Trajan\'s Column V Adamklissi

[Tarbicus]

I'm struck by how very similar they are to other attested work by military stonemasons - the column bases from the Mainz principia, for example, or (more tellingly) the better-carved grave stelae. The way that the figures fit the frame of the 'picture' (or don't - witness the three cornicen players in XLII, with the circles of the horns jutting from the frame!), the comparative size of the figures themselves, the way that the pictures are composed - all of these are common to the Adamklissi metopes and to grave art from Roman military sites.

Of course, if they were sculpted by locals under military supervision and patronage.....

They bear similarities to Celtic figures I think.

[tlclark]

Ok, I've taken a long hard good look at the Adamklissi monuments and I have come to the determination that I need much better images than I have.

In specific, the rendition of the faces and the drapery is well outside any Roman tradition, genre or otherwise.

BUT... and here's the big but, I am surprised by some details.

Specifically the chain on one. Not certain here, but the links appear to be figure eight shaped. That's a unique feature of Roman chains we see in archaeological evidence and in the art, and its counter-intuitive to the way most chains are made or represented and argues that we may have an artist looking at actual Roman chains.

However, so many other details are just so off - imho.

So, a crack has been opened.

So...convince me.

Travis

[Tarbicus]

So, a crack has been opened.

So...convince me.

:lol: Check out 'Artistic patronage and the Roman military community in Britain', by Martin Henig. It's available within, 'The Roman Army as a Community', edited by Goldsworthy and Haynes.

It made me think why so many grave stele have figures that look so curiously Celtic anthropomorhic, when other reliefs have such high quality figures at the same time.

[tlclark]

So, a crack has been opened.

So...convince me.

:lol: Check out 'Artistic patronage and the Roman military community in Britain', by Martin Henig. It's available within, 'The Roman Army as a Community', edited by Goldsworthy and Haynes.

Glad to give you the chuckles Jim!

:lol:

Just to clarify... my closer examination has reinforced my belief that these are local artists, but I need better images to make up my mind on the other issues.

Travis

[Nathan Ross]

I am surprised by some details... Specifically the chain on one

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 - there are several other things depicted on the metopes that could surely only have been known about by direct observation - the aforementioned manicae, for example, which as far as I know are represented in few other places (Alba Julia relief springs to mind - not much else). If remains of segmented arm armour had not been found, we might disbelieve the representations of them on the metopes - vice versa, were it not for the metopes we might think the fragments were from gladiatorial armour! 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'. The theory about the sculptors being unencumbered by classical archetypes is also telling, and quite believable IMHO...

The bridges and earthworks are certainly not so inaccurately rendered as to justify the statement tha they 'would fall down'. That's a purely subjective statement, as subjective as suggesting that they got the scale wrong because the walls of Roman fortifications are not 4 ft tall or that legionnaires were not 40 ft tall.

I'm at risk of talking out of my hat (again) here, since I don't have the relevant books with me, but the point about the bridge is, I think, an objective one - the structure is depicted in great detail, with the support struts clearly portrayed. One strut, however, is upside down, and would not support the weight of the bridge above it. The detail must mean that the sculptor was working from a drawing, plan or model of some kind, but the upside-down strut means that in some way the source was misinterpreted - a bit like somebody asked to draw a complicated bit of flat-pack furniture with only a set of unlabelled assembly plans to guide them (!!). This may seem a small point (the rampart turfs are another) but these things add up, I think.

In the past I've been at pains to give credence to the details of some Roman sculptural art - the Arch of Constantine, for example, which interestingly is very much in the 'vernacular' style - although this is mainly in cases (third century, for instance) when other evidence of military matters is scant or non-existent. Trajan's Column, however, perhaps for reasons of groundless prejudice ( :wink: ) I find less convincing. 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.

[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

[Crispvs]

I agree with Nathan's comments so far. I don't think you can discount art just because it does not display the training of the classical schools of Rome of Greece. Just because it does not look 'classical' does not mean it is not the work of a Roman citizen. As most Roman soldiers of the time would have been of provincial heritage it would hardly be surprising to find that army sculpters were not all 'classically trained'. As a comparison, I know a fair bit about what a Roman soldier of a given period could have looked like. I could also draw a reasonable picture that would faithfully depict my image of a Roman soldier. Peter Connolley might paint a picture of exactly the same soldier as me (I have read his books after all) but it would not look the same, even though all of the essential details are the same. The difference between the two would be that he is a trained artist with an appropriate sense of proportion and style, whereas I am not a trained artist and therefore it would be natural for my image to be stylistically and proportionately different. There is no reason that I can see for saying that Roman soldiers could not have carved the Adamklissi metopes. Even if they were experiences sculptors they would not be working to the same formulae that sculptors trained in 'classical' schools would work to.
Adamklissi is not alone here either. However much you can say that other provincial sculpture is 'caracatured' classical, it remains markedly different to what is to be seen in Rome, even when it is in close proximity to more 'classical' images, such as many of the finer Rhineland tombstones. The military sculptures of the Rhineland and northern Britain are not classical, but few would suggest that they were executed by anyone other than the Roman army. An important point to bear in mind is that the Roman army in Trajan's time, for the most part, was not from Rome. Therefore it makes sense to think it would not always have done things the same way as they were done in Rome itself.

"For example, the frontal eye even when in profile, the treatment of drapery as a pattern. All of this is very very different. My suspicion is that this is a group of local artists trying to deal with Roman subject matter in their native style."

I think you will find examples of both those features in the Mainz colomn bases. The various odd anomalies to be observed in each of the four well preserved 'soldier' stones may actually suggest that the sculptors knew more about that actual appearance of soldiers than we do. As they come from a fortress, it is also highly unlikely that they would have been executed by native craftsmen.




(Courtesy of R.A.com imagebase)


(Courtesy of R.A.com imagebase)

These sculptures were carved quite possibly within sight of well executed figural tombstones but the style is not the same. The reason why this is the case does not have to be because one was carved by a soldier and the other was not. One may have been carved by a soldier who came from a family of sculptors and may thus have learned his craft from people established in the classical formulae whereas the other may have learned to sculpt stone in the army without reference to the same set of formulae. The same could easily apply to the Adamklissi metopes. They are in a provincial style but that itself does not discount to high probability that they were sculped by soldiers.

Crispvs

[tlclark]

Crispus,

However much you can say that other provincial sculpture is 'caracatured' classical, it remains markedly different to what is to be seen in Rome, even when it is in close proximity to more 'classical' images, such as many of the finer Rhineland tombstones.

Most of the examples I cited, the tomb of the Haterii, the circus magistrate relief are FROM Rome, so this is not the case. The "genre" style is as much a part of Rome as anywhere. "Provincial" is a loaded and pergorative term IMO. It is used to describe this style it's true, but it's really an out of date term, even though I used it carelessly earlier myself. That's how ingrained these ideas are.

In truth, we see aspects of genre art in both the Antonine Column base and the Columns of Trajan, and M. Aurelius. By the time of the tetrarchs, it is THE official style. It is as native to Rome as the toga. It is not an import from the provinces it is an export TO the provinces. There is no local monumental sculptural tradition in most of these places, so when it appears, we have to ask, where does it come from? It comes from the Romans. Adamklissi, is frankly, one of the exceptions.

The military sculptures of the Rhineland and northern Britain are not classical, but few would suggest that they were executed by anyone other than the Roman army. An important point to bear in mind is that the Roman army in Trajan's time, for the most part, was not from Rome.

I think the Mainz stelae are excellent examples because they look nothing like the Adamklissi reliefs. To me they look as different as night and day. They are fully within the context of Roman genre or 'provincial art'. They resemble the reliefs from the tomb of the Haterii, and many other genre examples, the relief of the vicomagistri or the relief of the circus magistrate, all famous examples.

You suggest that the treatment of the eyes and drapery of the Adamklissi monument is simply in keeping with the provincial examples. It is clearly not. Look how big and ponderous the eyes in the Adamklissi reliefs are, how there is no sense of teh pupil, which by this time was carved in the Roman tradition. In all three examples you posed, the profile is a primitive rendition of a classical form, with the eyes in profile, not frontal aspect, and not at all carved in a similar way. They are both similar in that they are both primitive, but similar only in the way that masks from west Africa and Oceania appear similar, but are very different in their details.

The drapery is simplified, but not utterly abstracted as in the Adamklissi. Compare for example the folds in drapery on these stelae to the heavy yoke-like folds of the paenula in the Adamklissi monument. One is a simplification of a classical detail. The other demonstrates no affinity with it what-so-ever. Primitivism alone is not what connects these two, but the style of primitivism. They really are very different.

So I completely disagree with your assessment here and I think I am on the more solid stylistic grounds. If we could put on next to the other and see them in person I think I could convince even you that this is the case. The genre reliefs employ all of the conventions of the Roman genre style we are used to seeing. The Adamklissi metopes simply do not. This doesn't make them inferior in any way, but it does make them different in terms of style, and that style, is at least as big a hurdle to reconstruction as the stylisitic conventions of the Column of Trajan.

You do raise an interesting point to, which I alluded to earlier. What exactly is a "Roman". These reliefs in dacia would have been made up to a generation after the occupation of dacia. What would these artists have been exposed to? What was their inspiration? What did they think of themselves? Were they not "Roman" in some sense? It's impossible to say for sure. We probably should be speaking in terms of fudge factors here like "Romano-dacian" at this point. What I think we are seeing, and I've said this before, is an attempt by local artists to appropriate a Roman subject matter with interesting mixed results.

As far as to who carved these things, whether they were soldiers or not, that is an entirely impossible question to answer. If you've ever picked up hammer and chisel you know why most sculpture is a specialized profession, even at the level of the stelae you reproduced. The statement "As they come from a fortress, it is also highly unlikely that they would have been executed by native craftsmen. " is pure supposition. Even in our culture, military bases are swarming with locals and civilians. Given the vast retinues of slaves, hanger-ons, collaborators and what not, the argument that they MUST be the work of soldiers is just pure wishful-thinking. Most likely they are the work of craftsmen, camp followers or recently transported settlers, (and perhaps some veterans) or integrated second generation locals. Any of these would have had more than a passing understanding of Roman military grab to recreate these sculptures. At the same time assuming that they represent accurate garb is another pure supposition.

Let me ask you, why do military historians suppose that soldiers are so slavishly dedicated to accurately recreating their own gear? Rather the reverse is often true in civlian art. Romans had ambition and often potrayed themselves in a grander light. Roman generals have been mimicking Alexander and Hellenistic kings. Merchants and bakers used art to self-aggrandize themselves. Or do bakers just have more imagination than soldiers?

Like I said at the beginning of this, this is a huge interdisciplinary cat-fight. I will admit to a certain ignorance of military matters, but I have also seen military historians make hay out of obscure details that are clearly just artistic conventions that have a long history.

The column of Trajan is a perfect example. It is the first evidence presented when it agrees with a military historians' reconstruction and the first condemned when it doesn't. That is selective quotation and it's very convenient.

I admit, when I first starting in on the Adamklissi, I was convinced I was seeing just more of the same selective evidence, where the art is interpreted in light of archaeological evidence. I've seen this a dozen times, a line or a piece of an image bears some passing to a find and suddenly, it's evidence that the image is validated, authentic, made by soldiers, when in fact its reading evidence into something that may or may not be there.

I've had a good hard look at the Adamklissi monument and I have to admit, it seems that there is more 'there' there than I first gave it credit for, but I still think some people's enthusiasm for it is a little over the top.

Travis

[Crispvs]

Travis,

I was not trying to suggest for a moment that the term 'provincial' indicates any one style. Rather, it is a term which simply means 'of the provinces' and as such encompasses any regional style which might be found within the provinces of the empire. In that respect the Adamklissi metopes are every bit as 'provincial' as the Mainz column bases or sculptures to be found along Hadrian's wall and it is hardly any wonder that their styles are so different. But as I have already pointed out parallels can certainly be drawn, just as parallels will inevitably be drawn between any of these sets of sculptures and sculptures in Rome. Every area has its own stylistic variants. Palmyrene art is formalised along certain lines and those lines are not particularly Roman, but again parallels can easily be drawn. If you want to call certain parallels 'classical' by all means go ahead but don't let that blot out the regional differences. Legions were based in and therefore recruited in very different areas to each other or Rome. Therefore the culture and presumably the artistic outlook of each frontier military unit would have been different. Depictions of Minerva and Hercules, for example, from forts in Britain retain the 'classical' identifying features of the helmet, shield and spear for Minerva and the club for Hercules but that is where the similarity ends. Thus these figures are not 'classical', primitive or otherwise, they are stylistically northern British with added classically inspired attributes. I posted up the pictures of the Mainz bases not to show that they are the same as the Adamklissi reliefs but to show how different they were, as well as both being different to Reliefs in Rome, whilst still exhibitting marked parallels.
It seems to me that you rail against the Adamklissi metopes because they do not seem to fit a particular model. I see no reason why they should fit a particular model other than the obvious one that memorials to military prowess tend to show military men, equipment or both. The style in which those things are carved is simply a matter of the background of the sculptors. The same is true of any military sculpture outside Italy. You could hardly say that the reliefs in the attic of the arch at Orange, for instance, were 'classical' yet they make the same points.
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. This delay may have been to raise the funds for the massive undertaking of Trajan's redevelopment of the centre of Rome, it may have been in order to wait and make sure a third campaign was not called for before putting a complete record in stone or it may have been for some other reason. The tropaeun traiani was surely not erected on the closing day of battle but it makes some sense to think that it would have been erected and the metopes installed before the majority of the army returned to its home bases and the emperor returned to Rome. This may be part of the reason that classically trained sculptors were not brought out from Rome to do the carving. Soldiers who had been recruited in Pannonia would not be likely to carve in the same style as soldiers recruited in Germany, let alone artists trained in Rome.

"the reliefs from the tomb of the Haterii, and many other genre examples, the relief of the vicomagistri or the relief of the circus magistrate, all famous examples"

Could you post up pictures or links to pictures of these sculptures? They may be famous in the world of art history but as my principal interest is in equipment I tend to concentrate much more on provincial sculpture than sculpture of dubious educational merit (to me that is) in Rome. If you show me some pictures I may be able to get some sense of what you mean by 'genre' sculpture and I may understand some of your points more clearly.

"Let me ask you, why do military historians suppose that soldiers are so slavishly dedicated to accurately recreating their own gear?"

Its not so much that we think that soldiers were "slavishly dedicated" to getting it right. It is simply that the things depicted in much of the sculpture found in miliatry contexts tend to bear a strong resemblance to things found in the archaeological record, often in the same places, proving the merit of these sculptures as evidence. 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.

"If you've ever picked up hammer and chisel"

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. I didn't carry on with attempts to carve stone but I did persevere with bone carving. Within two years of seeing my first cow femur and wondering how to cut it, I was doing most of the bone work for my group and was becoming skilled in carving small scale figural decoration. I was not born with this talent. I learned to perform a skill.

"the stelae you reproduced."

Technical point: stelae are funerary monuments. The Mainz pedestals are the bases to columns which would probably have been part of the principia of a fort. Therefore they are not stelae.

"Given the vast retinues of slaves, hanger-ons, collaborators and what not, the argument that they MUST be the work of soldiers is just pure wishful-thinking".

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.

"The column of Trajan is a perfect example. It is the first evidence presented when it agrees with a military historians' reconstruction and the first condemned when it doesn't. That is selective quotation and it's very convenient."

As I said before, we are of one mind on this point.

Anyway it is high time I went to bed. Maybe we will continue this discussion in the morning.

Crispvs

[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

[tlclark]

Just thought about this and I wanted to ask a question.

Art historians obviously look at these things as art, and I realize that gives me a set of assumptions.

Art is made by artist's/specialized labor, so that means they are not likely to be made by soldiers.

Art has form, composition, intent and style. Since I understand the limits of style, that means I would naturally defend attacks on the TC's accuracy based on style, and likewise, I am skeptical of reconstructions based on the Adamklissi monument again, because of its style.

Internally I'm pretty consistent, but I could be consistently wrong.:wink:

I think all of these assumptions are defensible, but they are assumptions.

Now I have a pretty good idea about what I think are the assumptions/viewpoints of military historians might, but far be it for me to put words in their mouths.

Someone speaking from the other side, what do you think are the limitations/assumptions from a military historian's point of view?

Travis

[Crispvs]

Travis,

Thanks for the reply. I think you are right that for the most part we are talking past each other about the same things. Overall I agree with the majority of your last couple of posts too. Normally I am one who jumps up and warns people about making too many assumptions. It is good to be reminded about it myself from time to time, although I would have to say that much of the supposition cited above is not actually mine but is the generally accepted line (perhaps often too unquestioningly.

The are just one or two points I should still respond to.

"Well both are debated."

Actually the dedication date for Trajan's column is fairly secure because it appears on the back of his coin issues for (if I recall correctly) AD113. A case has been made for the frieze having been carved later, but when I asked Jon Coulston about this a bit over a year ago he seemed to think the idea unlikely (actually his words, when I asked him about the article I had read back in 1993 or 1994 entitled 'Hadrian's Column of Trajan', were: "It sank without a trace.").

"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?"

I think, to be honest, that the answer is probably yes and yes. It is true that many Roman military sculptures could have been made in 'civilian' workshops which were closely associated with the army, but the number of inscriptions and carvings, both competent and incompetent, on milestones and at quarries along Hadrian's Wall, is strongly suggestive of soldiers with at least a basic stone carving competence. It is also worth remembering that legionary soldiers were also military engineers and the building of roads and fortifications ranked high on their list of regular duties. Both these activities would require a percentage of the soldiers to be competent stone workers, if only to have the ability to cut and shape building blocks and road paving to fit neatly with others. It is likely that many of the small altars which are quite common finds would have been made by soldiers for their own use. These are normally simple affairs but have the usual top associated with altars, although the quality of the inscription is highly variable. The are also numerous small stone inscriptions along Hadran's Wall, saying: 'This section was built by the century of XYZ'. Again, some of these are very well carved, others not so.

However, evidence from Mainz tells us that there at least a non-military market developed for sculpture, as it did later in Britain. Thus we also find figural stelae commemorating women and even children. This is strongly suggestive of civilian sculptors catering to a non-military market and possibly making their services available to soldiers. I still feel though that the fairly accurate depiction of military equipment in sculpture is indicative of soldier-sculptors. Sculpture was widely used by the army and it is thus likely that the army would have sculptors within its ranks. I do not know of any soldier being listed as a sculptor on his stele, but I have been told of a soldier who is listed on his stele as a painter. The Vindolanda tablets also give evidence of soldiers operating their own tile factory. If the army had its own painters and tile makers, then it is not a huge leap to think that much of the body of military sculpture is the work of military sculptors. In addition to drilling, Roman soldiers, like soldiers today had other roles and duties to fulfill, such as clerks, tilemakers, surveyors, painters, metalworkers, builders and, in all probability, sculptors.

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

As I said before, the accurate dipiction of military equipment indicates a familiarity with the subject matter. Obviously it cannot be proven but this suggests that the sculptors were soldiers. I would contend that if they had the requisite skill to do the carving they would probably, whether consciously or not, depict details more accurately than people who were not familiar with those details. As you already know, I do not consider that the roles of soldier and artist are mutually exclusive.

"Someone speaking from the other side, what do you think are the limitations/assumptions from a military historian's point of view?"

Well the obvious limitation which I have suffered from in this conversation is the fact that I look at archaeologically recovered items and sculptures which depict military subjects, which help me to make sense of the physical remains. What I do not normally look at are works of sculpture depicting everyday civilian subjects, which means I probably miss out on important correllations and comparisons which you, looking primarily at sculpture, would see more readily. Another limitation which we suffer is that where the art historian has primarily to look at works of art which are still extanct, we have scraps of material with huge gulfs in between which we have to try to bridge to make sense of them. We have fantastic resources such as the Vindolanda tablets and numerous papairi from Egypt to draw on, and often more than anything else they show us what we do not know. These are like fantastic and lush oases in a wide desert. Using archological evidence we take inscriptions, coins, the remains of buildings and surviving examples of material culture and add them to enlightening passages found deep wthin the pages of ancient literature to try and find paths accross the desert to the next distant oasis. In trying to link these things together we run the risk of making unsupported assumptions which we then find ourselves forced to rely on.

Crispvs

[tlclark]

Crispus,

Sorry to take so long to reply.

I asked my prof the other day about the date of the column. She said that nothing is more spurious than coin dates.

Still, She figures that's about when the column was done but that it's obvious that large portions of the Basilica Ulpia and the Forum of Trajan are much later.

I asked her when the Adamklissi monument was and she said "either before or after that"

Typical archaeologist. Won't commit to anything. What a dodge.

About soldier/artisans:

I think it's a matter of timing. During the campaign and initial phases I'm betting that most soldiers had more important things to attend to, however, during the long occupation phases, which admittedly, were endless, there are any number of skills that a soldier could pick up, that seems reasonable, but there is no way to know for sure. As far as sculptors in the military, this is a hard one to answer. A lot of things that we would think of as unnecessary to the military do show up.

As evidence I offer this:

http://mdfay.blogspot.com/

This guy is the official ARTIST for the US marine corps. Who knew? So maybe they did have artists! Although that brings up another issue. The idea of an "Artist" is really a post-renaissance phenomenon, but that's another debate.

On the accuracy of a soldier/artist, that is a thorny one for me, but as I said, Tarbicus is slowly (very slowly) converting me to this view, but as I mentioned, the thing that turned me around on the Adamklissi thing is the chain links, which look exactly like depictions on the Arch of Septimus Severus.

Now here's the rub. The Arch of Septimus Severus was certainly not made by soldiers. So that argues for the reliefs being the works of sensitive artists and not soldiers. Every time I look this thing gets more complicated.

I have some longer comments on the methodological differences of Art historians and military historians, but I need to get back to work.

Thanks again,

Travis

[Nathan Ross]

Travis wrote:

As far as sculptors in the military, this is a hard one to answer. A lot of things that we would think of as unnecessary to the military do show up.

Well...

Habet praeterea legio fabros tignarios structores carpentarios ferrarios, pictores reliquosque artifices ad hibernorum aedificia fabricanda... (etc)
Vegetius, II.XI

There are several points to argue about this, of course - which era is Vegetius writing about, are these craftsmen soldiers or supernumaries, and what exactly is meant by 'pictores' anyway. I could be wrong, but I'd hazard a guess that these men are what is called, by the lovely modern expression, 'monumental masons' - i.e the sculptors of grave stelae, plus all manner of other reliefs, metopes &c. We can at least surmise that a properly-equipped legion would have access to these sort of skilled men.

As for the Marine artist - I believe the guy is actually an artist employed by the Marines rather than a Marine trained to paint! Official war artists have a long pedigree - all those Vorticists and so on sent to the trenches in WWI, for instance... Not to mention, of course, the the nameless artists whose 'sketchbooks' so inspired Trajan's Column! :twisted:

[tlclark]

Nathan

Wow.

Well the context places them with the fabri, so that would indicate craftsmen wouldn't it?

Actually, there is a reference somewhere about the triumph of Sept. Severus. In the triumph there are individuals carrying plaques depicting the victories of the campaign, and I believe that THEY are referred to as 'pictores'. These narrative scenes are largely believed to the source for the images on the Arch of Sept. Severus.

but that is an odd case.

hmmm.