Trajan\'s Column V Adamklissi

[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