Trajan\'s Column V Adamklissi

[tlclark]

It seems to me that you rail against the Adamklissi metopes because they do not seem to fit a particular model.

Well I wouldn't call it 'railing'. I just think that some re-enactors (and not necessarily you) are ignoring the difficulties inherent in the style. But your point on "models" and regional variations is dead on. I didn't by any means intend to say there was one uniform genre style across the provinces, Heaven forbid! The Palmyrene reliefs are an excellent example of your point. The point I was trying to make is that there is a cultural millieu to these things. I happen to know the cultural milieu to the genre sculpture very well. There is a thread of similarity that links the stuff in Rome to the column bases you posted, a treatment that is largely missing in the Adamklissi motifs. IMO, this is more than just a regional difference.

Charting Roman genre styles is a bit like tracking mutations in viruses without the benefit of DNA.

You could hardly say that the reliefs in the attic of the arch at Orange, for instance, were 'classical'

LOL. Actually I do. All the time. Certainly not classical in the sense of a emulating the style of the Parthenon, but definitely within the established tradition of Roman Art. The arch of the Argentarii (which is of course, later) looks very similar. It seems that the genre style becomes gradually more accepted in the Capital, and it varies over times and dynasties. Augustus was consciously attempting to copy Greek classicism, Hadrian as well. Vespasian's era is known for the opposite tendency, towards this more nativist primitive Italic or genre style.

I think in large part we are talking past each other and looking at different things. You are definitely right to say that it isn't classical in the traditional way we think of that term, but I find it very Roman, and not just Roman regional, but 'Rome' Roman.

I wonder why, also, you feel that the tropaeum traiani was erected a generation after Trajan's campaigns. This is not a view I have read previously and I see no reason why it shoud be the case. Trajan had his column in Rome erected within half a decade of the end of the war.

Well both are debated. This is the problem with dedications and inscriptions. Dedication dates are often the most problematic. Since we have a firm date, we often like to stick with it since its 'historical'. Problem is, Romans fudged dates all the time. This isn't actually too uncommon even today. Go around any town and you will see signs and cornerstones that say "Founded 1929", or "since 1829." Usually when you look into those dates, you find out that the cornersonte was laid down 30-40 years BEFORE the bldg even got started!! Roman stuff is a lot like this. We know from masonry breaks that both the Forum of Trajan and others were not finished by Trajan's death. I would put the Adamklissi monument between 10-20 years after the war and maybe as far as after Trajan's death in 117!

Often, it is the emperor's death rather than his victories that spurs commemorations.

As far as examples of genre in Rome, here are a couple of good ones, the first, the Tomb of the Haterii

http://www.indiana.edu/~leach/c414/2005/newhater3.jpg

And the circus magistrate relief.

http://www.indiana.edu/~c414rome/net_id ... ircus1.jpg

The relief is certainly higher and more developed, but it has all the features of the mainz bases IMO and is a closer comparison than the Adamklissi reliefs.

In any job the tools of the trade are best known by those who do that job. The idea that many of these carvings are the work of military sculptors is grounded in the idea that if a soldier actually uses the kit himself he is more likely to include details others might miss simply because of his familiarity with subject matter. The desire for accuracy might not even be a conscious part of the design, but someone with an intimate familiarity with the kit and the skill to depict it will naturally end up depicting more of it than someone not so intimately familiar with it. Don't forget that the army was hardly short of stone masons and men who could carve inscriptions. Much of this was probably learned in the army.

I don't disagree with any of this. I would also point out that it is largely supposition. I think it is pretty good supposition given what we know but could just as easily be false.

Actually I have done so and I do know what you mean. However stone sculpture, like everything else, is a skill and can be learnt."

True and there's absolutely no way to judge the opportunity costs of a soldier, particularly a bored soldier. Typically, learning to carve would be too taxing on his duties, but after long times on the frontier? Who knows, but by that time, accessibility to carvers, local or otherwise becomes more prevalent. I have to concede this point, but like most of this, it becomes impossible to say.

Thanks for correcting me on the bases (not stelae) :oops:

I take your point and agree that it is a good one, but I still contend that the army contained all the skills necessary for the job within its own ranks. How those men would execute their work would depend on there cultural background.

That's the problem, we have two questions.

1.) Was it worth it to soldiers to learn how to carve? OR where there carvers, either soldiers or camp-followers or locals, that had the skills that could accurately represent military gear?

2.) Did the solider's actually care to get those details right?

We really can't do anything but guess on both accounts. This moves this from the realm of what happened, to what was likely. After that it's all just arguing.

I think this thread has demonstrated perfectly the differences between military and art historians.

My first impulse is to compare these things to other works of art, and to try to establish a common thread. "Art" is by definition, made by "artists" that means I start with an immediate prejudice, that these are made by specialized labor, and I think I have to admit I've been applying this assumption myself, perhaps too much.

Likewise, military historians see these as military artifacts. Hence, they connect them to soldiers, that generates another set of assumptions.

After that the argument begins.

Lather, Rinse and Repeat.

I am the first to admit my initial prejudice in this matter given my training, my hope is that I can figure out how to look at them another way and talking to people on RAT has helped me expand my horizons on this quite a bit.

Anyway, thanks for the conversation.

Travis