The Tropaeum Traiani: a dark source

[Crispianus]

Indeed, quite interesting

And it may justify what I see in this panel:


If you look at the soldier in the right, the torso seems to be made by horizontal bands. I have also thought to one of the models found at Kalkriese, representing a first stage of the Segmentata:

(https://historybytez.com/2020/10/06/new-...kalkriese/)


Anyway, if you are able to spot Traianus in that panels, tell me. I have looked and looked at them and I cannot find him.

I think what you see there is a belt... Lorica Segmenta is apparantly very rare in provincial art, It seems that it only really starts to appear in art from the the Flavian Era and then mainly in metropolitan contexts...
Furtwängler had little to no physical evidence other then the recent Waffenmagazin find in Carnuntum which he was aware off... 
Its one reason why he ascribes an earlier date to the Trope, on account of there being no evidence for Lorica segmentata in the Metopes and precious little in Archaeology or at least unrecognised as such from an earlier time, but its obvious today that you cannot date art by its lack of Lorica Segmentata.

As Far as Trajan goes I dont know what your source is, the main source I use for pics does not include the Istambul metope from Wiki, but does however show this which is not included in the wiki page:

   

From: https: https://leg8.fr/wp-content/uploads/2020/...1024-1.jpg

Main page: https://leg8.fr/armee-romaine/la-colonne-adamclisi/

I've altered the brightness and contrast in an attempt to see the details more clearly but its not a very good image.
It clearly shows though a high ranking Officer, whether its Trajan or not is anyones guess, however if he is, he does not appear to wear Senators boots.

[CaesarAugustus]

I think what you see there is a belt... Lorica Segmenta is apparantly very rare in provincial art, It seems that it only really starts to appear in art from the the Flavian Era and then mainly in metropolitan contexts...
Furtwängler had little to no physical evidence other then the recent Waffenmagazin find in Carnuntum which he was aware off... 
Its one reason why he ascribes an earlier date to the Trope, on account of there being no evidence for Lorica segmentata in the Metopes and precious little in Archaeology or at least unrecognised as such from an earlier time, but its obvious today that you cannot date art by its lack of Lorica Segmentata.

As Far as Trajan goes I dont know what your source is, the main source I use for pics does not include the Istambul metope from Wiki, but does however show this which is not included in the wiki page:



From: https: https://leg8.fr/wp-content/uploads/2020/...1024-1.jpg

Main page: https://leg8.fr/armee-romaine/la-colonne-adamclisi/

I've altered the brightness and contrast in an attempt to see the details more clearly but its not a very good image.
It clearly shows though a high ranking Officer, whether its Trajan or not is anyones guess, however if he is, he does not appear to wear Senators boots.

The panel is from Instambul. During first explorations of the monument, when it was under the Ottoman, one of the panel was sent to Instanbul. I imagine one of the best preserved. I am pretty sure to have found where it was said the panle was taken, but that is a panel belonging to the tropeum is well established (see also Julian Bennett's TWO ROMAN SOLDIERS IN INSTANBUL, and Florescu's sequence of metopes). I would exclude that is a belt because I can recognize three lines, with a more or less equal space between them. Unless there is a massive distortion in the image, that are at least two horizontal bands.

Also, I think the first known monument depicting the Segmentata is a provincial work, not from Rome, on a reliefs of a column pedestals from Mainz. It is dated around Flavian date, but its inscription is related to Nero, so half of the first century.

Anyway, the point here is that the interpretation of the "Tropaeum Traiani" is made up. If you are really able to show me Traianus in one of those panels I will be really happy, but looking at the images they have started from their theory (Tropaeum Traiani), and to justify the title they have chosen some random figures to be Trajan (after all, in a Tropaeum Traiani you would expect to see Trajan...).
In the interpretation given by Julian Bennett (2020), that is not really depicting any Dacian War, it is depicting some clashes with Moesia's clans (amd this would explain why it seems that there are no Dacian in the Tropeum, just Getaen/thracians. These clashes would have concerned the garrison of the Tropaeum Traiani castra, that seems to have been formed by auxiliaries, and this could explain the odd panoply of weapons and armor that we can see.

[Crispianus]

The panel is from Instambul. During first explorations of the monument, when it was under the Ottoman, one of the panel was sent to Instanbul. I imagine one of the best preserved. I am pretty sure to have found where it was said the panle was taken, but that is a panel belonging to the tropeum is well established (see also Julian Bennett's TWO ROMAN SOLDIERS IN INSTANBUL, and Florescu's sequence of metopes). I would exclude that is a belt because I can recognize three lines, with a more or less equal space between them. Unless there is a massive distortion in the image, that are at least two horizontal bands.

Also, I think the first known monument depicting the Segmentata is a provincial work, not from Rome, on a reliefs of a column pedestals from Mainz. It is dated around Flavian date, but its inscription is related to Nero, so half of the first century.

Anyway, the point here is that the interpretation of the "Tropaeum Traiani" is made up. If you are really able to show me Traianus in one of those panels I will be really happy, but looking at the images they have started from their theory (Tropaeum Traiani), and to justify the title they have chosen some random figures to be Trajan (after all, in a Tropaeum Traiani you would expect to see Trajan...).
In the interpretation given by Julian Bennett (2020), that is not really depicting any Dacian War, it is depicting some clashes with Moesia's clans (amd this would explain why it seems that there are no Dacian in the Tropeum, just Getaen/thracians. These clashes would have concerned the garrison of the Tropaeum Traiani castra, that seems to have been formed by auxiliaries, and this could explain the odd panoply of weapons and armor that we can see.

I think you misunderstood, all I'm saying is that there is a high ranking officer on one of the metopes from Adamclisi according to the Legio VIII image source... that I can see no evidence of Lorica Segmentata on the Adamclisi Metope in Istambul that you supplied (I only see two lines which on other figures seems to represent a belt)...

Furtwängler uses the lack of evidence for Lorica Segentata (at the time), including on the metopes, as additional evidence for his earlier date thesis, we now know this to be untrue since there are many examples in archaeology dating back to Kalkriese where there is evidence for more then one example.

However the monumental evidence is suprisingly slim considering the contemporary use of L/S thoughout the first century, this would suggest that there is some bias against Lorica Segmentata in military art during that time.

What it doesn't prove or disprove is Furtwänglers conclusion that the Tropaeum was likely built by M.L.Crassus in 28bc.

[CaesarAugustus]

I haven't come across this theory before. As far as I know we don't have any literary evidence for Constantine or other late Roman emperors restoring old monuments from the Principiate. If they did, they would presumably restore them in their own style, rather than doing some sort of antiquarian job on them. The equipment and clothing on the metopes is not 4th century, and while it's different to the Trajan's Column stuff it appears very close to finds from the 1st-2nd century. I see no reason to doubt the date of the panels themselves, however they might have been moved around in later centuries. Who else is suggesting this?

Art historians of the 19th century in particular do seem to have wanted to erect a sort of cordon sanitaire around 'classical art', banishing anything that didn't fit with their ideas of the glory of Rome to the darkness of 'barbarism' or the 'degraded' later empire. I'm not aware that anyone still seriously does this though.

The Adamklissi sculptors were not 'breaking with classical tradition', as they were never part of classical tradition. Like the sculptors of a great many Roman tombstones and reliefs from all over the frontier military regions, they were the heirs of a different artistic tradtion, one now almost entirely erased except in these few carvings that have survived by incorporation into monuments.

Even if we look at columns of Jupiter, which are coming from the first century provinces, we see a totally different style. But, for the "ability of the late empire artists", we can look at Ammianus Marcellinus, commenting on the reaction to Trajan's forum:
when [Constantius II] arrived at the Forum of Trajan, which we believe to be the only construction in the world, amazed also by the consent of the Gods, he stopped astonished, gazing all around among the imposing buildings, difficult to describe and no longer imitable by mortals. And thus putting aside the hope of engaging in the construction of similar works, he said he wanted and could only imitate the horse of Trajan, placed in the middle of the atrium, which carried the emperor.
(Ammianus Marcellinus, Res gestae, XV, 10, 15)
And, Constantinus, for his triumphal arch, had no better idea than sacking classical monuments (Traianus, Adrianus, Marcus Aurelius). And, in the same monument, we can admire the classical art, and regret the fall it suffered after the crisis of the third century.

Anyway, that the "style" of Tropaeum Traiani is considered to be not at all connected with classical art is a fundamental fact, because it questions the idea of being an imperial monument.
At least, that panels, that as we have seen, were collected here and there, well "integrated" in local houses and so on.