Trajan\'s Column V Adamklissi

[Nathan Ross]

This is a continuation of some points raised in the 'segmentata use' thread - relatively speaking, how reliable are Trajan's Column and/or the Adamklissi metopes? What can we say about who might have made them, and bearing this in mind what theories can be drawn as to the authenticity of the depictions?

There are always two strains of Roman art, an official high style and a vernacular genre style, the characteristics of both are well known... The column of Trajan has elements of both. The Adamklissi monument has none. It can not be founded in any tradition of Roman Art. It's an isolate. That argues heavily for local workman.

But how widely does the field of 'Roman art' extend? While it might be fallacious of military historians to assume that the only people on the Danube frontier capable of wielding a chisel were Roman soldiers, surely it's not necessary to award the plaudits to the Dacians? Does, for example, this fall into the 'vernacular v official' argument?:



Made by the 20th legion at High Rochester in Britain - a pretty crude bit of carving. Adamklissi is much finer work, but the quality difference between the above and Trajan's Column is so vast that surely the metopes could fall into it somewhere? Or not?

Another consideration is the origin of the soldiers themselves - by the early second century, many of them would have been recruited in Germany or the Danubian provinces anyway, and have a quite different cultural and artistic tradition - quite apart from the column carvers never having seen the army, much of the army may never have seen Rome!

Quote:
Whereas Trajan's Column may have been carved by foreign slaves who had never seen a legion in action.


There is, not one iota of evidence for this. This basically grows out of the old canard that Romans were not capable of such a high classical style...

In military history terms, I believe it grows out of the notable mistakes in equipment portrayals on the column, rather than considerations of style.

Quote:
There are all kinds of theories about models or sketchbooks that they might have worked from.

Argh! The ghosts of Andre Grabar, Weitzmann and Brilliant follow me even to RAT!!

Basically the whole model/sketchbook theory is just that...theory.

Quite, but what other theories are there to explain the discrepancies in the depictions on the column? I hadn't heard of the gentlemen mentioned above, but they appear (courtesy of Google) to have written largely on late Roman religious art. The 'sketchbooks' theory was, AFAIK, first proposed by Ian Richmond in his 1935 book 'Trajan's Army on Trajan's Column'. A quote:

"The scenes must be the result of working up the contents of an artist's wartime sketchbook... each is based clearly upon a careful sketch, which must have been made in the war area from factual details on the spot, because nowhere else can such things have been seen or imagined in accurate combination."

Disregarding the slightly quaint notion of Roman 'war artists' sitting around sketching as the legions storm the palisades, there is surely too much detail in the column to argue for lack of specialised input, but too many glaring errors to suggest the work of experts. The column must be based on something, surely - why is such a gaffe to assume some sort of 'military advisor' overseeing aspects of the work (with drawings!)?

[Tarbicus]

Whereas Trajan's Column may have been carved by foreign slaves who had never seen a legion in action.
There is, not one iota of evidence for this. This basically grows out of the old canard that Romans were not capable of such a high classical style...

In 'The Artists of the Ara Pacis; the process of Hellenization in Roman Relief Sculpture', by Diane Atnally Conlin, she firmly believes the Greek master theory must be abandoned. The book is the result of an in-depth analysis of the monument, right down to the chisel marks, which she refers to as "technical signatures". I haven't read it all yet (it's a fairly weighty tome), but she seems to know her stuff. Bearing in mind the Ara Pacis was created late 1stC. B.C., that surely leaves plenty of room for established Italian-Roman workshops to have created Trajan's Column, imho. The point being that slaves did not actually carve Trajan's Column, but artesans and manumitted men who had undergone training outside of Greek workshops.

Btw, here's an example of Dacian figurative art for reference: Bronze bust (goddess Bendis)

The sketchbook theory's interesting, but what would they sketch on? Wood? Or would they have, or be given the means, for expensive papyrus or vellum to doodle on whilst at the frontier? Kind of an Imperial war correspondent reminiscent of the 19th Century. I personally struggle with that picture somehow, but then I don't know Richmond's work.

why is such a gaffe to assume some sort of 'military advisor' overseeing aspects of the work

I mentioned a paper in the Segmentata thread that proposes the military where great patrons of the arts in the provinces they were stationed, and was encouraged as part of the Romanisation of the local population. I think it's utterly feasible that the sculptors in Dacia had plenty of input from the Roman military there, which would explain the accuracy of the content if not the forms. Perhaps back in Rome the column had a military advisor in the form of a young tribune with an eye for the Arts who had spent some time in Dacia? Alternatively, a member of the Imperial Court who had accompanied Trajan, but had no eye for military detail, which would give a reason for the accuracy of the forms but not the content? That assumes the TC segs are wrong :wink:

[Praefectusclassis]

had no eye for military detail

Or they just didn't care about accuracy of details? It is quite conceivable that the story/characters mattered more than the specific details of equipment.

[Tarbicus]

had no eye for military detail

Or they just didn't care about accuracy of details? It is quite conceivable that the story/characters mattered more than the specific details of equipment.

Absolutely possible, much like Hollywood today. But, why the accuracy on other details? Could it be because they were still available as reference, perhaps from Praetorian guardsmen, but a legionary in the Dacian Wars was not, within Rome itself, and thus the written descriptions of those things not readily available were interpreted from books, or left to the memory of an adviser who was there?

[tlclark]

tlclark wrote:

Well now we are going to open up a huge interdisciplinary catfight, but, here goes.

Sounds like fun - can anyone join in?

Oh Vey!! Well fools rush in...

These posts are going to be HUGE, there is just so much to cover. From the start I will readily acknowledge we are talking about generalities and subjective criteria, which we all try to avoid, but inevitably end up with anyway.

Now with that piece of shameless a**-covering out of the way, let's begin.

There are always two strains of Roman art, an official high style and a vernacular genre style

But how widely does the field of 'Roman art' extend?

Pretty far in fact. That was the whole point of bringing up these two monuments. Both are 'official' in the sense that they are commissioned by (most likely) the imperial household. Both are made within a generation of each other, to commemorate the same event. Yet they are so radically different.

There are lots of issues to deal with.

Verism vs. Idealism
Italic/Etruscan traditions vs. Hellenism
Plebian vs. Patrician Art

In all cases we have to remember that these are our terms and that the boundaries we put down are totally arbitrary ones to help us make sense of it all. They clearly meant very little to the Romans.

but the quality difference between the above and Trajan's Column is so vast that surely the metopes could fall into it somewhere? Or not?

I would say not. The qualities of the genre relief you offer are exactly what we expect to see in the provinces or so-called "plebian" or genre art in Italy. When we look at the Adamklissi monument we see a relief style that is completely different. The difference is largely in the way they approach the figure. The genre reliefs are in the realm of what we would call "caricature". They are clearly based on natural classical forms and quotation, but done in a primitive style. (Whether intentional or due to a lack of skill is an argument for another time) The Adamklissi metopes are not caricature in anything like a similar sense. The reliefs are linear, flat, and there is no sense that the artist had any greater inkling, or even cared for that matter, about the classical tradition in human form.

Another consideration is the origin of the soldiers themselves - by the early second century, many of them would have been recruited in Germany or the Danubian provinces anyway, and have a quite different cultural and artistic tradition - quite apart from the column carvers never having seen the army, much of the army may never have seen Rome!

Well I think the column is reflective of military traditions available on view to the artists in Rome. Whether or not that makes it a good model for reconstructing the average kit of the average legionaire on campaign in Dacia is a problem. But placing faith in a style so divergent as the Adamklissi monument is no less problematic.

On Trajan's column made by foreign labor...

In military history terms, I believe it grows out of the notable mistakes in equipment portrayals on the column, rather than considerations of style.

And of course literary sources never lie and archaeological evidence is never arbitrary or subjective. :wink:

That's the huge problem with all of this.

It depends on which evidence you decide is more authentic, and then you end up judging the other using the first as a standard.

I think people quote the column too selectively. For example, no one harps on its depiction of pontoon bridges. It's often the first place people go when it agrees with their theories and the last place they go when it disagrees with some scant literary evidence.

I think that all misses the point of the column in the first place. The column is a realization of Trajan's two campaigns in Dacia, and it is not a stand alone object. It was framed between two libraries with galleries, which means it was meant to be seen. It's purpose is the commemoration of Trajan and his accomplishments, and it does that very well. It's was never meant to be a military encyclopedia, but we end up mining it for those details.

I think on the whole it reads very well in what it was supposed to do. Likewise, the main purpose of the Adamklissi monument was to show the subjection of dacians by Romans. That's a much simpler story, and hence, requires a much less (weighted eurocentric bias coming here) "developed" style.

It's a judgement call and it basically comes down to this:

Which is then more accurate? An accomplished Roman artist looking at materials at Rome, which though while not necessarily right in combination or period, are nevertheless 'authentic' or a primitive style from original models but so primitive in style it's hard to tell what they are making?

Disregarding the slightly quaint notion of Roman 'war artists' sitting around sketching as the legions storm the palisades, there is surely too much detail in the column to argue for lack of specialised input, but too many glaring errors to suggest the work of experts.

We don't even know if Romans cared about "experts". I think the art historical record demonstrates that Romans first liked things that communicated what they wanted to say about themselves and second, were impressive to look at.

Historical accuracy is a hobgoblin of archaeologists/historians & re-enactors.

The column must be based on something, surely - why is such a gaffe to assume some sort of 'military advisor' overseeing aspects of the work (with drawings!)?

Well the best guess is that it is based on the books of Trajan. Hence it's association with the Ulpian libraries on the Basilica Ulpia, and it's scroll like form.

This opens up the possibility that Trajan's works were illustrated, a fabulous possibility that - unfortunately - becomes less likely the deeper we look.

Anyway, that's a good start, I'm sure I'll have TONS to say on thsi matter.

I am an adjunct prof, and everybody knows how much we like to hear ourselves talk.

Travis

[tlclark]

had no eye for military detail

Or they just didn't care about accuracy of details? It is quite conceivable that the story/characters mattered more than the specific details of equipment.

Ding!

Give that man a cigar!!

That's my point exactly. The whole context framing the column is Trajan's library and Basilica Ulpia.

Two things.

1) It never was meant to be a single column as it is today, or seen from scaffolding a few feet away.

2) It was meant to be see from about 20-30 ft away from galleries in the library and the basilica.

At that distance, details of segmentatae could not be read, but legionnaries wearing segmentatae could.

Travis

[Tarbicus]

We don't even know if Romans cared about "experts".

But what if the people overseeing the work were de facto "experts" themselves (i.e. military), which seems to have been fairly common in provincial art?

[tlclark]

In 'The Artists of the Ara Pacis; the process of Hellenization in Roman Relief Sculpture', by Diane Atnally Conlin, she firmly believes the Greek master theory must be abandoned.

Great book BTW. For the later periods I strongly recommend Thomas Mathews and Jas Elsner. Picking up Gardner's art history I still see that they are following Gibbons and Winckelman. In time, this too will be corrected.

As an undergraduate I learned that there was a very scientific method for determining if a work was "Roman" or by a "Greek" master.

If they liked it...it was Greek.

It was infuriating. Some people still aren't giving up the ghost. The Laocoon is still covered as a hellenistic work, even though the finds at Sperlonga have firmly dated it to the reign of Tiberius. The "And but..." crowd argue that it's still a hellenistic work, BUT under that logic all the art currently made in America is technically British.

I think it's utterly feasible that the sculptors in Dacia had plenty of input from the Roman military there, which would explain the accuracy of the content if not the forms.

Minor quibble here. If the form is not accurate, how do you know the content is accurate? How do you convey content without form? :wink:

It's a judgement call at best. You make your bets and take your chances.

Perhaps back in Rome the column had a military advisor in the form of a young tribune with an eye for the Arts who had spent some time in Dacia? Alternatively, a member of the Imperial Court who had accompanied Trajan, but had no eye for military detail, which would give a reason for the accuracy of the forms but not the content? That assumes the TC segs are wrong :wink:

Or that they didn't care to get them right in the first place. I think they were going for recognition not accuracy. They wanted everyone to look and say "Hey, legionnaires!" Not "Hey, segmenatatae from the Dacian campaign!" Everyone already knew they were looking at the Dacian campaign.

Travis

[Tarbicus]

Minor quibble here. If the form is not accurate, how do you know the content is accurate? How do you convey content without form? Wink

Easy. Just because the shapes are wrong doesn't mean they shouldn't be there. Likewise, just because the shape seems correct doesn't mean it should be there. :wink: Draughtsmanship alone is not the main criteria for the accurate depiction of content, imho.

Or that they didn't care to get them right in the first place. I think they were going for recognition not accuracy. They wanted everyone to look and say "Hey, legionnaires!" Not "Hey, segmenatatae from the Dacian campaign!" Everyone already knew they were looking at the Dacian campaign.

I agree, but that doesn't mean the Adamklissi Monument should be dismissed because the sculptors in Rome had better skills. I compare Trajan's Column as a Hollywood 35mm epic shot in a major studio, whereas the Adamklissi Monument could be a humbler documentary shot on location on video. Now tell me, which one would you trust more as a document, regardless of the technology and camera crew involved?

Where they were physically made is a major factor for me.

[tlclark]

Draughtsmanship alone is not the main criteria for the accurate depiction of content, imho.

Thank goodness or art would be pretty darn dull! But my point is that at some point, draughtmenship is a good thing, especially is you are trying to reconstruct something from it. Now making a seggie from Adamklissi would not be as hard as making a woman from a Dekooning, but it's difficult. At that point you have to ask yourself, are you judging the seggie in light of Adamklissi, or Adamklissi in light of the finds at Newstead/Corbridge etc.? Since I am not an expert in segmentatae I will have to defer on this one, but having seen good repros of Adamklissi, I would say that it seems a big challenge.

I agree, but that doesn't mean the Adamklissi Monument should be dismissed because the sculptors in Rome had better skills. I compare Trajan's Column as a Hollywood 35mm epic shot in a major studio, whereas the Adamklissi Monument could be a humbler documentary shot on location on video. Now tell me, which one would you trust more as a document, regardless of the technology and camera crew involved?.

Excellent point. We would be very much at a loss without the wonderful genre scenes of bakers, knife sellers and other trades. That's one of the great values of Roman art, it isn't all just Emperors and generals and we get a look at a broad spectrum of Roman society.

I will have to take a closer look at the Adamklissi material, but it still seems a world away, from even the genre style.

Travis

[Tarbicus]

We would be very much at a loss without the wonderful genre scenes of bakers, knife sellers and other trades. That's one of the great values of Roman art, it isn't all just Emperors and generals and we get a look at a broad spectrum of Roman society.

Couldn't agree more.

I will have to take a closer look at the Adamklissi material, but it still seems a world away, from even the genre style.

Think of the reliefs in context of only literal iconography with the genre being obvious, at least that's what I do. The effect I feel is from the initial approach to the monument itself, but I've never been there and am only going by the impression I get from photographs. That said, I've never stood at the base of Trajan's Column, but I have stood at the base of similar works of both type, and the feel I get from them are different, which would make sense in a way.

[tlclark]

As per Geofreddo's request. I think that we should discuss the Antonine Column base, which is germane to the question.

I have posted my pictures from the Vatican here.

http://astro.temple.edu/~tlclark/pictures/ant_pius

The column base is now in the Vatican courtyard, but originally sat on the site in the Campus Martius that was believed to mark the site of Antoninus Pius' Apotheosis.

The column was removed but the base is in excellent condition. It has four sides, two of which are decorated with decursio scenes, or depictions of the calvary and signifiers. The other side is an allegorical depiction of the apotheosis of Antoninus Pius and Faustina, complete with an allegorical figure of the Goddess Roma, and a personification of what is most likely the Campus Martius itself. The obelisk held by the semi-nude youth is probably a reference to the horologium of Augustus, also on the Campus Martius, near his mausoleum.

The fourth side is the inscription.

The most intriguing aspect of this is the wide variance in style between the decursio and the apotheosis scene. The latter is an example of classic idealism with classical proportions, figures and motifs. The former is a piece of Roman genre, showing a real event, the decursio in a caricatured style, violating all rules of scale, proportion and perspective.

Although we see elements of primitivism and genre in the column of Trajan, there was a very strong attempt to create a unified style. There's some awkwardness at times, such as legionnaires making buildings smaller than they are, but you can see the attempts at maintaining a classical style.

Here the decursio is presented with no such self-consciousness. The heads and hands are overly large, like what we have become accustomed to see on reliefs like that of the circus magistrate or the genre reliefs of the Flavian period. The scale is not proportional, but heirarchal, so the horses are, appropriately, far smaller than they should be.

Of course that's easy to do with two separate scenes as on the column base, unlike the column which has a continuous narrative.

But the most important thing is that it demonstrates a fundamental shift in Roman art, away from classicism and realism, or even a unified style, and towards narrative and story telling. This trend had been coming for a long time and it can be seen in both works from the Flavian and Trajanic period, but I think this is the most obvious example.

It also shows how unpreoccupied with stylistic purity the Romans were. Stylisitc purity is largely a modern preoccupation. They were above all, stylistic pragmatists. Whatever style conveyed the message best was acceptable, even if it mixed styles on the same monument.

Bringing this back to Adamklissi and TC, we can see this clearly. Local or provincial styles were more than acceptable at Adamklissi, even for an official monument. Local style at Adamklissi may not have been just 'acceptable' - as in that was all they could muster - but actually preferable, as a demonstration of dominion over the locals.

It demonstrates exactly why dependence on art as a source text is SOOOO difficult.

Anyway, the pictures are mine, feel free to use them as you wish.

Travis.

[Nathan Ross]

Travis, I can't access your page of pics from the Vatican. Nevertheless, here are the reliefs in question, I believe:

Antonine Column Base Reliefs

And here, for contrast, are Some of the metopes from Adamklissi

Quite a few differences there alright. And more examples of wacky segmentata on the Antonine praetorians! This is an important (and rather obvious) point, however - we have archeological remains of Roman segmented armour, and Roman helmets, that do not resemble those on Trajan's column (which isn't to say that the column representations aren't authentic, just that we have examples that contradict them...). Adamklissi, on the other hand, shows soldiers equipped very differently - and the majority of equipment items portrayed have been evidenced by archeology. Not just the helmets with the cross bracing but also the armouring of the right arm - these are telling details, and must surely be drawn from accurate observation. The column, on the other hand, is also very detailed - more so, in fact - but the details are often wrong The details are also often right, as far as we know, but if a bridge was constructed the way it is (very graphically) portrayed on the column it would fall down - if turfs were laid into a rampart like that they would slump into a muddy heap before the first Dacian foot was planted upon it. These are not just errors caused by the demands of narrative or the shortcuts of artistic economy - they are clear examples of the artists getting it wrong.

Which is not to say that said artists were Greeks or slaves, or that Romans were incapable of fine stonework - just that somewhere in the translation from original drawing (and there must have been original drawings of some sort), or perhaps before that, certain details were lost or muddled while others remained strikingly clear. Clearly, however, the Roman public and the commissioners of the column either didn't know or didn't care! (and the remarks on the purpose of the column are very pertinent here - it wasn't intended to help military historians of the future, clearly!)

Local or provincial styles were more than acceptable at Adamklissi, even for an official monument. Local style at Adamklissi may not have been just 'acceptable' - as in that was all they could muster - but actually preferable, as a demonstration of dominion over the locals.

It demonstrates exactly why dependence on art as a source text is SOOOO difficult.

Aye, point taken there. I'm still not convinced by the idea that the artists must have been Dacians - it seems like a default option. Are there examples of Dacian relief sculpture that resemble the metopes? If not, you're consigning them to a hazy realm of mystery. Certainly there's a lot of difference between the carvings at Adamklissi and the Antonine Column bases - if they are representative of the 'vernacular' style you mentioned. Looking at the carvings again, however, 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. There is no 'background' to any of them, of course - the pictures exist in a hazy shallow pictorial space: on the grave pictures, this is the non-space of Elysium, where the soldier is free to engage in his favourite activities (feasting, riding down the enemy etc) - in effect, might the pictures from Adamklissi be intended in a similar way? The is also a memorial altar at the site, dating to several years before the Tropaeum and inscribed with the names of the dead soldiers - is it too fanciful to imagine that the representations of soldiers on the later victory monument are intended as similar commemoration of the dead - carved by the soldiers themselves, in demotic military style, to honour their fallen comrades?

[tlclark]

The column, on the other hand, is also very detailed - more so, in fact - but the details are often wrong The details are also often right, as far as we know, but if a bridge was constructed the way it is (very graphically) portrayed on the column it would fall down - if turfs were laid into a rampart like that they would slump into a muddy heap before the first Dacian foot was planted upon it. These are not just errors caused by the demands of narrative or the shortcuts of artistic economy - they are clear examples of the artists getting it wrong.

First, sorry about the link, I have looked into it and I can't figure out why that folder is forbidden when I just changed the permissions. I will try to see if I can get it fixed.

On other matters I think that the above statement is purely subjective. I think that within the bounds of Roman artistic convention the column is surprisingly accurate. 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.

The particulars about the sod is something I don't know about so I can't say on that issue but I disagree with the idea that the artist's got some things 'wrong'. Rather it is an issue of focus and convention. Within the convention and context of the time, the column reads very well, and by well, I mean accurate to the times.

Perhaps the Adamklissi monument reads well too, but the style makes the issue difficult (though I seem to be the odd man out on this issue)

Clearly, however, the Roman public and the commissioners of the column either didn't know or didn't care! (and the remarks on the purpose of the column are very pertinent here - it wasn't intended to help military historians of the future, clearly!)

That's the truth!

Local or provincial styles were more than acceptable at Adamklissi, even for an official monument. Local style at Adamklissi may not have been just 'acceptable' - as in that was all they could muster - but actually preferable, as a demonstration of dominion over the locals.

It demonstrates exactly why dependence on art as a source text is SOOOO difficult.

Aye, point taken there. I'm still not convinced by the idea that the artists must have been Dacians - it seems like a default option. Are there examples of Dacian relief sculpture that resemble the metopes?

That's the point. There is little to no monumental sculpture in a lot of these provincial cultures prior to the Roman arrival. Also recognize that the Adamklissi and TC are made anywhere from within a generation of the campaigns to a generation after the campaigns. What is the cultural milieu of someone living in a conquered territory for 20 plus years? Is he Roman, Dacian? Romano-Dacian? What art would he have seen or would not have seen? So it's entirely subjective, but here my personal read on this.

The genre scenes we know from all over the empire are the product of people within the classical context. It may be primitive (something that I think is more often the product of intention rather than haste or lack of skill, but that's another matter, for example it's natural to make the most important people bigger, or to accentuate features that make them more readible. Caricature is more natural in many ways to art, than portriature).

There is a convention to these forms that get repeated, and those are fairly steady, even as they are rendered rather stylistically in the provinces. Looking at the Adamklissi monument, especially in things such as drapery and the human form, this is an artist completely unfamiliar with the classical conventions. It is not a local variation of a domestic style, it is an attempt at an adaptation of a style inheritly foreign to it.

If not, you're consigning them to a hazy realm of mystery.

That's a little hyperbolic I think. I think rather, what we are saying is that we don't know where they are coming from. The best guess is local, but it's only a guess. But hey, who says we can't guess? But the guess is an educated one, and I think, a good one, but hey it's a guess.

That's why I'm an art historian instead of a rocket scientist, I'm allowed to make guesses. :wink:

There is no 'background' to any of them, of course - the pictures exist in a hazy shallow pictorial space: on the grave pictures, this is the non-space of Elysium, where the soldier is free to engage in his favourite activities (feasting, riding down the enemy etc) - in effect, might the pictures from Adamklissi be intended in a similar way?

We are looking at different features I think. The filled frame and shallow pictorial plane certainly are feature of genre. All are present on items such as the relief of the Haterii all the way up to the arch of the argentarii. By the time of the decannalia reliefs the wings of Nike are little more than incised lines made with a running drill. All sculptural depth disappears entirely. By the time we reach the severan period all of those features you mention are common place, yet I could still tell a severan relief from adamklissi relief at a hundred paces. 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.

Now HERE's an interesting thought. If that's the case, that means that they are unburdened by holding to classical conventions. Think about it this way. An artist in Rome can not make a truly accurate representation of armor because he is working from 100+ years of artistic conventional shorthand that he was already used to. If a dacian artist has no such conventions, what does he use as a model? Wouldn't he need to go to the originals? In this way you could have local artists BUT, still have more accurate representations (in the details at least) since the Romans are shackled by realistic stock conventions. A Roman artist could no more ignore his conventions than an impressionist could paint in a neoclassical style, or vice versa.

I don't believe that of course - since I don't believe that the Roman artist had any big hang-ups over things like 'convention' since they were utter pragmatists, - but I thought I might bring it up just to throw another monkey wrench in the works.

is it too fanciful to imagine that the representations of soldiers on the later victory monument are intended as similar commemoration of the dead - carved by the soldiers themselves, in demotic military style, to honour their fallen comrades?

Well that's a cool idea but unfortunately that's outside my ability to say. I can't mind-read the artists or patrons. That's hard enough when we have excellent contexts in the heart of the empire.

Travis

PS -

I can't get the permissions for the Antonine Pius folder straightened out.
Try these links:

http://astro.temple.edu/~tlclark/pictures/ant_pius1.jpg
http://astro.temple.edu/~tlclark/pictures/ant_pius2.jpg
http://astro.temple.edu/~tlclark/pictures/ant_pius3.jpg
http://astro.temple.edu/~tlclark/pictures/ant_pius4.jpg
http://astro.temple.edu/~tlclark/pictures/ant_pius5.jpg
http://astro.temple.edu/~tlclark/pictures/ant_pius6.jpg
http://astro.temple.edu/~tlclark/pictures/ant_pius7.jpg
http://astro.temple.edu/~tlclark/pictures/ant_pius8.jpg
http://astro.temple.edu/~tlclark/pictures/ant_pius9.jpg
http://astro.temple.edu/~tlclark/pictur ... pius10.jpg

[tlclark]

hmmm.

Ok, anybody have a better detail of the Adamklissi relief of the Legionnaire leading the barbarian?

In particular I am looking at the chain links.

Travis