According to Currie: 'The adult control by Rome of infantilizedbarbarians was
part of the rhetoricof Roman imperialism'.(Currie 1996, fiz),,but this would
seemto be a banal and over-simplisticassertion.
Davies has suggestedthat in comparison with sceneson the later Column
of Marcus Aurelius, those on Trajan's column deliberately play down 'the
gruesomerealities of war' in order to allay Roman civilian fear of the army
(Davies 1997, Q and Note rz3). Trajan's column thus principally portrays
scenesof 'travel, construction,adlocutio, swbmissio,and sacrifice',with only a
relativelysmall number of battle scenesbeing represented(Davies1997,63).
Whilst civilian anxiety about the army may have beena reality (Daviescitesthe
work of Fehr ry85-6 to support this argument),I would suggestthat this was
probably a relativelyminor concernin the designof the column friezes,which
would appear rather to link warfare with economic regenerationin Rome,
through building works and an influx of large numbersof new slaves.It is true
that in comparison with sceneson the later column of Marcus Aurelius, those
on Trajan'scolumn seemto deliberatelyplay down the realitiesof war, possibly
in order to allay civilian fear of the army. If one looks back to the Augustan and
it is possibleto detectin Rome at that time
Julio-Claudianeras,nevertheless,
(though not in the provinces)an avoidanceof the direct portrayal of wars and
battleson maior monuments.The appearanceof somemainly formulaic battle
sceneson Trajan'sColumn, and the contrasting,more harrowing and numbing
battle sceneson the column of Marcus Aurelius reflect fundamental changes
within Roman psyche and society.In the Antonine period, it can be argued,
thesechangesare also to be seenin the dehumanisationof the barbarian foes
depictedon the monument, and in a growing trend towards the debasementof
the barbarian in Roman art and on coinagefrom this time onwards (seeFerris
r994,3o and zooo) 86-u6).
The sculpturesof the Great Trajanic Friezeare closelyrelated thematically
to those of the Column. They also commemoratevictory in the Dacian wars.
Indeed, the Frieze may originally have been ser up in the Trajanic forum
(LeanderTouati 1987,85), so that both monumentscould easily have been
compared by their viewersin a short spaceof time. Once again,,the Friezewas
completedin the reign of Hadrian, and formed part of the complex around the
Templeof the DeifiedTrajan at the north end of the Trajanic forum. The largely
symbolic value of the scenesof aduentusand of battle on the Frieze,however,
suggeststhat it should more appropriately be considered a contribution to
the long-standing tradition of battle representationsin Graeco-Roman arr
_fl
{
g
a
#
.a
.il
g
,g
'*
il
{
i
{
n
.l
,t
J
$
:1
:€
'+
'c
€
s
t
l
x
,t
,i
j:i
]
:
':,
-lJ
j
-i
;
r
The HarngedMen Dance: Barbariansin Trajanic Art
59
VP)
7
=itl
l)r
7rl
ag,
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 k
B l e e d o n) .
(LeanderTotrati r9tl7.'t7) ratherthan a cirsestudv in Trajanicrepresenrations
of the barbarianworld. Its 'conservative'cltrssicalst1'leirlsocontrastwith rhe
numerotrsinnovativetechniquesand strategies
of representation
employedon
the Coh-rmn.
As noteclabor,'e.hou,'ever,
rhe appearanceof barrlesceneson a permalnent
IllonLlmentin Rome at this time, as opposedto rhe rnoreephemeralbattlepaintinss carried in triumphrrl processions,
conrrasrsrvith the artistic straregiesof
earlierimperiaIer:as.The presenceof the emperorand of Dacian prgtagonisrs,
albeitrepresented
in a surprisinglyundetailedfashion,of courselinks the Frieze
to a very specificerar,but nevertheless
it shouldbe seenas an essayin tradirion
irnclcontinuirv,irnd will h;rvebeenintendedro be vielvedin such a lighr. This
is inrerestingin itself,rrnd also exemplifiesa diff'erenrLrsage
of barbarian imirgervat this rime. The l'iewer of the Frieze,having perhapsraken nore of the
messilges
conveyedon fhe nearbyColLrmn,would not haveencounreredin this
caseovert- or incleecl
covert- ;rllusionsto econornrcmatters.Rather.the chtrrning sub-register
of strickenand dying anonymousDacian rvarriors,with their
awkward and tlisharmouicposes.rvould have beenviervedas generic,timeless
etternies
of Rome,overcomeby the power imbueclin the figr,rre
of the emperor.
The gerlericnatllre of the imagervis enhancedby the fict thrrt, in contrastrc-r
the more accurateportrayalof the 'capture'of Decebalusby TiberiusClau,-lius
I'frtritrnttrson fhe Column. the Friezeoff'ersthe more svrnbolicimage of the
e m p e r o rr i d i n g d o u ' n a D a c i a nc h i e f t a i n( F i e .z ) .
iii
iii
tt
ti
ri,i
tl
[\.
al
'r t '
6o
Iain Ferris
Around the Forum, a numberof giant statuesof male Dacianswere alsoset
up. These were probably integratedinto the designof the BasilicaUlpia, and
some were later reusedas spolia on the fourth-century Arch of Constantine.
Thesemassivefiguresstand proud and upright, and it seemsunlikely that they
were intendedto be viewedin the sameway as the many imagesof wretchedand
dejectedbarbariansthat are a more characteristicfeatureof imperial art. In the
majority of cases(examplesincludesomeTrajaniccoin issues,and the kneeling,,submissivebarbarianfigurespossiblyintegratedinto other Trajanicmon'Iafel
umentsaround Rome (Schneidert986,
8), defeatedDaciansare shown
in subservientposes.As anotherpoint of difference,the giant statuesall depict
Dacianmales,contrastingstronglywith the Augustanand Julio-Claudianstrategy of employing female personificationsof defeatedpeopiesin architectural
settingsin the capital. There is an extensiveliteratureon the deploymentof
the Dacian figures in the Trajanic forum (see,for instance,Packer t997 and
rhe accompanyingbibliography)and on their place in a generaliconographic
tradition of using personificationsor barbarian figuresin this way in both the
Greekand Roman worlds.
While the Forum, Frieze and Column were intended for the eyes of the
metropolitan viewer,nevertheless
there doubtlesswould have beena great variery of individual responsesto their different messages,
even in this urban
context. The works could be viewed and interpreted on a number of levels
ranging from simplicity - a direct responseto the overt messageonly - to sophistication- an understandingof the covertmessages
in all their complexity.
TRAJAN'S ARCH AT BENEVENTUM
The secondmonumentto beconsideredin detailisTrajan'sArch at Beneventum,
in Campania(to the southof Rome),datedby epigraphicevidenceto A.D.rr4. [t
is often sometimeserroneouslyassumedthat imperial art in wider Italy followed
the sameagenda,and spoke to the sameaudience,as art in the city of Rome
itself. This was not in fact the case.Indeed, there is no better example of a
messagetargetedspecificallyat the peoplesof Italy (rather than the citizensof
Rome)thanthat projectedby the Beneventum
arch.The artwork of the archwas
intendedto conveya seriesof messages
about the Emperor'ssocialpolicies,and
in particular his alimentary program, as well as about his political and military
policies.The alimentaryschemewas intendedto bring relief to impoverished
families in Rome and Italy. It has also been surmisedthat another aim of the
schemewas rather more cynical; namely to increasethe birth rate amongstthe
lower classes,perhapsto guaranteea future levelof recruitmentinto the Roman
army (see,e.g.,Torelli ry97, r5z).
The arch reliefsalso commemoratedtriumph in the Dacian wars. This was
achievednot by repetitiveportrayal of lvar and battle scenes,as happenedon
T'he Hanged Men Dzrnce:Barbariansin Traianic Art
6r
rhc Coiumn rlnd the Great TrajanicFriezeto diff'erentdegrees,but by repeated
rhat imperialconquestsbror.rghtto Italy. The
r isr.raldepictionsof the rern'ards
.rrch commemoratesTrajan's concern for a well-ied Ita[y, achievedthrough
the constructionof harbours,the establishrnent
of coloniesand
r.r.re1-building,
. r r . r r g e t e d s o cp
i ar lo g r a m ( C u r r i e1 9 9 6 ,r 6 4 ) .l n s t e a d o fb a t t l e s c e n e s . T r a j a n r s
beingreceivedby Daciangods and stanc{ingbetbrea personification
pt.,rtraved
rperhaps)oi Dacia, who kneelsin greetingbeforethe victoriousEmperor.
There are, however,numerousrepresentations
of Romiu and, to a lesser
flt barbarian,childrenon the arch.In its concentrationon Italian ratherthan
r--\re
brrrbarianchildren,the imageryma)'haveenconragedthe viewerto feela sense
of identificationwith the children.Childhood and adulthoodwere presentecl
Adults were
;rs fluid and shiftingciltegoriesnot polar oppt>sites.
metirphorical
childrenof the emperor,rndchildren\\.'ere
embrvonic
citizens.
TI-reRomanempireas represented
entailed
on the arch
a set
trf translations
of wrrr into peace,barbariirninto Romen,child into
,rdult,freeman into slaveand slavebackinto freeman.
(Currie 19c.6.168)
rtl
.-r"
:3:
i 'rl
ly'
I
Llrilclrenwoirld, of course,be erpectedin an alimentttridscene:This lvas part
of rrn iconographic trardition.Here, hor.l'ever,
the contrastive use of figr.rresof
lrlrl-rarirrnchildren representsa sLrbtledepartureirom mere rrrtisticformaliti'
of erpression.
EnslavedDacianchildrenr'rppear
representations
as small-scale
on the frieze,
ri,hichruns irll around the monument.Currie suggests
that this triumphal processionshows thesecapturedchildren as little more than part of the spoilsof
w ar. They are 'frozen in the perperualchildhood of slaverl'. . . barharianchil.lren were associatedwith the servile,the feminineand the defeated.'(Currie
r L ) 9 6 ,r 7 3 ) . C r . r r r i e 'sst r i k i n g p h r a s e- ' i r o z e n i n p e r p e t u a cl h i l d h o o d '- p r o viciesan interestingcounterpointto a state of temporal dislocationwhich is
detectirblein rhe portrait imagesof Trajan himself.After a slrrveyof portraits
of Trajan throughout his nineteen-year
reign,Kleinerdubbedthe Emperor'the
agelessadult', becausein portrrritsmade over this timespan,Trajan showed
l i t t l e o r n o s i g n o f a r g i n g( K l e i n e rr 9 9 2 , z o 8 ) . T h e c o n s c i o u sm a n i p u l a t i o no f
time would, therefore,seemto be e particular hallmark of the designof the
arch, and of Trajanicart in general.
Krrmpenlryg+) has drarvn attention to the absencec-rfwomen from the
Imperi:rlfamily on the Trajanicarch at Beneventum.
Her discussionof Roman
rrrristicrepresentations
images
of motherhoodstresses
that the creationof sr"rch
is dependentupon numerous,often intenvoven,factorsincludingthe natureof
rhe artisticgenre,the temporalor geographicalsetting,ethnicity,class,political,
social,and economicpor,verstructures,and religion.Her study contraststhe
Ara PacisAugustae,which depictsthe men,women and childrenof the Imperierl
house,with the Beneventumarch, rvhich doesnot (althoughboth monuments
put acrossspecificmessages
about stateand family).
i/
fB.
tG
rr
rg
7:
3
,r
s
6z
Iain Ferris
In the caseof the Ara Pacis,the presenceof membersof the Imperial family
emphasisesthe crucial importance of the family unit itself, and of a secured
reproductivefuture for the imperial line. In the so-calledalimenta sceneon the
arch at Beneventum,fathers appear with children and female personifications
hold infants. The Emperor is present,but no female member of the court appears.In the words of Kampen,
the emperor,model for his malesubjects,is the completeparentand
reproductionresideswith men and not with women. This seems
to confirm that the imageryof reproductionin the art of the state
is completelysubfectto the needsof the state,and thoseneedsare
determinedand managedby menwhosepowerallowsthemto insert
or remove the femalebody from the context of reproductionand
family at will.
( K a m p e nr 9 9 4 , 1 4 - 2 6 )
Trajan'sown role as Father of the Country comesacrossstrongly from the arch
reliefs.There are no ltalian mothers on the arch, despitethe fact that men, war
and reproduction are its three inseparablethemes.Somemortal women do appear on the arch reliefs.Perhapssignificantly theseare barbarian women.
In summary,therefore,the depictionof Dacianson both Trajan'sColumn in
Rome and the arch at Beneventumis employedto stressthe economicbenefitsof
war, though the benefitsuggested,
and the specificaudiencefor eachmonument,
may be very clearly differentiated.In eachcase,the location and context of each
monument informs the content, and although similar imagery is employed, it
is usedto achievediffering objectives.
THE TROPAEUM TRAIANI
AT ADAMKLISSI
The third monument to be discussedin detail is the so-called'Trophy of Trajan';
the Tropaeum Traiani at Adamklissi in present-dayRomania. This is located
in the former Moesia Inferior, a provincial settingat considerabledistance(both
geographicallyand artistically) from Italy and the metropolitan centre.As Ian
Richmond hasnoted, the Trophy was in fact only one of threemonumentsin relatively closeproximity to eachother at Adamklissi,the two earlier monuments
being a mausoleum and an altar bearing the namesof Roman dead, marking
significantRoman defeatsin the emperor Domitian's Dacian wars (Richmond
196o,45). The physicaljuxtapositionof the Trajanicvictory monument with
theseother two monuments was perhapsalso a psychologicaljuxtaposition, a
way to erasethe memory of those earlier military setbacks.It thus represented
revenge,as confirmed by the dedication of the tropaeum to Mars Ultor. The
tropaeum is now generallyconsideredto be of a broad Trajanic date, though
someauthoritieshavearguedfor its beingboth earlierand later than this period.
The monument complex at Adamklissi stood at the node of a number of major
The Hanged Men Dance: Barbariansin Traianic Art
6i
comnrunicationroutesand, like so many monumentsin the Roman rvorld, was
sitedro achievethe ma-ximumimpact on travellersalong theseroutes,whether
irom within or without the Empire.It was only at a later datethat a seftlement,,
c.rlledTropaeumTraiani, rvasfoundednearby.
will concentrateprincipallyon thosesculpturalscenesin which
L)iscussion
brrrberiansappear.Thesetake trvo forms:bound captives,occurringon the monLulent'screnellations;and battle scenes,occurringon a number oi the fortynine survivingmetopes(from an original fifiy-four). lv{uchdebatehas centred
the 'documentaryvalue' of the sculpturalsceneson the monument (see
;.1round
Rossir97L, -56).Sorneauthoritieshaveregardedtheir valueas compromised1if
'that logical
and chronologicalcohernor altogetherlacking)becausethey lack
cncer,vhichalonecould give the iconographythe forceof a true historicalepitt o a r g u et h a t t h ee p i s o d i c
o r n e '( R o s s it 9 7 2 , 5 6 ) .O n t h eo t h e rh a n d ,i t i s p o s s i b l e
of the conceptof
portriryalof combat on the reliefsis an artisticrepresentation
below,the episodicnature
time suspended,or of infinite Empire.As discr-rssed
of the iconographymay also be arguedto representtime reversed.
The crenellationsof the monlrment each bear the figure oi a singlemale
barbarian captive,who is not always Dacian, with his arms tied behind his
back. The other captivesare German and Sarmatianallies of the Darcians.
In the background,to one side, a stylisedtree is depicted.As suggestedwith
referenceto the lesserplicit irssocizrtion
of Dacianswith forestson Trajan's
Column, the tree may herebe a devicelinking the Daciansto virgin forestsand
to rhe naturirl,and rhus uncivilised,world. The singlebound captiverepresents
ir nation in defeat.This would have beenemphasisedby the repetitionof the
motif around the whole circuit of the monumenr:elnerernalreturn to a stateof
p e r p e t u asI u h j u g a t i o n .
The sceneson the metopesmostly show incidentsof one-to-onecombat, as
representative
of larger battles.Diana Kleinerregardsthis as being'in the long
trrrditionof metopedesign,which can be tracedback to such Greek exarnples
as the metopesof the Parthenon'(Kleiner1992,,z_io).Many of the battlescenes
on the Trophy monument, 11s
on Trirjan'sColumn, are stock imirgesthat formed
battletopoi (seeLeanderTouati
;rartof an artisticcontinuumof Gr,reco-Roman
r..)87,r9 n.+r irnd 77, fc:r instance).This is particularlytrlle for those scenes
with elemenrsthat are repeateda numberof times.Linking scenes
of the Roman
rlrmy at work on camp constructionanc'lsoon arenot present,and indeedgiven
the location of the monument,and its intendediudience,rhis is not surprising.
Despitethe presenceof often-repeated
battlemotifs, one or tlvo individual
sceneson the monumenthavea greaterresonance
and significance.
On metope
XXXI rvhat appearsto be a naked,beheadedDacianliesat the feetof a Roman
soldierrvhoseattention is focussedon a naked barbarianarcherperchedin a
tree (Fig. 8). Rossi has suggested
that the bodv on the ground is the decaying
corpseof a Roman soldierkilled in rrnearlierengagement
here,perhapsduring
Domitian's reign. and able at last to be presentat the sceneof retribution for
_i
iil
auli
t
tl
d
ti
I
I
tl
i
i'
ill
+
I
!
}
iii
a1
it
l,l
64
Iain Ferris
Dactan,
Fig. 8. TropaeumTrajani,Adamklissi,Romania.MetopeXXXI: Roman soldier,beheaded
and archer(afterFlorescur96o).
the previousRoman defeat,as some kind of silent witness(Rossi rg7z,63).
On metope V a Roman cavalryman rides over a headlessDacian body whilst
displayinghis severedhead as a trophy. This dead Dacian may be the Dacian
leaderDecebalus,with the Roman trooper beingTiberiusClaudiusMaximus,
the famed horsemanwhose dash to captureDecebalusalive was unsuccessful.
On metope LIV a Dacian woman cradlesa child in the folds of her garment,
her plight perhapssymbolisinga curtailed reproductivefuture, 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:Barbariansin TraianicArt
o)
On one nretope(IX), Trajan is presentin atlloculioanclon another(merope
, r o b a b l vt o b e
X X X V I ) o n t h e m a r c h . O n a t h i r c l ( m e t o p eV I ) a h o r s e m a n p
identiliedas the Emperor,rides down a Daciirnchieftain.This is doubtlessa
rnet;rphorior the defeatof the Dacian nirtion by the power of Rome, rhough
a sceneis in rr broadertraditior-roi rider and fallen foe motifs, and as has
sr,rch
beennoted abovealso appearson fhe GrearTrirjanicFriezein Rome.
R o s s i( t 9 t z l h a s s u g g e s r etdh a t t h e i r p p a r e nst i m p l i c i t yo f t h e i c o n o g r a p h v
and reflectsthe
on the trophv nlonLlmentis an rrdaptationto localcircumstances
need ior rhe messagehere.iway from the centre,to have r-noredirect inlpirct.
This mLrstindeeclbe tl-recase.It could trlsobe rrrguedthrrt the stripped-dou'n
st"-lerrnd locrrlrrrtisticvernrrcnlarof the monument,coupled with its detailecl
r e n d e r i n go f t h e D a c i a n a n d o t h e r b a r b a r i l n p r o t a g o n i s t sw, a s i n t e n d e ctlo
to recognisethe othernessof rhe Dacian enemy in the wArs,
rrllor'"'the 'u'ieurer
and the clepthof their defeat.There woLrldhave beenno needl-rerefor implicrr
here
clepictionsof the benefitsof Romanifas:Thereu'zrsprohablv no ar"rdience
for whom that messrrse
\\'asappropriilte.
aa
::
.d,
o)
(g!
l''
THE'ART OF DACIAN DEFEAT
By differencesof emphasis,and by the inclirsion,omissionor manipr-rltrtion
ot
barbarianand other forms of irnageri',eachof rhe rhreemonumentsdisctrssed
abovetells a sr.rbtlydifferentversionof the triLrmphsand vicroriesof the reign
of Trajan. And vet eachis similarlyconcernedwith the outconreof the Drrcien
wars. Thesedifferences,
it hasbeensuggestecl,
reflectthe geographical,
cultnral.
and socialcontext of the monumentsthemselves,
and the anticiprrtedar-rdience
for each. At the silme time, however,the irnageof the defeatedDacian r,vas
itself to becomea clefiningsymbol of Trajan'sreign, not only in monumental
contexts, btrt ,rlso on coinage.Interestingh',the sirmecannot be said of the
Parthians,rvhosedefeatbv Trajan r,vasarlsoof geopoliticalimportancefor the
empire.
In her str,rciy
on Roman imperial coins and sculpture,Levi
of barbatrirrns
noted a number of unusualfeilturesof certain imagesfirst ,rppearingon coin
typesof Trajan (Levi r 9Sz1r4-zo). Theseincludeda reversetvpe of a bound,
rnaleDacirrnprisoner,trnd typeson rvhichDilciiinsappearas what Levi terrned
' a t t r i b u t e s ' o fr h e
E m p e r o r( L e v i i 9 5 2 , r 4 ) . I n o n e t y p e ,r w o s m a l l b a r b i r r i a n s
irppear,sometimeskneeling,on either sideof the Emperor.C)nother tvpesthe
ernperorappearswith his foot on a prostrateDacianmale.The compositionon
someeramplesof this type crop the berrbarianfiguredramaticallyso th;rt only
his heircland shouldersare l'isible.Other t,r-pes
tlre knorvn on r,vhichTrajan and
R o m a a r e d e p i c t e dw i t h r h e i r f t e e p
t l a n t e do n D e c e b a l u s ' s e v e r ehde a d ( F o s s
r 9 L ) o ,r o r - z ) .
r*;
rG.
t0;
tg:
I
(
s
u
t
,r
t
66
Iain Ferris
There are also a number of what may be termed 'historical' types;narrative
scenesrelating not to the Dacian wars but rather to Trajan's later campaigning
in Parthia.Among this group are coins depictingthe appearanceof the Parthian
prince Parthamasiris before the Emperor, the investiture of three chiefs by
Trajan, and the investiture of Parthamaspates.
These types are, according to
'among
Levi,
the very few on imperial coins which representbarbariansas individuals and not merely as symbols of the vanquishedrace' (Levi ry52, r9).
They contrast strongly with the depiction on coins of the wretched f.ateof.
Decebalus'head as the gruesomemotif for the defeatof the Dacian people.
The three major monuments consideredhere therefore form only one aspect of (and a stimulus for) the widespread use of images of Dacians in
the Trajanic period. The sculpturesof Trajan's Column principally place the
Dacian barbariansin the historical context of their defeat.Yet their defeatand
the consequentgatheringof the spoilsof that defeat,are presentedin an original
and compelling style as having a particular and specificrelevanceto Rome herself.This is becausethe settingin which viewersencounteredTrajan'sColumn their architectural frame - was funded by the spoils of the Dacian wars. The
transformation of destructioninto construction is stressedand emphasisedby
the presenceof such sceneson the column, albeit involving the Roman army in
Dacia. Dead bodiesand shatteredbonesin Dacia are in Rome transformedinto
stone and mortar through the exhaustivelycataloguedexertions of the army
at war. Any fear of the army felt by the civilian population of Rome would be
assuagedby the visible benefitsof that army's labours. At the same,the monument's depiction of triumphs in battle may also have servedto maintain that
necessaryfear.This also marks somethingof a break with a tradition (to which
there are of courseone or two exceptions)of non-overt depictionsof war and
battle on major imperial monumentsin Rome.
The battle sceneson the column, and the more stylisedsceneson the Great
Trajanic Frieze,do not dwell overly upon the bloody realitiesof war, though
as discussedabove the artists did not flinch from including a small number of
sceneswhich, whilst they jar with modern sensibilities,may have given visual
form to some of the most important messagesthe monument was intended to
convey.The victory is not depictedas beingeasilywon, nor is therean indication
here that the Dacians were an unworthy or easily defeatedfoe. This view of
Rome'sDacian opponentswas further emphasisedby the 'proud', rather than
dejected,giant figuresof Dacian male captivesin the Trajanic forum. Victory is
won by the power of the army, of the Emperor and of the state.The suicideof
the Dacian chieftain Decebalusin order to avoid capture could be termed an
act of self-authorship,which would have disrupted the anticipatedtheatre of
triumph. His post-mortembeheading,as portrayed on the column, importantly
allows this self-authorshipto be turned upon itself in a macabrefashion. This
'The
Hanged Men Dance: Barbariansin Tiajanic Art
L-)/
p()rrrayaloi victory over death itself is further testamentto imperial power.
T-hetransportationof the headto Rome, for displavin the Emperor'striumph,
of this power.
rn.lrksa iLrrthermanifesti'ttion
As to the arch at Beneventum.the social policiesof the ernperor'sreign
though not to the erclusionoi referenceto the militarv triumphs.
rre stressed.
'fliere
is none of the cletrrilof trrmv ,ctivity seenon Traian'sColumn, horvever,
not in the processof being
rr.rdthe Dacirrnbarbariansare clepictedin defeart,
defeated.The deliberateernphasisplacedon contrastiveimagesof Italian and
b a r b : r r i a nc h i l d r e nh a s b e e nd i s c u s s eidn d e t a i la b o v e .
The two monumentsare themselves
contrastive,with, as Currie has notecl,
'the column
fbeing]overu'helminglymartial and Roman in perspective,
[while]
r l r ca r c hc e l e b r a t e pc e
l a c ef r o m a n l t a l i a np o i n t o f v i e w ' ( C u r r i er 9 9 6 , r ; 9 ) . T h i s
needto structlrrethe messirge
as r,vell.rsthe medir.rm
is significantin termsof iniperialideologies.In this conte.xt,it is important not to conflateRome and ltaly.
The monumentat Adamklissiis extraordinaryin that it appearsnot only to
be a victory monllment and war memorial, but also a symbol of revenge.The
nlonlrmentis simpll.about militrrrypower,and the assertionof that power.The
sheerscaleof the trophl' monumentin comparisonto the othersis alsonoteworrhy in this respect,;,rsis its siting as part of a complex of relilteclrnonurrents,
rll linked to rhe rrrmy'sinvolvernentin crrrnpaignsin Daciir over the years.
ln sucha relativelyremotepart of the empire,it is unlikely thar the rnessage
of
the Aclamklissimonument was targetedat anyoneother than the soldiersrrnd
Rcrnrrrn
officialsstationedin Moesia,and the local populace.Nlany of the latter
w'ould dorrbtlesshave understoodthe imperial rhetoric behind the simpleand
rlirectimLlgeryernplovedon the monurnent.At an errrlierdate,a similar effect
nuv have beenachievedbv rheJulio-Clauclian
house,rvith its dedicationof the
(Gatlia
rlrch rlt Orar-rge
Narbonensis).Again, the erplicit battle sceneson that
nronumentwere of a tvpe generallyavoidedin Rome itselfat the rime.
The style of the sculpttrralpanelson the Adamklissimonument !\'rrsverrtacular,and owed its compositior-ral
directnessto the rlecessary
shorrhandof
rnilitaryart. Its messilge,
nevertheless,
was part of an irnperialprograrnthzrt,in
jan's
Tr.r
reign,allorvedfor rhe rnanipulationof stylein certlin conteNtsin order
fo ensurethe receptionof an intendedvisr-ral
rnessagebv its target irudience.
Rornirnrnilitirr,vart hrrsbeenregardeclby cert:rinart historiansa'ls
somehorvclebasedil-lcontent,and as hrrving,frorn the reignof N'lirrcusAureliuson\^/i-rrds,
a
cleleterious
inf'luence
on the metropolitrrnrnainstrerrm.
Theseargumentscannot
L'teaccepte.las an erplanation for the style of the Adirr-nklissi
rrtr,vorksn'hen
contrilsteci
n'irh the mrrjor Trajanicmonumentsin Rorne.ThereareenoughcomI-nonthemeson the artr,vorkof the Atlamklissimonnment,the Great Trajanic
FriezeirnclTrajirn'sColumn to suqgesttheir cornmon origins in the imperial
rhetoricoI that erir.
:i,
iTti
I
iri
'r'i
it
*,1r
)t
a
)r'
rh
ti
Iain Ferris
68
CONCLUSION
i
i
Imagesof barbarians,and the way that these imageswere deployed, formed
one part of a repertoire of imagery and representationthat 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 universalone... The content of the dialecticvarieseven within
one society,according to time and circumstanceand according to the social
units and the individual personsconcerned'(Berndtand Berndt r97t, rr). In
this context, each of the monuments discussedhere demonstrate,in different
socialsettings,different aspects,or interpretationsof aspects,of Trajan'sreign,
mediated through the use of images of barbarians: on Trajan's Column the
transformation of destruction into construction, on the Beneventumarch of
atrophy into growth, and on the Trophy at Adamklissi of defeat into victory.
Art and monumentsare socialconstructs;they are part of a systemof social
relations extending beyond themselves.Richard Brilliant has said of the relationship between Roman art and Roman imperial policy that 'propaganda is
not used,merely,to createa favourableclimate of belief or opinion; it is used
to channel the energiesof the public exposedto it and repeatedly- a public
whose beliefs are conditioned by propaganda so that they will act in concert
in some desired manner, that is a manner or direction useful to the creators
and disseminatorsof that propaganda'(Brilliant r988, rro). In Trajanic art
in Rome, in particular, experienceand meaning came together as imagesthat
merged and createda coherentwhole, and helped make senseof the world at
this one particular time to a particular categoryof metropolitan viewer.Equally,
awayfrom home, suchimageswere rearrangedinto an archipelagoof seemingly
corrupt fragmentswhich displayeda different version of that self-samereality,
eachversionbeingdependenton the context in which thosealteredimageswere
deployedand the complicity or hostility of the target audiences.
ACKNO\X/LEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Lynne Bevan for commenting on various drafts of this
paper,and Simon EsmondeCleary for his helpful and particular criticisms of
some aspectsof the paper before its presentationat RAC. I am also grateful
to Sarah Scott, Jane l7ebster, and the anonymous refereesfrom Cambridge
University Presswhose commentson a seconddraft of the paper have, I hope,
helped improve the final version.