Trajan\'s Column V Adamklissi

[tlclark]

Well, I suppose if the sculptors were indeed Dacian prisoners of war or somesuch they would have a pretty thorough knowledge of Roman chains!

Curious that you should pick on this detail, however -

Just chance really, it just jumped out at me and so I started taking a very close look. I happen to know what they are supposed to look like from a project way back. They are figure-8 shaped with cleat across the middle. They are very idiosyncratic. I will have to look into the manica (as well as Jim's suggested reading - as if I don't have enough to read. I've alredy put off my scuta and a lot of other things half finished.)

Whoever carved these scenes, I think it's surely true that they must have seen the Roman army in the field - although I'm interested to know which details you think are 'off'.

Well the chains look right and I will have to look at the rest of it, It's obvious I spoke too soon.

The theory about the sculptors being unencumbered by classical archetypes is also telling, and quite believable IMHO...

:lol: Well even though I offered it in half jest I still want credit for it!!

One strut, however, is upside down, and would not support the weight of the bridge above it.

I'd have to see the one you are discussing. I know a PHD candidate at Penn that is working of those same images and finds them very reliable. I think whether the strut is 'upside down' or not may be in dispute. It may not be the case of the artist misreading it, but us.

One reason for this is the existence of the Adamklissi carvings - both they and the column ostensibly depict the same army on the same campaign, but depict them in quite markedly different ways. The one must surely give the lie to the other (to be reductive about it!) - or perhaps both are faulty, but I still remain unconvinced that the style alone of the Adamklissi carvings debars them from consideration.

I'd bet on the latter, but I am revising my thinking and will publicly eat crow here for all those I disagreed with if I find out I was wrong.

I cracked open the Diana Kliener and Lawrence Nees. Nees publishes the 'aquilifer' relief in Rome on pg 26 of his Early Medieval Art. and even though it is very primitive, it really is a world apart from the Adamklissi reliefs. The paenula especially, which is simplified in the method of depicting drapery, but not yet so abstract and patterned as the Adamklissi treatment of the same subject. The rendition of wheels and perspective, it has an altogether different feeling, even from some of the most primitive provincial Roman examples, IMO.

The style, IMO, is nearly as big a hurdle as the conventions of the Column of Trajan, but I realize now that while in general, they could never be used to make a complete reconstruction they might hold telling even useful details.

hmmm.

Travis