pompa funebris - favro, d. & johanson, chr. (2010)

8/19/2019 Pompa Funebris - Favro, d. & Johanson, Chr. (2010)

1/26


2/26

D E A T H I N M O T I O N : F U N E R A L P R O C E S S I O N S I N T H E R O M A N F O R U M 13

aspects, including the upper floors of buildings, the place-

ment and scale of art, colors, textures, and ephemera (such as

plantings, scaffolding, and banners). Too often reconstruction

images or models do not make variations in level of accuracy

visible. Such indeterminacy, no matter how well reasoned, is

unpalatable to many scholars, but especially to archaeologists,

who are trained to appreciate accuracy, not speculation.8

The close experiential reading of historic processions

such as the Roman funeral has also been hampered by the

scarcity of specific details of these events. Only a few impe-rial funerals are described at length by ancient authors; even

fewer by contemporary eyewitnesses. Furthermore, these

accounts by male elite voices generally serve specific agen-

das and often use the description of a funeral for calculated

effect.9 Few detail the setting of the funeral or mention the

sensorial impact of the sights, sounds, and smells of the

emotionally and politically charged event, perhaps because

they considered such perceptual information too obvious to

merit comment. The same familiarity may explain the rela-

tive silence about funeral activities.10 Depictions of ancient

processions in art tend to focus on the participants and offer

only limited representation of the physical context, which

would inform an assessment of the experiential impact. Gra-

ham Zanker has perceptively noted that the omission of

architectural environments in ancient art provoked viewers

to complete the picture in their minds, an act of supplemen-

tation that engaged ancient observers, but frustrates modern

historians (Figure 1).11

The situation is exacerbated for the Forum Romanum.

The geographical touchstone of the Roman world, this

urban space was well known; throughout the vast empire,

Romans constructed complex mental pictures of this site,

which were informed by references in texts, depictions of

individual buildings, word of mouth, and actual visits.12

Given this collective familiarity, it is not surprising that the

forum was rarely represented holistically in Roman art.

Two notable exceptions are the marble imperial reliefs

known as the Anaglypha or Plutei Traiani/Hadriani, which

were found in the forum in 1872.13 Although their exact

placement and date are disputed, scholars agree that the

scenes represent events occurring in the forum. On one anemperor (either Trajan or Hadrian) stands on the Rostra Au-

gusti (speaker’s platform) while giving a public address or

adlocutio backed by six lictors (Figure 2); on the other an em-peror seated on the opposing rostra oversees the burning of

debt books (Anaglypha) (Figure 3).14 Behind the figures rise

the Basilica Iulia and other buildings on the southwest side

of the forum. Although the reliefs may not have been seen

together in their original disposition, they show a continuous

architectural setting. The myth-laden fig tree (Ficus Rumi-

nalis) and the statue of Marsyas appear in both reliefs, affirm-

ing the coincidence of the setting; one depicts the area east

of the statue and the other, the west.

The overall representation is quite revealing about the

Romans’ experience of public events in the forum. The carv-

ings selectively mix accurately represented features (such as

the blank segments that correspond to the streets that entered

the forum) with inaccurate building orientations.15 All of the

structures are seen frontally, regardless of their actual posi-

tioning. For example, in the Debt Burning relief, the Temples

of Saturn, and of Divine Vespasian are shown side by side,

though they actually stood at right angles (see Figure 3). Such

Figure 1 Late republican or early imperial relief depicting a funerary procession from Amiternum, Italy. Museo Nazionale d’Abruzzo, L’Aquila (photo

by Christopher Johanson)


3/26

14 J S A H / 6 9 : 1 , M A R C H 2 0 1 0

an unrealistic arrangement was not solely a result of the

pragmatic restrictions of the relief format, but owed also

to Roman experiential interpretations that were filtered

through cultural ideas of viewing and processing.16

Ancient texts and pictorial representations affirm that the

Romans believed buildings of importance should be viewed

frontally, ideally from an inferior position.17 Vitruvius spe-

cifically recommended that temples along “the sides of public

roads should be arranged so that the passers-by can have a

view of them and make their reverence in full view.”18 Such

hierarchical positioning was regularly employed to indicate

the status of depicted individuals. In the Adlocutio relief, theemperor is elevated atop a speaker’s platform; all figures look

up to him both literally and metaphorically (see Figure 2).

Action occurs below and leads the eye toward the emperor

either by the directional movement of the figures or the turn

of their heads. In the Debt Burning relief, soldiers carry theheavy account books toward the seated emperor atop the

Rostra Augusti. The fire consuming the records is appropri-

ately set before the Temple of Saturn, site of the state treasury,

and at the feet of the seated emperor on the rostra. In reality,

Saturn’s temple stood farther west, at a higher elevation and

behind the speaker’s platform. In the Adlocutio relief the menforming the crowd lean slightly forward toward the emperor,

their garments clearly identifying status: the toga for senators

toward the front of the crowd, the paenula for poor citizens

Figure 2 Adlocutio relief of the Anaglypha (Plutei Traiani), showing events in the imperial Forum Romanum with the buildings on the southwest side as

backdrop; late 2nd century. Currently located in the Curia of the Forum Romanum, Rome (photo by Diane Favro). See JSAH online for high-resolution,

zoomable image with buildings of the Forum identified

Figure 3 Debt Burning relief, from the same monument as the Adlocutio relief, showing action in front of the opposing Rostra just visible in the

lower right corner. Currently located in the Curia building of the Forum Romanum, Rome (photo by Diane Favro). See JSAH online for high resolution,

zoomable image with buildings of the Forum identified


4/26


pushed to the rear (see Figure 2). Gestures clarify the action,

with the standing emperor raising his arm in a familiar signal

of address. Overall, the emphasized body language under-

scores the importance of visual cues in an open space where a

speaker’s words quickly wafted away.19

The reliefs also demonstrate the active role of statues

whose location in the visual hierarchy is equal (or superior)

to that of the human participants in forum events.20 In this

case the artist selected, from among all the statues in the

forum, a depiction of Marsyas, which was associated with

libertas, and a group with Italia, her children, and the seated Trajan, which celebrated the alimentary program. The reliefs

reinforce the closed topographical experience of the imperial

Forum Romanum, which afforded limited views of the sur-

rounding city, focusing inward on the two opposing rostra

that defined the space and action.

Despite their usefulness in explicating the interactionbetween public events and the forum, the Plutei Traiani leave

many questions about the experience of the events unan-

swered. How did accompanying sounds reinforce the activi-

ties? Did lighting and temperature affect the participants’

comfort? Was color used to attract the eye? Did the smell of

the burning books drive the audience away? Where did spec-

tators stand? Were women and slaves allowed to watch?

What route to the forum was taken by participants?

Unfortunately, the established methodological appara-

tus for analyzing the symbiotic exchange between kinetic

ceremonies and urban form is not especially useful for an-

cient specialists. Modern anthropological and urban analysesare usually based on first-person documentation, interviews,

and cognitive mapping; such approaches are not applicable

to periods when voices are few and primarily of the elite.

Techniques developed to convey kinetic progression, such as

the serial views and cognitive maps popular with urban plan-

ners in the 1960s, have rarely been included in the architec-

tural historian’s toolbox.21

During subsequent decades, the popularity of reception

theory led to increased interest in the “gaze.” In Roman stud-

ies, a number of publications dealt with viewing in situ. Most

considered intervisuality in elite artworks and environments,

usually the Roman house.22 A few employed semiotic ideasto consider the experiences of urban buildings as linked to-

gether to form narratives.23 While some authors explored

kinetic viewing, the majority emphasized what could be seen

from fixed positions, a preference that minimized the impact

of peripheral viewing and the full-bodied, synergistic inter-

play of all the senses.24 Beyond sight, sensorial analyses of

Roman environments have been few.25

In part, the available representational tools have been

deterministic. Sketches, measured drawings, and physical

models have for decades been the primary instruments for

making reconstructions of historic environments, yet these

can be costly and require skills not developed by scholars.

Furthermore, the necessity to present scholarship in text-

based publications has favored simplified, static visual repre-

sentations, which are in many ways antithetical to theexperience of events such as ritual processions. In the formu-

lation of research, as well as its publication, lively parades with

fluttering banners, cacophonous sounds, and animated danc-

ers are distilled into static lines on two-dimensional plans

(Figure 4).26 Such depictions disguise the realities of topogra-

phy, three-dimensional sequencing, temporal changes, and

the ease (or difficulty) of movement, among other factors,

while emphasizing particular aspects (sequencing), experi-

ences (static viewing), and approaches (semiotics). Verbal or

cinematic attempts to recreate the experience of moving

through a historic city can be evocative, but are often devalued

by the scholarly community as too fanciful or entertaining. Today researchers interested in the experiential aspects

of the ancient funeral—its sights, movement, sounds, and

smells—have more data, improved tools, and advanced

methods with which to work. New technologies and ap-

proaches to “knowledge representation,” a term borrowed

from the sciences, facilitate the reconsideration of historic

events that were situated within sensorially rich, kinetically

experienced environments. Digital recreations visually and

experientially aggregate current knowledge about the

Figure 4 Diagram of triumphal route from Campus Martius, moving

counterclockwise around the Palatine, through the forum, and up to

the Capitoline (image by Diane Favro)


5/26

16 J S A H / 6 9 : 1 , M A R C H 2 0 1 0

environment. Digital technologies have made possible the

fashioning of more dynamic and flexible depictions of ancient

spaces for use in research, teaching, and presentation, allreadily linked to metadata that documents the level of accu-

racy of restored components.27 Scholars can now reconstruct

historic environments that allow observers to move in real

time through carefully constructed topographic contexts. A

rich range of sensorial stimuli can be added to kinetic viewing

to shape more robust recreations of the original environmen-

tal experience. Depictions of actual times of day, year, and

century reaffirm the essential temporal aspects—the fourth

dimension. Various experimental scenarios can be presented

to ascertain the impact of alternative reconstructions, climatic

conditions, and hypothetically distributed ephemera.28

Every sensorial layer requires a method of citation andanalysis, and a large measure of scholarly caution. How can

it be proved that ancients experienced light in the same way

as moderns? How does one add scholarly rigor to the simula-

tion of smell or sound? Various sensorial additions to a sim-

ulation can detract if they are included as an afterthought,

even if an illustrative one.

Roman environments have been among the first to be

extensively recreated digitally. The attraction reflects aware-

ness of the experiential richness of Roman design. Not sur-

prisingly extensively designed rooms, such as those preserved

at Pompeii, are cited as early immersive “simulations.”29

Given the ancient evidence and the current technologicaltoolset, Roman spatiality offers the greatest opportunity for

serious scholarly investigation.

The Mid-Republican Funeral Procession(183 BCE–145 BCE)

Ancient accounts of funerals during the mid-Republic de-

scribe the movement of the aristocratic pompa funebristhrough the city to the Forum Romanum. Unfortunately,

specifics about the route are few.30 There is no description

of the parade path before it arrived in the forum, and the

purpose of the procession can only be speculated. It wouldseem that it functioned both as a means of gathering the

participants, who would later crowd the forum during the

funeral oration, and as a way of displaying the popularity

of the deceased and the family.31 Hence, the more circu-

itous the route, the better the attendance for the event, an

important factor at least during the Republic when funer-

als had to vie for attention from citizens who continued to

conduct their daily business in the forum.32 The reality of

housing distribution in Rome further complicated mat-

ters. The aristocracy lived along the streets that led into

the forum (including the Sacra Via) and on the nearby

Palatine Hill.33

Therefore, most aristocratic funeralsbegan only a few hundred meters away from the forum

itself. In order to lengthen the parade route and attract a

larger audience, processions from residences near the

forum may have diverted to side streets to extend the route

to the forum (Figure 5).34

Parades most likely entered along the Sacra Via in the

mid-republican period, a symbolically potent route followed

in numerous ritual processions, including the triumphal pa-

rade, which was an event that the funeral procession mim-

icked in many ways.35 Upon entering the forum, the pompa funebris crossed the central open plaza to the rostra, where

the deceased was put on display (Figure 6).36 From atop therostra the primary heir gave a eulogy, flanked by members of

the cortege who wore ancestor masks (imagines ) and sat in arow of ivory chairs that faced the assembled crowd. Scholars

have underlined the obvious potential for symbolic manipu-

lation in the content of the speech (laudatio funebris), theancestor masks, and the composition of the crowd.37 Less

analyzed, but equally significant, are the sights, kinetic

sequences, and interaction with the physical environment

experienced by the funeral parade.

Figure 5 Diagram of extended funeral

routes at Rome in 160 BCE (image by

Christopher Johanson)


6/26


Physical and textual evidence demonstrate that the

forum during the mid-republican period was radically differ-

ent in appearance than its imperial descendants.38 Sadly,

there is a severe lack of robust archaeological data about the

buildings in the forum during the first half of the second

century BCE. In situ evidence for the third (vertical) dimen-

sion is particularly difficult to find. Today’s researchers can

bring into play additional information, including high-reso-

lution satellite imagery, citywide cadastral maps, and GPS

coordinates that precisely situate verifiable archaeologicalremains within a geographic coordinate system, yet they still

lack sufficient data to create academically justifiable hyper-

realistic reconstructions.39

In most cases, only the general massing of buildings and

architectural monuments can be modeled with any certainty.

For this research the models are schematic, shaded for legibil-

ity, but necessarily textureless.40 They are knowledge repre-

sentations of the current evidence—more often textual than

material—and can approximate only one of many interpreta-

tions of the mid-republican forum’s appearance.41 Strict care

must be taken to map out the parameters for each exploration

and to explain its experimental nature (Figure 7).42 Withinthese working parameters, however, valuable investigations

can be undertaken about the experiential and propagandistic

impact of the funeral on the processors and audience mem-

bers, and in particular the importance of the critical intervis-

ibility between buildings in and near the Forum Romanum.

The multilayered visual effects of the parade route re-

quire three-dimensional analysis, but an in situ examination

of the viewshed and relationship between the Capitoline Hill

and the republican forum is impossible due to present-day

conditions. The current paving in the modern archaeological

park lies 2 to 4 meters above the republican forum floor.

Major buildings from the mid-Republic period are repre-

sented by scattered fragments often immured or obliterated

by subsequent rebuildings.43 The republican remains of the

great temple to Jupiter atop the Capitoline are today encased

within the Palazzo dei Conservatori, its visual connection to

the forum blocked by post-antique construction.

Experiential understanding has been further compro-

mised by the inaccurate siting of buildings on publishedplans. For example, no readily available plans use a unifying

geographic coordinate system to demonstrate and validate

the precise location of the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maxi-

mus in relation to the buildings of the mid-republican forum.

Three-dimensional paper-based reconstructions, hampered

by modern in situ viewshed difficulties, only approximate theoriginal visual relationship between Capitoline and forum;

furthermore the majority of reconstructions depict the state

of the forum in the imperial period and adopt an omniscient

god’s-eye view.44 The most accurate three-dimensional re-

constructions represent the area during either its Augustan

or late imperial phases, and even these frequently exaggerate

the elevation information to such an extent that perceptions

have been powerfully informed by the image of Jupiter’s

temple looming majestically over the city (Figure 8).45

Case Study 1: The Funerals of the Cornelii

The funerals of the mid-Republic (183–145 BCE) provide

a useful case study of republican funerary practices.46 The

Cornelii were a prominent aristocratic family of the middle

Figure 7 Schematic representations overlaid on a geographic coordi-

nate system (image © and courtesy of the Regents of the University

of California, Christopher Johanson, and the Experiential Technologies

Center [ETC], UCLA)

Figure 6 Schematic representation of the funeral eulogy (image © and

courtesy of the Regents of the University of California, Christopher

Johanson, and the Experiential Technologies Center [ETC])


7/26

18 J S A H / 6 9 : 1 , M A R C H 2 0 10

republic, and the only clear evidence of the occasional altera-

tion of the usual processional route is associated with this

clan.47 To the traditional cortege path, which moved from the

house of the deceased to the rostra in the forum and then to

the burial site, the Cornelii added a visit to the Capitoline Hill

to collect the wax mask (imago) of Scipio Africanus, the famedconqueror of Hannibal during the second Punic Wars and themost illustrious member of their family. They introduced this

new itinerary after Scipio’s death in 183 BCE.48

Roman aristocratic families usually housed such imagines of ancestors who had attained a curule magistracy in dedicated

cupboards in the atria of their residences. Only on special oc-

casions were these open for viewing, and only at the Roman

funeral were the masks paraded through the streets.49 For rea-

sons not entirely clear, the wax mask of Scipio Africanus was

placed in the cella of the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus,

in effect equating the residence of the most powerful god in

the Roman pantheon with the atrium of Scipio’s house.50 The Cornelii followed other practices that differed from

the norm. For instance, while the rest of Rome cremated their

loved ones, the Cornelii continued to inhume the deceased.51

Perhaps the reason was pragmatic; the house of Scipio Afri-

canus stood immediately next to the Roman forum behind the

Tabernae Veteres, which meant that a funeral procession tothe republican rostra (located directly to the northeast of the

later Rostra Augusti) would have been a short walk of less

than one hundred meters—not long enough to attract an

appropriately large crowd (see Figure 5, Figure 9).52 The de-

tour to the Capitoline Hill to acquire the important ancestral

mask significantly lengthened the parade. Simultaneously, it

emphasized a sequence of vistas to notable buildings, art, and

urban features that were seen by parade participants and a

reciprocal sequence of views of the funeral parade by the au-dience gathered in the forum. Although it is problematic to

build an argument about the Roman funeral of the middle

Republic based on a famous exception, a visual analysis of the

Figure 8 Reconstructed drawing of Roman Forum and Capitoline Hil l showing the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus on the Capitoline Hill, after

Alberto Carpiceci in Rome 2000 Years Ago (Florence: Bonechi, 1981), 8–9. See JSAH online to compare the elevation of the temple in this hypotheti-

cal reconstruction to that of the same temple in the more accurate digital reconstruction

Figure 9 Schematic reconstruction of the Roman Forum (183 BCE).

The House of Africanus may have been located adjacent to the Temple

of Castor on the south side of the central plaza ( image © and courtesy

of the Regents of the University of California, Christopher Johanson,

and the Experiential Technologies Center [ETC], UCLA). See JSAH

online for an analogous view of the republican Roman Forum keyed to

a real-time, three-dimensional model set in its geographic context


8/26


alteration of the Cornelii’s processional route offers a poten-

tial key to understanding the choreography of this mid-sec-

ond-century event. The case study places the evidence for the

funeral into the reconstructed topographic context of 183–

145 BCE (Figure 10).

After the imago of Scipio Africanus was placed in the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, funeral processions for

the Cornelii clan began at the house of the deceased family

member, moved through the forum, and then turned away

from the gathering crowd to ascend the Clivus Capitolinus

(Figure 10a).53 Once the cortege moved past the Temple of

Saturn, visual contact with spectators in the low-lying forum

plaza was severed. How the imago was collected from thetemple has not been recorded, but presumably the event oc-

curred atop the Capitoline Hill before the south-facing

Temple of Jupiter, where an actor wearing triumphal regalia

donned the mask (Figure 10b). The action would have been visible from the aristocratic houses on the northwestern

Palatine for those with an unobstructed view and good eye-

sight, yet most of the nobility would have already joined the

awaiting audience in the low-lying forum.54 Some curious

spectators may have followed the musicians, mimes, and

dancers as they proceeded up the hill to the Capitoline tem-

ple, but the Clivus Capitolinus, and even the much larger

platform on the hill above, offered only limited room to turn

a large procession. Doubtless, most spectators preferred to

secure good viewing spots for the oration in the forum. How

did the Cornelii connect this unique segment of their family

funeral with the more traditional program of the republicanfuneral? To what degree were the symbolic connections be-

tween the funerary activities at the rostra and those on the

Capitoline magnified by spectacle?

Digital reconstructions facilitate the experiential ex-

amination of the connections between the forum and the

Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus in this period (Figure

10c).55 Unfortunately, without information on sounds,

smells, and haptic responses, the exploration remains vision-

centered, an emphasis that must be constantly kept in mind.

Static and kinetic viewsheds are predicated on the accurate

depiction of an environment and of building massing in par-

ticular. In this instance, the height and footprint of the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus remain somewhat con-

troversial. The dispute centers on whether the measure-

ments given by Dionysius of Halicarnassus and confirmed

by recent archaeological work can refer to the temple’s po-

dium, as asserted by Einar Gjerstad in the 1960s—a recon-

struction that produces intercolumniations substantially

larger than even those of the Pantheon—or to a platform on

which a smaller structure rose, as championed more recently

by John Stamper.56

The two reconstructions give notably different results

when viewed virtually from the mid-second century BCE

forum as reconstructed. With Gjerstad’s version, whose

dominating form is seen in most reconstructions, the temple

pediment looms over the city, clearly visible to spectators

standing at ground level in the eastern end of the forum (Fig-

ure 10d). From elsewhere in the forum, observers would have

seen the entablature and roof of the temple, but caught only

glimpses of its podium (Figure 10e). The fortunate ones who

had staked out desirable positions near the rostra were well

situated to see the bier and the actors wearing ancestor masks

line up in front (see Figure 7). They could readily hear the

eulogies and see other activities associated with the funeral,

but except for those positioned directly in front of the rostra,

the view to the façade and area in front of Jupiter’s distant

temple was almost entirely occluded.

Stamper’s reconstruction reduces the temple’s overallsize and profile, eliminating nearly all views of it from the

ground level of the forum (Figure 10f). Viewsheds from

more elevated positions would not have been much better.

Observers who jockeyed successfully for viewing spots in the

upper balconies (maeniana) above the shops in front of theBasilica Sempronia on the west side of the forum had good

views of the rostra and the central open space, but not of the

Capitoline (Figure 10g). Only those on the upper level of the

shops fronting the Basilica Fulvia across the open space could

readily see the Temple of Jupiter and, at a lower level, the

Cornelii funeral parade as it re-entered the forum (Figure

10h). Furthermore, in a culture where seeing and being seen were both important, most of these spectators would not

have been visible to those clustering around the rostra.57 Cu-

riously enough, in the two reconstructions only the Comi-

tium, the natural cavea to the northwest of the rostra, affordsclear views of the Temple of Jupiter (Figure 10i).

Clearly, an understanding of the Roman funeral neces-

sitates knowledge of the context of the event. Just as there are

alternative reconstructions of the built environment, there

are likewise alternative reconstructions of the performance,

including most importantly, the orientation of the primary

speakers. One interpretation is based on the later funerary

customs of Ciceronian Rome in the late first century BCE;the other is shaped by an appreciation of the oratorical prac-

tices of the mid-Republic over a century earlier. An assess-

ment of the visual impact of the funeral parade of the Cornelii

clarifies the differences between these two scenarios.

Alternative 1: Orators Face the People

Since their view was blocked by many of the surrounding

buildings (Figure 11), the audience gathered in the forum

would have gauged the approach of the Cornelii funeral


9/26

20 J S A H / 6 9 : 1 , M A R C H 2 0 1 0

Figure 10 The Forum in 160 BCE, with views 10a–i marked on the map (image by Christopher Johanson; 10a–i © and courtesy of the Regents of the

University of California, Christopher Johanson, and the Experiential Technologies Center [ETC], UCLA). See JSAH online for a bird’s-eye view of a

real-time, three-dimensional model of the republican Roman Forum (160 BCE) set in its geographic context. 10a Elevated view from the northeast

corner of the Forum looking toward the Capitoline Hill; 10b Bird’s-eye view of the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus. The northwest corner of the

Roman Forum is visible on the right; 10c View of the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus (based on Gjerstad) from the north side of the Forum plaza;

10d Partly occluded view of the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus (based on Gjerstad) from the southern side of the Forum plaza; 10e View of the

Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus (based on Gjerstad) from the area in front of the Rostra; 10f Occluded view of the Temple of Jupiter Optimus

Maximus (based on Stamper) from the Lacus Curtius; 10g Panoramic view of the occluded Capitoline Hill (left) and the Comitium (right) from the bal-

cony of the Basilica Sempronia; 10h View from the balcony of the Basil ica Aemilia of the Rostra with the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus (based

on Gjerstad) clearly visible in the background; 10i View of the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus from the steps of the Curia Hostilia

10d 10e 10f

10g 10h 10i

10a 10b 10c


10/26


11a 11b 11c

11d 11e 11f

11g 11h

Figure 11 Schematic view of the Forum with views labeled (image by Christopher Johanson; 11a–h © and courtesy of the Regents of the University

of California, Christopher Johanson, and the Experiential Technologies Center [ETC], UCLA). See JSAH online for a bird’s-eye view of a real-time, three-

dimensional model of the republican Roman Forum set in its geographic context. 11a View from the area in front of the Rostra, populated by hypothet-

ical bystanders, looking toward the Temple of Saturn and the Clivus Capitolinus, the main road leading down from the Capitoline Hill; 11b View of the

orator, bier and ancestors atop the Rostra; 11c Elevated view from the balcony in front of the Basilica Sempronia; 11d View of the Basilica Porcia (to

the left of the Curia Hostilia). The Basilica is represented in schematic form omitting the colonnaded lower and upper levels; 11e Privileged view of

the Rostra from the northern side of the Comitium; 11f Bird’s eye view of the Forum illustrating the intimacy of the Comitium in comparison to the

open Forum plaza; 11g View from the Comitium of the imago of Scipio Africanus as it returns from the Capitoline Hill; 11h View from the Comitium

of the imago of Cato entering or leaving the Curia Hostilia. See JSAH online for an analogous view keyed to a real-time, three-dimensional model

set in its geographic context


11/26

22 J S A H / 6 9 : 1 , M A R C H 2 0 1 0

procession down from the Capitoline by the smoke rising

from torches and the sounds (Figure 11a). The accompanying

music and chants became gradually louder, reaching a cre-

scendo as the cortege

rounded the Temple of

Saturn at the lower ter-

minus of the Clivus Cap-

itolinus and burst into

full view of the awaiting

crowd.58 At this potent

moment the sound level

escalated, freed from the constraints of the narrow, building-

lined street. (Of course, wind, weather, and ambient noise

would have diminished this aural effect.) The elevated imago of Scipio Africanus was prominent, along with the ancestor

masks of the deceased and other illustrious Cornelii. The pro-

cession stopped at the northwest corner of the forum andmounted the rostra where the body of the departed was dis-

played (Figure 11b). The jostling audience at ground level

looked up to the famous ancestors represented by actors wear-

ing death masks who were seated among the statues crowding

the platform; behind them the Curia Hostilia formed a monu-

mental backdrop.59 The ancestors, in turn, looked down on

the majority of the audience—the inverse of the spatial ar-

rangement in Greek oratory. Only the spectators on the upper

floors of the basilicas could look down on the speakers, but

their viewing status from a position on high was diminished

by a lack of visual clarity due to distance (Figure 11c).60

As appropriate for Roman viewing conventions, the fu-neral participants on the rostra saw senators and other elite

citizens positioned close by, identifiable by their garb and

placement, an important factor since no clear physical

boundary separated them from the masses on the forum

floor. The son of the deceased, if there was one of suitable

age, faced the forum and the crowd to give the laudatio andthen praised, in chronological order, the ancestors arrayed

behind him.61 After the speech the group descended from the

rostra and, amid mourning wails, carried the deceased to his

final resting place outside the city.62 Funerary games (ludi funebres and munera), most likely held in the forum followed,

completed the ceremony.

Alternative 2: Orators Face the Senate

As recognized by modern scholars, the rostra became the ora-

torical stage for the forum in the late Republic. Only in 145

BCE did the orientation reverse when a tribune first turned

his back on the Curia to address the people directly, a populist

move meant both to appease the masses and annoy the mag-

isterial classes.63 Thus the interpretation given in Alternative

1 is based on a retrojection from a later period. Prior to the

mid-second century, orators faced the Comitium and the

Curia, not the forum.64 The implications of this original, re-

versed staging have not been fully explored. Was the funerary

laudatio originally configured in the same way? The topography of the area facilitates a reconstruction

with a Curia-centered oration. Until at least 184 BCE the

Cloaca Maxima, which ran through the middle of the forum,

was apparently uncovered.65 It would have formed a natural

partition between the large eastern portion of the forum’s

central plaza and the western half, occupied by the political

nucleus of the Curia, the Comitium, the senaculum, and the

Graecostasis.66 The natural topography of the area formed a

theatrical cavea centered on the rostra. The Comitium lies ina small depression surrounded by gentle upward slopes on all

sides save the forum plaza.67 The Temple of Saturn offered a

lengthy stepped approach that would have served as a con-

venient tiered viewing area. M. Porcius Cato’s decision ascensor to buy up land near the Curia to build the first named

basilica in Rome (the Basilica Porcia) implies that this was a

space that, among other things, would benefit from a public

porticoed structure, that is, a shaded viewing area (Figure

11d).68 The masses would have gathered in the forum plaza

and at the southwest end of the forum in front of the Temple

of Saturn, but the elite would fill the Comitium, line its steps,

and command the privileged views next to the seat of magis-

terial power, the Senate House (Figure 11e). The speaker

would be elevated above many of the people, but the elite

could demonstrate their own station by being in clear sight

of the speaker and by forming the backdrop seen by the sur-rounding audience.

If political oratory required the speaker to face the

Curia, one must contemplate the practical ramifications of

this substantially different staging. While the famous beaks

of the rostra pointed toward the forum, in which direction

did the statues face? Imperial reliefs always depict the speaker

and the statues facing the same way. It seems unlikely that the

majority of political oratory in the mid-Republic would be

framed by the backs of those commemorated in stone.69

What of the audience? A Curia-centered oration would have

taken place in a relatively intimate setting. Because of the

naturally sloped and stepped viewing area, the audiencecould both see and be seen more effectively. Many would be

close enough to hear the speech clearly. Moreover, assem-

bling in the western end of the forum would mitigate the

interference caused by the open shops and the ongoing busi-

ness surrounding the forum plaza (Figure 11f). Of course,

for those farther removed from the rostra and who could not

hear, gestures would still convey the meaning, although it

would require a skilled orator to use gestures that even an

audience facing his back could interpret.

See JSAH onlinefor a re-creation of Roman

funeral music and ritual

lamentation based on

experimental archaeology.


12/26


The grouping of the spectators on the western side of the

forum also alters the potential symbolic viewsheds, for in this

location the speaker and the audience can share the same de-

ictic references to the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus.70

As the procession of the Cornelii began to fill the Comitium

and the surrounding space, a branch of the parade moved up

the slope of the Clivus Capitolinus, in clear view of the major-

ity of the more privileged spectators, those in the cavea to the west of the Comitium (Figure 11g). Such attendees were

situated well for the upcoming laudatio and could also viewthe ceremony that was occurring on top of the Capitoline, in

either the Gjerstad or Stamper reconstruction of the Temple

of Jupiter Optimus Maximus. Even many of those outside the

Comitium would be able to witness the spectacle above. The

value placed on such intervisuality explains why the Cornellii’s

revered ancestor Scipio Africanus was transported in such a

way that he emerged from around the corner of the Templeof Saturn, thus clarifying the symbolic association. Even the

uneducated (and the non-Latin speakers) would immediately

understand that this relative of the Cornelii’s clan had been

communing with the most powerful god in the city. Perhaps

it was in emulation of the Cornelii’s bold symbolic association

with the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus that the family

of the novus homo, Marcus Porcius Cato, installed his imago inthe Curia Hostilia, whence it was retrieved during funerary

events.71 This familial competition would have been not only

symbolic, but spectacular. Rather than remain hidden from

the audience by the rostra, the imago of Cato would have

emerged from the Curia in full view of the parting crowd and would have served as a reminder of this particularly admirable

ancestor (Figure 11h).

Ancient sources note the exceptional funeral choreog-

raphy of the Cornelii. Having two parades enter the forum

certainly drew attention to the event and helped differentiate

this funeral from others—a necessary goal given the number

of distractions in the city of Rome. Experiential analysis fa-

cilitates a consideration of the link forged between the Cap-

itoline and the forum by the procession. The effect of this

visual connection, in turn, permits reevaluation of the textual

evidence and reconsideration of the configuration of the

event. By emphasizing movement from the forum up to the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, the program recalled

the triumphal parade, an association reinforced by the garb-

ing of the actor who wore the mask of Scipio Africanus in

triumphal regalia. Yet the directional change of the proces-

sion, coming down from the hill rather than moving up to

the temple, underscored another connection even more

strongly. The famous conqueror of Hannibal was acknowl-

edged by some Romans to be the son of Jupiter, and his fu-

neral mask was thus kept in the “residence” of his progenitor.

The parade route from Jupiter’s temple to the forum sug-

gested a direct connection between Scipio Africanus, his

descendants, and the great god by highlighting a genetic and

a spectacular topographic descent.72

The visual connection with the Temple of Jupiter was

desirable, but not essential. As the most important shrine in

the Roman world, its appearance was familiar to all specta-

tors. They did not have to see the connection; the wisps of

smoke, the echoes of processional music, and the entrance of

the cortege from the direction of the temple were enough to

forge the associations desired by the Cornelii. It is clear,

however, that in one possible configuration most of the audi-

ence could have seen the event on the hill, and that an un-

derstanding of the visual impact of the Cornelii’s procession

helps to clarify the organization of the event below. The

oratorical stage of the mid-Republic prior to 145 BCE was

different than that of the first century, and the earlier con-figuration both better accommodates the evidence and better

solves practical logistical problems.

The Imperial Funeral and the Roman Forum

In the imperial era, power was focused in the hands of single

individuals, but republican traditions and governmental

structures continued, at least superficially.73 Beginning with

the commemorations of Augustus, funerals for the emperors

became iconic, with grand events in the forum. The choreog-

raphy still included a parade and eulogies from the rostra, but

the ancestors who marched were largely stand-ins, not a col-

lection of genetically related ancestors, but an assembly offamous persons from Rome’s history. The body of the de-

ceased, too, was often represented symbolically rather than

actually included. The speeches, like the event in general,

addressed a world audience, since the death marked a change

in state leadership.74

Imperial funerals were characterized by their great size,

magnificence, and especially by the inclusion of participants

and features from throughout the empire.75 At the rostra the

emperor’s body (or its simulacrum) lay on display in a shrine-

like structure recalling the baldachins of Eastern Hellenistic

rulers. The pompa funebris began at the imperial residence on

the Palatine, descended the Clivus Palatinus, then moved intothe forum. While no exhaustive description of an imperial

funeral exists, accounts written around 200 CE provide a

number of visual details about the events in the Forum Ro-

manum. In 193 CE the emperor Septimius Severus organized

a lavish funeral in honor of his predecessor Pertinax and him-

self was honored by an extravagant event at his death in 211

CE. Cassius Dio gave an eyewitness account of the first;

Herodian, who resided in Rome during this period, com-

mented on the funeral of Septimius and others of his day.76


13/26

24 J S A H / 6 9 : 1 , M A R C H 2 0 1 0

While funerals grew steadily larger, the physical spaceof the performance shrank significantly after the mid-Repub-

lic period. More permanent buildings and over-scale monu-

ments crowded the Forum Romanum. The increased

verticality of the surrounding buildings sealed off much of

the forum from external visual influence. While views toward

the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus had been difficult

to gain during the mid-Republic, they were almost entirely

blocked by the middle of the Empire (Figure 12). The arter-

ies leading into the area were narrowed as the basilicas ex-

panded on each side and arches spanning entire streets

operated as doorways into the forum. The surrounding

urban fabric also changed. To the east, the expanding impe-rial fora wiped out vast areas of housing. The large imperial

palace system on the Palatine supplanted private aristocratic

houses as the focus of power and the launching point for

major funerals. As a result the route of a pompa funebris for anemperor became truncated. Well publicized, the deceased

emperor, or rather, his imago, did not have to move throughthe city to attract spectators from their houses (most of which

were now concentrated away from the city center). The

crowds came to him in the forum.

By the middle of the second century, the forum had like-

wise become more restricted in activities and meaning. Al-

though significant objects from the Republic remained visible, every building, sculpture, painting, space, and event

was now imprinted with calculated imperial messages. The

layout of the forum had also become more rigidly defined.

The central forum was now smaller, its “walls,” higher. The

large, opposing Basilica Julia and Basilica Aemilia framed the

two long sides. The central area was unified by sparkling

paving, mostly of white marble, although the clarity of the

spatial volume was obscured by numerous eye-catching com-

memoratives and statues.77

In relation to funeral activities, the most significant

physical change to the forum was the alteration to the speak-

er’s platform. At the end of the first century BCE Julius Cae-

sar reworked the traditional locus of speechmaking and

assembly near the Senate House. He summarily eliminated

the republican rostra and began construction on a new speak-

er’s platform, the so-called Rostra Caesaris, shifted to the

west, directly on axis with the open space that was now more

clearly defined by his large new Basilica Julia on the south-

west.78 The new platform, enlarged and completed by Au-

gustus (designated by scholars the Rostra Augusti), was the

locus for many memorable events of those tumultuous years,

including the funerals of Caesar and Augustus whose impact

reverberated throughout subsequent state funerals.79 Cae-

sar’s funeral also inspired a major addition to the forum. After

a riotous crowd burned the dictator’s body in the forum

rather than at the burial site outside the city limits, Augustusmarked the spot with a magnificent new temple to the deified

Caesar (Divus Iulius) directly opposite the rostra.80

Documentation of imperial funerals is more complete

than for those of the mid-Republic. Much more is also

known about the physical layout of the entire Forum Roma-

num in the later period. Better preserved and more thor-

oughly excavated, the archaeological evidence for the high

Imperial period is far more extensive, and it is thus more

easily reconstructed. At least partial remains of many build-

ings survive in situ, which facilitates modern surveys andsubstantially increases the fidelity of the reconstructed set-

ting. The funerals of Pertinax and Septimius Severus offer achance to explore how the topography of the forum affected

and guided funerary activities.

Case Study 2: The Funeral of Pertinax

In 193 CE Septimius Severus became emperor following the

bloody and short reigns of four predecessors, the last of whom

was Pertinax. Hoping to signal an end to turmoil, he imme-

diately affirmed his right to power by declaring his predeces-

sor to be a god and accepting the name Pertinax as his own.81

To celebrate further his restoration of liberty and peace, the

same year Severus held a lavish funeral honoring the previous

emperor. At the head of the cortege were carried statues ofthe viri illustri , famous Romans of the past, confirming thecontinuity and stability of Rome; these themes were rein-

forced later in the parade by more statues of other historic

figures who were admired for their great deeds or discoveries,

and by representatives of the city’s various collegia (associa-tions). Along with male choruses singing funeral hymns pro-

cessed subordinate officials, soldiers and bearers of heavy

bronze statues whose regional costumes identified them as

representations of Rome’s provinces—symbols of the power

Figure 12 Digital reconstruction model of the Roman Forum in the late

imperial period. See JSAH online for an analogous view keyed to a real-

time, three-dimensional model set in its geographic context (images ©

and courtesy of the Regents of the University of California, the CVRLab,

and the Experimental Technologies Center [ETC], UCLA)


14/26


and geographic extent of the Empire. Racehorses and a pano-

ply of funeral gifts alluded to the elaborate games to follow.

The procession climaxed with a portable golden altar be-

decked with ivory and precious stones.

Notably, the actual remains of the deceased were not in

the funeral parade. Pertinax, who had died months earlier

and had been cremated, was represented by a wax effigy,dressed in triumphal regalia and placed on view in a small

building with columns of gold and ivory erected atop a tem-

porary stage in front of the rostra.82 To maintain the fiction

of a traditional funeral with a corpse, and to displace the

memory of Pertinax’s bloody beheading, a slave boy waved a

fan of peacock feathers as if to keep flies away from the de-

composing body. The new emperor, now called Lucius Sep-

timius Severus Pertinax, not the deceased’s son, gave the

funeral oration, confirming his role as heir.

A participant in these funerary ceremonies, Cassius Dio

provided a detailed description. Septimius first moved across

the forum to the speaker’s platform (Figure 13). Behind him

came Cassius Dio and other senators dressed in somber togas

of mourning; their wives followed, having eschewed colorful

garments for respectful white.83 Elite male attendees took

seats in the open air near the Rostra Augusti, where they were visible to all; the women moved to less-exposed loca-

tions out of the sun in the shadowy porticos of the flanking

basilicas.84 In solemn anticipation, the patrician audience

awaited the procession. Hearing a muddled cacophony of

sounds coming from the walled portion of the sacred road

between the Basilica Aemilia and the Temple of Divus Iulius,

all looked to the southwest. As the funeral parade passed the

podium of the temple the sounds distilled into the distinctive

dirges sung by the funerary chorus that accompanied the

Figure 13 The Roman Forum of 191/92 CE (image by Christopher Johanson; 13a–b © and courtesy of the Regents of the University of California,

the CVRLab, and the Experimental Technologies Center [ETC], UCLA). See JSAH online for a bird’s-eye view of a real-time, three-dimensional

model of the imperial Roman Forum (191/92 CE) set in its geographic context. 13a View from the northwestern corner of the Temple of Divus

Iulius looking toward the Rostra Augusti and Temple of Concord; 13b View looking up at the Rostra Augusti with the Temple of Concord and Tabu-

larium behind. In reality the Temple of Vespasian and Titus to the west had not yet been repaired after being damaged in the fire of 191/92 CE

13a 13b


15/26

26 J S A H / 6 9 : 1 , M A R C H 2 0 1 0

statues of viri illustres at the head of the pompa (see Figure11b).85 From their elevated position, the sculpted representa-tives of Rome’s history carried aloft in the procession looked

directly toward the Temple of Concord, symbol of harmonyamong the classes, rising majestically behind the rostra (Fig-

ure 13a). As the procession extended into the sunlit open

space, attention was drawn to the effigy of the deceased in his

purple robes ensconced in a glittering golden shrine clearly

visible above the heads of the seated senators. Behind this

tableau rose the towering façade of the Tabularium.86

Once the parade had passed the influential spectators,

Severus mounted the rostra and gave the laudatio with thestatues on the platform behind him bearing silent witness and

the crowd shouting in approbation.87 The senators seatednear the Rostra Augusti craned their necks upward, their field

of vision filled by the gesticulating emperor, surrounding

retinue, and statuary (Figure 13b). One can imagine that the

laudatio included gestures toward the Temple of Concord, where Pertinax had first met the senate after being proclaimed

emperor, or to the Temple of Jupiter, where the father of the

gods would welcome the newest member of the Roman pan-

theon.88 At the end of the speeches the senators proceeded

out of the forum toward the tomb. They marched ahead of

the bier amid beating of breasts and cries of lamentation, with

the emperor and the effigy of the deceased following.

Septimius used the funeral of Pertinax to validate his

claim to the throne. Traditional and reverential in nature, the

choreography reflected the continuation (or fossilization) of

the established model for funerals, which emphasized the em-

peror as representative of the collective. In Pertinax’s funeral,

participants carried statues representing illustres viri fromRome’s history, not the illustrious ancestors of the deceased.

The staging reflected the realities of the imperial govern-

ment, assigning the senators to a more symbolic and passive

role than that played by their republican predecessors. They

sat as spectators awaiting the action and responded on cue

with moans and lamentations. A hint of their attitude is given

in an aside by Cassius Dio about the eulogy by Septimius:

“We shouted our approval many times in the course of his

address, now praising and now lamenting Pertinax, but our

shouts were loudest when he concluded.”89 The forum provided a familiar, history-laden background for the action.

Once in power, Septimius Severus and his wife Julia

Domna began to imprint their identity on the Forum Roma-

num.90 Among the sculpted monuments that they added was

a large equestrian statue, the Equus Severi, which recalled

the equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius whom Septimius

also claimed as his father.91 In the southern forum they re-

paired various structures ravaged by an earlier fire in 191/192

CE.92 Affirming her role as matrona and wife of the pontifexmaximus, Julia Domna assumed responsibility for rebuildingthe Temple of Vesta.93 At the opposite end of the urban space

Septimius and his sons restored the Temple of Vespasian and

added an inscription commemorating their work. Honorific

columns placed on top of the rostra date to the Severan pe-

riod as well (Figure 14).94

These interventions paled beside the addition of a mag-

nificent new arch. Significantly, this was the first large, com-

plete building added to the central area of the forum since

the Temple of Divus Iulius over a century earlier.95 In 202

CE Septimius celebrated the tenth anniversary of his reign

(decennalia) and returned from successful eastern campaignsagainst the Arabs, Parthians, and Adiabeneans. He declined

a triumph, but along with his sons was voted an arch by the

senate and people of Rome completed by 203 CE.96 The

massive monument still stands north of the Rostra Augusti,

near the Comitium, a spot chosen in part to affirm the locus

of a prescient dream of Septimius (Figure 15).97 The inscrip-

tion honored the emperor as “Pertinax” and “son of Mar-

cus” for having achieved “the restoration of the state and the

extension of the empire.”98 Detailed reliefs recounting the

successful campaigns embellished the two facades, and an

impressive sculptural display of the emperor in a chariot

flanked by his sons originally stood atop the monument

Figure 14 Oration relief from the Arch of Constantine depicting the Rostra Augusti with columns. Behind rise the Basilica Iulia and Arch of Tiberius

and Basilica Iulia on the left, and the Arch of Septimius Severus on the right


16/26


(Figure 16). The style and complex iconography of the

carvings and sculpture have been thoroughly explored.99

The monument was obviously a counterpoint to the

arch located southwest of the rostra, which Tacitus described

as propter aedem Saturni .100 That memorial celebrated theGermanic successes of the emperor Tiberius, who was also

strongly associated with Parthia.101 A third Parthian memory

was evoked by the Arch of Augustus that flanked the Templeof Divus Iulius. The large size of the new Severan arch, and

the inclusion of stairs in the central opening, impeded ve-

hicular access to the Rostra Augusti and Clivus Capitolinus

thereby necessitating adjustments to the area, including the

reworking of the surrounding paving and the street ap-

proaching from the east.102

Case Study 3: The Funeral of Septimius Severus

In 211 Septimius died in Eboricum (York) at the age of sixty-

six. His wife and their two sons Caracalla and Geta brought

his ashes to Rome and placed them in the Mausoleum of

Hadrian. Herodian records that an effigy of the dead em-

peror was fashioned out of wax and laid atop an ivory couch

displayed before the imperial residence.103 For seven days

doctors attended the effigy before proclaiming him officially

dead; an apotheosis ceremony followed shortly. Dressed in

purple, the combative sons of Septimius led the funeral pro-

cession down from the Palatine and into the forum. Es-

teemed young senators and equestrians followed, carrying

the ersatz corpse to the Rostra Augusti. The voices of women

garbed in white rang out from temporary bleachers on one

side of the “body,” those of children similarly dressed rose

from bleachers from the other side.

Such a generalized description only partially conveys

the symbolic and physical complexities of the processional

experience. The insertion of the Arch of Septimius Severus

into the forum substantially altered movement along the

main imperial processional route, advancing straight fromthe Temple of Divus Iulius along the front the Basilica

Aemilia northwest toward the Severan arch.104 The stairs on

the southeast side of the monument prevented the choreog-

raphy of wheeled traffic passing through the dynastic arch.

Instead, the elite participants in the funeral procession were

now compelled to leave their vehicles and walk uphill

through the arch to approach the rear stairs of the rostra, or

to climb to the rostra by means of temporary wooden stairs

on the front; the latter was perhaps the better alternative.105

Alternative 1: Entry North of the Temple of Divus Iulius

Two possible scenarios can be suggested for the parade chore-

ography (Figure 17). According to the first, the procession

entered the forum along the north side of the Temple of Divus

Iulius (Figure 17a). After passing the temple’s flank, wheeled

vehicles lined up in front of the Basilica Aemilia or parked

temporarily in one of the side streets (Argiletum or Clivus

Argentarius). The new co-emperors Geta and Caracalla, as

well as others who needed to ascend the rostra, walked

through the Severan arch, turned left along the Clivus Capi-

tolinus, and then climbed the curved stairs of the Rostra

Figure 15 Reconstruction model of the Arch of Septimius Severus;

the surmounting bronze sculptures of the emperor and his sons arenot shown (image © and courtesy of the Regents of the University

of Ca lifornia, the CVRLab, and the Experimental Technologies Center

[ETC], UCLA). See JSAH online for an analogous view keyed to a real-

time, three-dimensional model set in its geographic context

Figure 16 Arch of Septimius Severus as it appears today (photograph

by Diane Favro). (See JSAH online for an analogous view keyed to a

real-time, three-dimensional model set in its geographic context)


17/26

28 J S A H / 6 9 : 1 , M A R C H 2 0 1 0

17a 17b 17c

Figure 17 Roman Forum of 211 CE. Alternative 1 (image © and courtesy of the Regents of the University of California, the CVRLab, and the Exper-

imental Technologies Center [ETC], UCLA) . See JSAH online for a bird’s-eye view of a real-time, three-dimensional model of the imperial Roman

Forum (211 CE) set in its geographic context. 17a View from in front of the Basil ica Aemilia looking toward the Rostra Augusti and Arch of Septimius

Severus (17 a–c: images © and courtesy of the Regents of the University of California, the CVRLab, and the Experimental Technologies Center

[ETC], UCLA); 17b View of the Rostra Augusti from the north side of the Arch of Septimius Severus in front of the Temple of Concord; 17c View

from in front of the Temple of Saturn toward the Rostra Augusti and Arch of Septimius Severus

Augusti (Figure 17b). This choreography, however, was not

ideal, since it hid these notables from the audience’s view for

a significant amount of time at a key moment in the event. A

temporary wooden stairway may have provided direct access

to the rostra front or to an adjacent temporary stage such as

that constructed for the funeral of Pertinax.106 Other parade

participants dispersed into the crowd that gathered behind

the senators who, dressed in black, congregated (or sat) be-

fore the rostra. Alternatively, the parade may have passed

before the front of the rostra and then around the southwest

end of the speaker’s platform to reach the stairs at the rear

(Figure 17c).

Alternative 2: Entry South of the Temple of Divus Iulius

It is also possible that the parade entered the forum on the

southwestern side of the Temple of Divus Iulius moving

through the Arch of Augustus and then along the road in

front of the Basilica Iulia (Figure 18).107 Following this path

the procession turned right in front of Tiberius’s arch

(viewed to the left between the basilica and the Temple of

Saturn), to approach the rear stairs of the Rostra Augusti.

Elite participants mounted the platform, later rejoining the

funerary retinue gathered below for the march to the

tomb.108

The kinetic viewsheds along these two possible proces-

sional routes differ significantly. Each affected the parade

participants by drawing their attention to different referents.

The first processional route along the Basilica Aemilia of-

fered internal views of the forum. The Temple of Jupiter

Optimus Maximus, which had loomed above the smaller,

more recessed basilicas flanking the forum in the mid-repub-

lic, was now hidden from view by the towering verticality of

the enormous Basilica Iulia. The Arch of Septimius Severus

directly ahead defined the end of the imperial Sacra Via, its

front-facing billboard-like façade celebrating not only the

emperor’s military successes, but also the dynasty he estab-

lished (see Figure 17a).109 As they moved farther into the

forum, the imperial heirs at the head of the cortege would

have been drawn toward the rostra, attracted in part by the

mournful songs and white robes of the singers on the


18/26


Figure 18 Roman Forum of 211 CE. Alternative 2. See JSAH online for a bird’s-eye view of a real-time, three-dimensional model of the imperial

Roman Forum (211 CE) set in its geographic context (18a–e: images © and courtesy of the Regents of the University of California, the CVRLab, and

the Experimental Technologies Center [ETC], UCLA). 18a View through the Arch of Augustus looking toward the Basilica Iulia and the Temple of

Saturn; 18b View from in front of the Basilica Iulia. Beyond the Temple of Saturn rises that of Vespasian and Titus, with the Severan inscription

(see inset); 18c View from the south corner of the Rostra Augusti looking north toward the Arch of Septimius Severus with “PARTHICO” inscription;

18d View from the balcony of the Basilica Iulia looking north toward the Arch of Septimius Severus with the statue of Trajan atop his honorific column

visible in the distance; 18e View from in front of the Rostra Augusti looking up toward the Arch of Septimius Severus

18c 18d 18e

18b

18a


19/26

30 J S A H / 6 9 : 1 , M A R C H 2 0 1 0

bleachers. The sea of black-garbed senators in front of the

choir provided a neutral base above which they could see the

honorific columns erected by Septimius on the rostra, the

Temple of Saturn housing the state treasury, and farther

back, the Temple of Vespasian restored by the deceased.

If the pompa funebris followed the second route, enteringthe forum through the Arch of Augustus south of the Temple

of Divus Iulius, however, a related but different panorama of

imperial imagery unfolded before the viewer. Those who

passed along the road in front of the Basilica Iulia would have

faced the Temple of Vespasian; the Temple of Saturn partially

blocked the view of the facade, leaving visible a potent word

in the lowest line: severus (Figure 18b).110 The visually and

programmatically rich Rostra Augusti to the right would

soon draw their gaze, with the broad Temple of Concord

rising behind, evoking Severan claims of state and dynastic

harmony. Simultaneously the great Severan arch loomed toward the north.111 In fact, to view the rostra from this route

demanded that one view the arch as well. Although too dis-

tant to be read in detail, the great panels on the arch evoked

the well-known spiral narratives on the columns of Trajan

and Marcus Aurelius (Figure 18c). This association was re-

inforced for viewers on the southwest side of the forum in

front of the Basilica Julia; far in the distance they could see

Trajan’s statue atop his column (Figure 18d).112 Moving to-

ward the rostra this visual link was soon obstructed by the

impressive Severan arch (Figure 18e).

Following the disruptions that preceded his accession to

power, Septimius had been anxious to secure his position byassociations with revered past dynasties and to lay the

groundwork for future stability.113 By erecting his monument

after a long hiatus in new building additions to the forum, he

established a clear association with earlier Julio-Claudian

projects. The Severan arch responds directly to the Arch of

Augustus that stood diagonally across the forum, south of the

Temple of Divus Iulius, and which similarly honored suc-

cesses in Parthia.114 Just as Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, and Lu-

cius Verus, Septimius was given the name Parthicus. A

literate observer viewing the funerary events at the rostra

would doubtless note the bronze inscription parthico re-

peated on the upper corners of the arch attic. Like the tri-level relief, the reference was a verbal extension of the

Column of Trajan in the distance (see Figure 18d). Whereas

the column depicted the Dacian conquest, the arch reminded

knowledgeable viewers that Trajan’s Parthian conquest was

short-lived and that it was Septimius Severus who ultimately

completed the task begun years before. The recorded date

for Severus’s Parthian triumph was 28 January 198 CE, the

same day as the dies imperii of Trajan (when he was officiallyproclaimed emperor in 98 CE, one hundred years earlier).115

The views of the arch observed by the procession were

compelling, suggesting that the monument was specifically

designed to interact with the funeral, a hypothesis that requires

a further investigation of its place in imperial history. The death

of an emperor always entailed great difficulties, and it was Au-

gustus who first decided to plan ahead in monumental fashion.

As early as 28 BCE, in his sixth consulship, Octavian, not yet

Augustus, established a dynastic funerary tradition by building

a monumental family tomb, the so-called Mausoleum.116 But

it was much more. In name and form it recalled funerary mon-

uments of the east and in so doing advertised his victory, oper-

ating as a Mausoleum-Tropaeum, a “tomb and trophy.”117

In the first century CE Domitian erected a commemo-

rative arch for his elder brother, the emperor Titus, south-

east of the forum. Although not specifically celebrating a

triumph, the memorial drew upon triumphal associations,

while simultaneously underscoring dynastic continuity andreminding viewers of the donor’s quasi-divine status as

brother of a god. Celebrating the achievements of the de-

ceased, the arch echoes the funerary practice of presenting

a res gestae (list of accomplishments).118

While the funerary function of the Arch of Titus is ques-

tionable, that of the Column of Trajan is not. Whether it was

envisioned as a tomb from the beginning, this memorial of

the successful Dacian campaign certainly functioned as one

when Trajan’s ashes were placed within a chamber in the

base.119 The Arch of Septimius Severus follows the tradition

started with these imperial memorials. It was built as a tri-

umphal trophy, but this function was compromised by thestairs on the forum side, which prevented a triumphing gen-

eral in his gilded chariot from passing through the central

opening. The arch also served specific propagandistic pur-

poses: it was both an advertisement for dynastic continuity

and a visual res gestae in the style of the Column of Trajan.120

During the Republic, Romans visually represented con-

tinuity by parading their revered ancestors from various

centuries. Roman emperors continued to honor illustrious

predecessors with displays of the state’s viri illustres at theirfunerals. On other days of the year, they relied on forged

visual connections among imperial monuments, especially

among funerary memorials, to affirm their ties to past rulers.For example, an elite observer who climbed the Column of

Marcus Aurelius exited the door on top to face the mausolea

of Augustus and Hadrian.121 While no ancient references

describe exactly who was allowed to ascend to such heights

and see the visual lines that were drawn between Rome’s

imperial funerary monuments, the architectural accommo-

dation of such elite viewing affirms its significance.

The Arch of Septimius Severus participated in similar

visual interconnectivity. An internal stair led to chambers in


20/26


the attic and to an external walkway at the same level protected

by a metal balustrade.122 From this vantage point, a privileged

imperial observer had a view over the entire Forum Roma-

num, a panorama almost on a par with that seen by the gods.

He could easily observe the Arch of Titus to the southeast and

the Column of Trajan to the north. However, his view of the

Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus on the Capitoline was

fragmentary and oblique (Figure 19). After all, since that tem-

ple had originated in the Republic and undergone numerous

rebuildings by various patrons, it did not belong among the

visually interconnected imperial memorials that honored in-

dividuals and dynasties. Looking up at the Severan arch, mor-tal observers in the forum might have seen a live figure moving

along the narrow elevated walkway at a height associated with

the divinities who were represented in nearby temple pedi-

ments. In fact, spectators who were standing at the north cor-

ner of the Basilica Aemilia’s upper portico saw the pediment

of the Temple of Concord rising above and behind the arch to

frame the triumphal chariot atop the arch (Figure 20).123 Un-

fortunately, there is no information revealing which Romans

could enjoy this potent prospect, or their reactions.

The Arch of Septimius Severus continued the tradition

of Mausoleum-Tropaeum begun by the Mausoleum of Augus-

tus and extended the visual web of associations woven by thecommemorative columns of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius. Yet

with his arch the so-called son of Marcus went further than

his predecessors, boldly imposing his memorial on the rituals

held in the forum. The Arch of Septimius dictated the cho-

reography of future triumphal processions and dominated

the viewshed of those who participated in and observed the

funerary parade. While these conclusions could be made by

analyzing a plan of the forum, the three-dimensional model-

ing of the arch in its imperial setting has made the significance

of the siting and program fully comprehensible. In particular,

the orientation of the arch approximately parallel to the rostra

is seen to have created a formal tableau that concretized the

status-associated frontal view appreciated by the Romans.

The result is evident in a relief on the Arch of Constantine

(see Figure 14). The artist shows the emperor performing an

oratio from atop the rostra, flanked by the Arch of Tiberius tothe left and the Arch of Septimius to the right. The two impe-

rial memorials form potent bookends that eliminate the need

to represent other buildings.124 Significantly, the Basilica Iulia

is added to this panorama, an affirmation of both the build-

ing’s impact on the peripheral vision of Roman spectators,and the artist’s need to counterbalance the scale and power of

the large Arch of Septimius.

Conclusion

Computer visualizations replete with movement, sound,

light, and other features are changing the way we think about

reconstructions. A digital laboratory facilitates experimenta-

tion by allowing consideration of alternative reconstructions

of both human actions and the environments in which they

occur. In creating digital reconstructions of events and places,

scholars can yoke together disjointed archaeological sites intoa holistic environment, united by a common coordinate sys-

tem. The experimental insertion of ritual events in these

environments can restore human activity to the context it

once inhabited. Although the topographical picture and the

granularity of the reconstructed evidence have changed, the

means of reinterpretation is the same. The exploration of a

historical event within its context and the reading of the

interrelationship among reconstructed digital forms that are

tied to more scientifically accurate topography can give rise

Figure 19 View from walkway on the Arch of Septimius Severus toward

the Capitoline (image © and courtesy of the Regents of the University of

California, the CVRLab, and the Experimental Technologies Center [ETC],

UCLA). See JSAH online for an analogous view keyed to a real-time,

three-dimensional model set in its geographic context

Figure 20 View from upper portico of the Basilica Aemilia looking

toward the Arch of Septimius Severus and Temple of Concord (images

© and courtesy of the Regents of the University of California, the CVR-

Lab, and the Experimental Technologies Center [ETC], UCLA). See

JSAH online for an analogous view keyed to a real-time, three-dimen-

sional model set in its geographic context


21/26

32 J S A H / 6 9 : 1 , M A R C H 2 0 1 0

to new questions and conclusions. The visualization of his-

torical phenomena temporally and topographically prompts,

in turn, the reassessment of literary and material evidence.

The digital recreations are not post-research presentations,

but integral research tools.125

The study of digital experiential models of the Forum

Romanum during the mid-Republic period confirms the

clear visual interconnection between the Capitoline Temple

of Jupiter Optimus Maximus and the Comitium. The inter-

active reconstructions also demonstrate the striking concur-

rence between textual allusions to the oratorical stage and

the schematic, reconstructed topography. An enriched inter-

pretation of the spectacle is the result. The contextualized,

three-dimensional analysis of viewsheds underscores the

Cornelii’s exploitation of sight lines between Jupiter’s temple

above and the ceremonial actions below, informing the much

discussed question of speaker orientation.For scholars of the high imperial period, immersive

digital models facilitate the testing of hypotheses regarding

buildings, topography, and processions. The consideration of

events in situ illustrates how the Romans choreographed theirprocessions to exploit the scale, orientation, sequencing, and

symbolic associations of structures and places. The Severan

building program in the forum refocused funeral activities. Its

architecture, inscribed propagandistic texts, and sculptural

program redirected both the processional route and the gaze

of the audience and participants. The result was an imperial

panorama that reified the res gestae of the emperor and con-

firmed through visual associationism the symbolic connectionbetween the deceased and revered earlier rulers.

Notes We would like to thank Hilary Ba llon, David Brownlee, the Society of

Architectural Historians, and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation for the

opportunity to publish born-digital research in the first online issue of the

JSAH . Abbreviations of ancient sources and related texts follow SimonHornblower and Antony Spawforth, ed. The Oxford Classical Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), xxxix–liv.

1. Egon Flaig, Ritualisierte Politik: Zeichen, Gesten und Herrschaft im Alten Rom. Historische Semantik (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003), vol.1, 49–68. Polybius specifically cited the wearing of ancestral masks and giv-

ing eulogies at funerals as evidence of Roman superiority; Polyb. 6.52–54;see also Sallust Iug. 4.5–6; the merits of various forms of symbolic capital arediscussed in Sallust Iug. 85, passim.2. For a broad overview of Roman funerary practices see J . M. C. Toynbee,

Death and Burial in the Roman World (London: Thames & Hudson, 1971),43–64; for funerary spectacles see Keith Hopkins, Death and Renewal (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 201–56; for the use of

ancestral imagery see Harriet Flower, Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Powerin Roman Culture (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 91–158.3. The most detailed analysis of the experience of the Roman funeral is found

in John Bodel, “Death on Display: Looking at Roman Funerals,” in The Artof Ancient Spectacle, ed. Bettina Ann Bergmann and Christine Kondoleon

(Washington D.C.: National Gallery of Art, 1999), 259–80; and Javier Arce,

Memoria De Los Antepasados: Puesta En Escena y Desarrollo del Elogio Funebre Romano (Madrid: Electa, 2000).4. The major modern works on funerals of the emperors are by Javier Arce,

Funus Imperatorum: los funerales de los emperadores romanos (Madrid: Alianza,1990); Paul Zanker, Die Apotheose Der Römischen Kaiser: Ritual Und StädtischeBühne (Munich: Carl Friedrich von Siemens Stiftung, 2004); and S. R. FPrice, “From Noble Funerals to Divine Cult: the Consecration of Roman

Emperors,” in Rituals of Royalty: Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies ,ed. David Cannadine and S. R. F. Price (Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1987), 56–105. The distinction between funerals at public expense

( funus publicum) and other privately funded events, as well as the process forallowing funerals in the Forum Romanum, remains uncertain.

5. The real- time digita l models of the Forum Romanum used in these

analyses were created at UCLA over a number of years; http://www.etc.ucla.

edu. This study conta ins two distinct types of models , each built with

related, but not entirely similar, goals and methodologies. The two types are

clearly distinguished by surface material. The fully textured, highly detailed

models showing imperial Rome in the fourth century CE were developed

in a multi-university project directed by Bernie Frischer and Diane Favro;the construction of the models was overseen by Dean Abernathy initially at

UCLA and later at the University of Virginia. For a full list of participants

and data, see http://dlib.etc.ucla.edu/projects/Forum . Scholarly scientific

committees vetted each building reconstruction. The original models were

rebuilt by Itay Zaharovits (UCLA ETC), Steven Guban (UCLA ETC), Tom

Beresford (UCLA ETC), and Brendan Beachler (UCLA ETC) under the

direction of Christopher Johanson (UCLA) in order to further refine the

geographical accuracy of the models and to accommodate the demands of

internet-based distribution. The schematic, textureless models depicting

republican Rome were based on the doctoral research of Johanson, who

oversaw development by Tom Beresford (UCLA ETC) and Kathryn Fallat

(UCLA ETC); Philip Stinson (University of Kansas) worked on sections of

an initial investigation of the Curia and Comitium complex.

A graphic representation is a bearer of meaning. In creating the mod-els of the Forum Romanum, two general operating principles were imple-

mented. First was the decision to convey the level of evidence on which it is

based through graphical means. Since data for the forum in the republican

period is limited and often controversial, the buildings are depicted as sim-

ple masses without detail. The models represent possible, but not definitive

reconstructions of the form and location of individual monuments. In con-

trast, the richer archaeological and textual information for the imperial

period allows (if not encourages) a higher level of detail, including material

textures and colors and architectural details and inscriptions, as well as

increased specifi

pompa funebris - favro, d. & johanson, chr. (2010)

Documents