Download Death in Motion: Funeral Processions in the Roman Forum

Death in Motion
Funeral Processions in the Roman Forum
d i a n e fav r o
University of California, Los Angeles
christopher johanson
University of California, Los Angeles
T
he calendars of republican and imperial Rome were
overflowing with a plethora of religious and state
events, many of which were marked by animated
parades that wound through the city. Interspersed among
these were melancholy processions that carried the deceased
from home to a final resting place outside the walls of the
capital. For members of the elite, the route and activities of
the Roman funeral offered a valuable opportunity to display
and increase their symbolic importance.1 Previous studies
have considered the long history of funerals in antiquity,
commemorative activities such as the burning of the pyre
outside the city limits, or specific features such as the carrying of death masks.2 Few have contextualized the funerary
procession ( pompa funebris) with specific spaces or in relation
to the intricately constructed Roman experience of a funeral.3
Rome’s most illustrious and ambitious citizens choreographed their funerals with memorable activities in the
Forum Romanum, yet the effect of this symbol-laden public
venue on the honorific imperial funeral parades and activities
has not been critically evaluated.4
Three funeral parades will be analyzed and illustrated
contextually using interactive, immersive digital models of
the Forum Romanum that have been specifically designed to
Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 69, no. 1 (March 2010), 12–37. ISSN
0037-9808, electronic ISSN 2150-5926. © 2010 by the Society of Architectural Historians.
All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce
article content through the University of California Press’s Rights and Permissions website, http://www.ucpressjournals.com/reprintInfo.asp. DOI: 10.1525/jsah.2010.69.1.12. JSAH6901_03.indd 12
represent spatial and urban relationships.5 The examples,
one from the mid-Republic and two from the imperial period, demonstrate changes in the interplay between Roman
funerary practices and a specific urban space and provide a
platform for the use of phenomenological analysis. This research lays the groundwork for a comparison of the use and
manipulation of architecture and imagery in the Republic
and Empire.
The experiential aspects of any event in the forum require an understanding of that entire space as well as of those
parts of the surrounding cityscape that are connected visually
and aurally to the forum. With only fragmentary physical
remains, the forum has rarely been reconstructed in toto as
it existed in any specific period, although there are generalized reconstructions representing entire eras (e.g., the republican forum) and simplified representations devoid of texture,
color, artwork, people, and other rich sensory-stimulating
features.6 The late imperial forum has most frequently been
reconstructed because the archaeological remains from this
era are the best preserved.
In general, scholars have avoided making either pictorial
or three-dimensional physical reconstructions of the forum
as an urban space, for obvious reasons. The scientific recreation of larger scale environments is extremely time consuming, requiring extensive research, which detracts from a
scholar’s focus on particular issues.7 In addition, there are disciplinary deterrents. The fashioning of an entire urban space
requires hypotheses and assumptions about many unknown
2/2/10 5:19 PM
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)
aspects, including the upper floors of buildings, the placement 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 imperial funerals are described at length by ancient authors; even
fewer by contemporary eyewitnesses. Furthermore, these
accounts by male elite voices generally serve specific agendas 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 relative 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. Graham 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 supplementation 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 an
emperor (either Trajan or Hadrian) stands on the Rostra Augusti (speaker’s platform) while giving a public address or
adlocutio backed by six lictors (Figure 2); on the other an emperor 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 Ruminalis) and the statue of Marsyas appear in both reliefs, affirming 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 carvings 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 positioning. 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
D e at 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
JSAH6901_03.indd 13
13
2/2/10 5:19 PM
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
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 specifically 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, the
emperor is elevated atop a speaker’s platform; all figures look
14 j s a h
JSAH6901_03.indd 14
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 the
heavy account books toward the seated emperor atop the
Rostra Augusti. The fire consuming the records is appropriately 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 men
forming 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
/ 6 9 : 1 , m a r c h 2 010
2/2/10 5:19 PM
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 underscores 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 surrounding city, focusing inward on the two opposing rostra
that defined the space and action.
Despite their usefulness in explicating the interaction
between public events and the forum, the Plutei Traiani leave
many questions about the experience of the events unanswered. How did accompanying sounds reinforce the activities? 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 spectators stand? Were women and slaves allowed to watch?
What route to the forum was taken by participants?
Unfortunately, the established methodological apparatus for analyzing the symbiotic exchange between kinetic
ceremonies and urban form is not especially useful for ancient specialists. Modern anthropological and urban analyses
are 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 planners in the 1960s, have rarely been included in the architectural historian’s toolbox.21
During subsequent decades, the popularity of reception
theory led to increased interest in the “gaze.” In Roman studies, 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 ideas
to consider the experiences of urban buildings as linked together 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 interplay 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
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)
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 textbased publications has favored simplified, static visual representations, which are in many ways antithetical to the
experience of events such as ritual processions. In the formulation of research, as well as its publication, lively parades with
fluttering banners, cacophonous sounds, and animated dancers are distilled into static lines on two-dimensional plans
(Figure 4).26 Such depictions disguise the realities of topography, three-dimensional sequencing, temporal changes, and
the ease (or difficulty) of movement, among other factors,
while emphasizing particular aspects (sequencing), experiences (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 approaches 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
D e at 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
JSAH6901_03.indd 15
15
2/2/10 5:19 PM
Figure 5 Diagram of extended funeral
routes at Rome in 160 BCE (image by
Christopher Johanson)
environment. Digital technologies have made possible the
fashioning of more dynamic and flexible depictions of ancient
spaces for use in research, teaching, and presentation, all
readily linked to metadata that documents the level of accuracy 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 environmental 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 and
analysis, 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 simulation of smell or sound? Various sensorial additions to a simulation 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 awareness of the experiential richness of Roman design. Not surprisingly extensively designed rooms, such as those preserved
at Pompeii, are cited as early immersive “simulations.”29
Given the ancient evidence and the current technological
toolset, 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 describe the movement of the aristocratic pompa funebris
through the city to the Forum Romanum. Unfortunately,
16 j s a h
JSAH6901_03.indd 16
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 would
seem 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 circuitous the route, the better the attendance for the event, an
important factor at least during the Republic when funerals 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 matters. 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 funerals
began 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 parade, which was an event that the funeral procession mimicked 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 the
rostra the primary heir gave a eulogy, flanked by members of
the cortege who wore ancestor masks (imagines) and sat in a
row of ivory chairs that faced the assembled crowd. Scholars
have underlined the obvious potential for symbolic manipulation in the content of the speech (laudatio funebris), the
ancestor 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.
/ 6 9 : 1 , m a r c h 2 010
2/2/10 5:19 PM
Figure 6 Schematic representation of the funeral eulogy (image © and
Figure 7 Schematic representations overlaid on a geographic coordi-
courtesy of the Regents of the University of California, Christopher
nate system (image © and courtesy of the Regents of the University
Johanson, and the Experiential Technologies Center [ETC])
of California, Christopher Johanson, and the Experiential Technologies
Center [ETC], UCLA)
Physical and textual evidence demonstrate that the
forum during the mid-republican period was radically different 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) dimension is particularly difficult to find. Today’s researchers can
bring into play additional information, including high-resolution satellite imagery, citywide cadastral maps, and GPS
coordinates that precisely situate verifiable archaeological
remains within a geographic coordinate system, yet they still
lack sufficient data to create academically justifiable hyperrealistic 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 legibility, but necessarily textureless.40 They are knowledge representations of the current evidence—more often textual than
material—and can approximate only one of many interpretations 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 Within
these working parameters, however, valuable investigations
can be undertaken about the experiential and propagandistic
impact of the funeral on the processors and audience members, and in particular the importance of the critical intervisibility between buildings in and near the Forum Romanum.
The multilayered visual effects of the parade route require 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 represented 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 compromised by the inaccurate siting of buildings on published
plans. 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 Maximus in relation to the buildings of the mid-republican forum.
Three-dimensional paper-based reconstructions, hampered
by modern in situ viewshed difficulties, only approximate the
original 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 reconstructions 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
D e at 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
JSAH6901_03.indd 17
17
2/2/10 5:19 PM
Figure 8 Reconstructed drawing of Roman Forum and Capitoline Hill 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 hypothetical reconstruction to that of the same temple in the more accurate digital reconstruction
republic, and the only clear evidence of the occasional alteration 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 famed
conqueror of Hannibal during the second Punic Wars and the
most 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 occasions were these open for viewing, and only at the Roman
funeral were the masks paraded through the streets.49 For reasons 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 Africanus stood immediately next to the Roman forum behind the
Tabernae Veteres, which meant that a funeral procession to
the 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
18 j s a h
JSAH6901_03.indd 18
appropriately large crowd (see Figure 5, Figure 9).52 The detour 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 audience 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 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
/ 6 9 : 1 , m a r c h 2 010
2/2/10 5:19 PM
alteration of the Cornelii’s processional route offers a potential key to understanding the choreography of this mid-second-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 the
temple has not been recorded, but presumably the event occurred 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 eyesight, 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 temple, 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 republican
funeral? To what degree were the symbolic connections between the funerary activities at the rostra and those on the
Capitoline magnified by spectacle?
Digital reconstructions facilitate the experiential examination 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 visioncentered, 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 particular. In this instance, the height and footprint of the
Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus remain somewhat controversial. The dispute centers on whether the measurements given by Dionysius of Halicarnassus and confirmed
by recent archaeological work can refer to the temple’s podium, as asserted by Einar Gjerstad in the 1960s—a reconstruction 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 (Figure 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 overall
size 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 the
Basilica 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 Curiously enough, in the two reconstructions only the Comitium, the natural cavea to the northwest of the rostra, affords
clear views of the Temple of Jupiter (Figure 10i).
Clearly, an understanding of the Roman funeral necessitates 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 practices of the mid-Republic over a century earlier. An assessment 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
D e at 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
JSAH6901_03.indd 19
19
2/2/10 5:19 PM
10a
10b
10c
10d
10e
10f
10g
10h
10i
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 balcony of the Basilica Sempronia; 10h View from the balcony of the Basilica 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
20 j s a h
JSAH6901_03.indd 20
/ 6 9 : 1 , m a r c h 2 010
2/2/10 5:20 PM
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, threedimensional model of the republican Roman Forum set in its geographic context. 11a View from the area in front of the Rostra, populated by hypothetical 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
D e at 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
JSAH6901_03.indd 21
21
2/2/10 5:20 PM
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 crescendo as the cortege
rounded the Temple of
See JSAH online
Saturn at the lower terfor a re-creation of Roman
minus of the Clivus Capfuneral music and ritual
itolinus and burst into
lamentation based on
full view of the awaiting
experimental archaeology.
crowd.58 At this potent
moment the sound level
escalated, freed from the constraints of the narrow, buildinglined 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 procession stopped at the northwest corner of the forum and
mounted the rostra where the body of the departed was displayed (Figure 11b). The jostling audience at ground level
looked up to the famous ancestors represented by actors wearing death masks who were seated among the statues crowding
the platform; behind them the Curia Hostilia formed a monumental backdrop.59 The ancestors, in turn, looked down on
the majority of the audience—the inverse of the spatial arrangement 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 funeral 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 and
then 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 oratorical 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 magisterial classes.63 Thus the interpretation given in Alternative
1 is based on a retrojection from a later period. Prior to the
22 j s a h
JSAH6901_03.indd 22
mid-second century, orators faced the Comitium and the
Curia, not the forum.64 The implications of this original, reversed 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 in
a 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 convenient tiered viewing area. M. Porcius Cato’s decision as
censor 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 magisterial 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 surrounding 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 audience
could both see and be seen more effectively. Many would be
close enough to hear the speech clearly. Moreover, assembling in the western end of the forum would mitigate the
interference caused by the open shops and the ongoing business 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.
/ 6 9 : 1 , m a r c h 2 010
2/2/10 5:20 PM
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 deictic 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 majority 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 view
the 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 Temple
of 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 in
the 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 choreography 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 facilitates a consideration of the link forged between the Capitoline 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 garbing of the actor who wore the mask of Scipio Africanus in
triumphal regalia. Yet the directional change of the procession, coming down from the hill rather than moving up to
the temple, underscored another connection even more
strongly. The famous conqueror of Hannibal was acknowledged by some Romans to be the son of Jupiter, and his funeral mask was thus kept in the “residence” of his progenitor.
The parade route from Jupiter’s temple to the forum suggested 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 spectators. 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 audience could have seen the event on the hill, and that an understanding 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 configuration 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 choreography still included a parade and eulogies from the rostra, but
the ancestors who marched were largely stand-ins, not a collection of genetically related ancestors, but an assembly of
famous persons from Rome’s history. The body of the deceased, 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 shrinelike 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 into
the 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 Romanum. In 193 CE the emperor Septimius Severus organized
a lavish funeral in honor of his predecessor Pertinax and himself 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, commented on the funeral of Septimius and others of his day.76
D e at 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
JSAH6901_03.indd 23
23
2/2/10 5:20 PM
Figure 12 Digital reconstruction model of the Roman Forum in the late
imperial period. See JSAH online for an analogous view keyed to a realtime, 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)
While funerals grew steadily larger, the physical space
of the performance shrank significantly after the mid-Republic period. More permanent buildings and over-scale monuments 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 arteries leading into the area were narrowed as the basilicas expanded 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 imperial 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 an
emperor became truncated. Well publicized, the deceased
emperor, or rather, his imago, did not have to move through
the 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 likewise become more restricted in activities and meaning. Although 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 commemoratives and statues.77
24 j s a h
JSAH6901_03.indd 24
In relation to funeral activities, the most significant
physical change to the forum was the alteration to the speaker’s platform. At the end of the first century BCE Julius Caesar reworked the traditional locus of speechmaking and
assembly near the Senate House. He summarily eliminated
the republican rostra and began construction on a new speaker’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 southwest.78 The new platform, enlarged and completed by Augustus (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 Caesar’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, Augustus
marked 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 Romanum in the later period. Better preserved and more thoroughly 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 buildings survive in situ, which facilitates modern surveys and
substantially increases the fidelity of the reconstructed setting. The funerals of Pertinax and Septimius Severus offer a
chance 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 immediately affirmed his right to power by declaring his predecessor 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 of
the viri illustri, famous Romans of the past, confirming the
continuity and stability of Rome; these themes were reinforced 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 (associations). Along with male choruses singing funeral hymns processed subordinate officials, soldiers and bearers of heavy
bronze statues whose regional costumes identified them as
representations of Rome’s provinces—symbols of the power
/ 6 9 : 1 , m a r c h 2 010
2/2/10 5:20 PM
13a
13b
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 Tabularium 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
and geographic extent of the Empire. Racehorses and a panoply of funeral gifts alluded to the elaborate games to follow.
The procession climaxed with a portable golden altar bedecked 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 temporary 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 decomposing body. The new emperor, now called Lucius Septimius 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 locations 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
D e at 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
JSAH6901_03.indd 25
25
2/2/10 5:20 PM
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
statues of viri illustres at the head of the pompa (see Figure
11b).85 From their elevated position, the sculpted representatives of Rome’s history carried aloft in the procession looked
directly toward the Temple of Concord, symbol of harmony
among the classes, rising majestically behind the rostra (Figure 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 the
statues on the platform behind him bearing silent witness and
the crowd shouting in approbation.87 The senators seated
near 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 pantheon.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 emperor as representative of the collective. In Pertinax’s funeral,
participants carried statues representing illustres viri from
Rome’s history, not the illustrious ancestors of the deceased.
The staging reflected the realities of the imperial government, 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
26 j s a h
JSAH6901_03.indd 26
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 Romanum.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 repaired various structures ravaged by an earlier fire in 191/192
CE.92 Affirming her role as matrona and wife of the pontifex
maximus, Julia Domna assumed responsibility for rebuilding
the 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 period as well (Figure 14).94
These interventions paled beside the addition of a magnificent new arch. Significantly, this was the first large, complete 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 campaigns
against 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 inscription honored the emperor as “Pertinax” and “son of Marcus” 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
/ 6 9 : 1 , m a r c h 2 010
2/2/10 5:20 PM
Figure 15 Reconstruction model of the Arch of Septimius Severus;
Figure 16 Arch of Septimius Severus as it appears today (photograph
the surmounting bronze sculptures of the emperor and his sons are
by Diane Favro). (See JSAH online for an analogous view keyed to a
not shown (image © and courtesy of the Regents of the University
real-time, three-dimensional model set in its geographic context)
of California, the CVRLab, and the Experimental Technologies Center
[ETC], UCLA). See JSAH online for an analogous view keyed to a realtime, three-dimensional model set in its geographic context
(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 the
Germanic 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 Temple
of Divus Iulius. The large size of the new Severan arch, and
the inclusion of stairs in the central opening, impeded vehicular access to the Rostra Augusti and Clivus Capitolinus
thereby necessitating adjustments to the area, including the
reworking of the surrounding paving and the street approaching from the east.102
Case Study 3: The Funeral of Septimius Severus
In 211 Septimius died in Eboricum (York) at the age of sixtysix. 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 emperor 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 procession down from the Palatine and into the forum. Esteemed 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 from
the 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 choreography 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 choreography (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 Capitolinus, and then climbed the curved stairs of the Rostra
D e at 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
JSAH6901_03.indd 27
27
2/2/10 5:20 PM
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 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 (211 CE) set in its geographic context. 17a View from in front of the Basilica 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) before 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
28 j s a h
JSAH6901_03.indd 28
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 processional routes differ significantly. Each affected the parade
participants by drawing their attention to different referents.
The first processional route along the Basilica Aemilia offered 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-republic, 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 established (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
/ 6 9 : 1 , m a r c h 2 010
2/2/10 5:20 PM
18a
18b
18c
18d
18e
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
D e at 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
JSAH6901_03.indd 29
29
2/2/10 5:21 PM
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, entering
the 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 distant 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 reinforced 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 toward 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 by
associations 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 successes in Parthia.114 Just as Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, and Lucius Verus, Septimius was given the name Parthicus. A
literate observer viewing the funerary events at the rostra
would doubtless note the bronze inscription parthico repeated on the upper corners of the arch attic. Like the trilevel 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 officially
proclaimed emperor in 98 CE, one hundred years earlier).115
30 j s a h
JSAH6901_03.indd 30
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 Augustus 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 monuments of the east and in so doing advertised his victory, operating as a Mausoleum-Tropaeum, a “tomb and trophy.”117
In the first century CE Domitian erected a commemorative arch for his elder brother, the emperor Titus, southeast of the forum. Although not specifically celebrating a
triumph, the memorial drew upon triumphal associations,
while simultaneously underscoring dynastic continuity and
reminding viewers of the donor’s quasi-divine status as
brother of a god. Celebrating the achievements of the deceased, 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 questionable, 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 triumphal trophy, but this function was compromised by the
stairs on the forum side, which prevented a triumphing general in his gilded chariot from passing through the central
opening. The arch also served specific propagandistic purposes: 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 continuity by parading their revered ancestors from various
centuries. Roman emperors continued to honor illustrious
predecessors with displays of the state’s viri illustres at their
funerals. 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 accommodation of such elite viewing affirms its significance.
The Arch of Septimius Severus participated in similar
visual interconnectivity. An internal stair led to chambers in
/ 6 9 : 1 , m a r c h 2 010
2/2/10 5:21 PM
Figure 19 View from walkway on the Arch of Septimius Severus toward
Figure 20 View from upper portico of the Basilica Aemilia looking
the Capitoline (image © and courtesy of the Regents of the University of
toward the Arch of Septimius Severus and Temple of Concord (images
California, the CVRLab, and the Experimental Technologies Center [ETC],
© and courtesy of the Regents of the University of California, the CVR-
UCLA). See JSAH online for an analogous view keyed to a real-time,
Lab, and the Experimental Technologies Center [ETC], UCLA). See
three-dimensional model set in its geographic context
JSAH online for an analogous view keyed to a real-time, three-dimensional model set in its geographic context
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 Romanum, 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 temple had originated in the Republic and undergone numerous
rebuildings by various patrons, it did not belong among the
visually interconnected imperial memorials that honored individuals and dynasties. Looking up at the Severan arch, mortal 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 pediments. In fact, spectators who were standing at the north corner 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 Unfortunately, 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 Augustus and extended the visual web of associations woven by the
commemorative 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 choreography 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 modeling 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 to
the left and the Arch of Septimius to the right. The two imperial 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 building’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 experimentation 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 into
a holistic environment, united by a common coordinate system. 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
D e at 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
JSAH6901_03.indd 31
31
2/2/10 5:21 PM
to new questions and conclusions. The visualization of historical 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 interactive reconstructions also demonstrate the striking concurrence between textual allusions to the oratorical stage and
the schematic, reconstructed topography. An enriched interpretation 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 their
processions 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 confirmed through visual associationism the symbolic connection
between the deceased and revered earlier rulers.
Notes
We would like to thank Hilary Ballon, 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 Simon
Hornblower 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 giving 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 are
discussed 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 Power
in 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 Art
of Ancient Spectacle, ed. Bettina Ann Bergmann and Christine Kondoleon
32 j s a h
JSAH6901_03.indd 32
(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 Städtische
Bühne (Munich: Carl Friedrich von Siemens Stiftung, 2004); and S. R. F
Price, “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 for
allowing funerals in the Forum Romanum, remains uncertain.
5. The real-time digital 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 contains 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 models of the Forum Romanum, two general operating principles were implemented. 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 simple masses without detail. The models represent possible, but not definitive
reconstructions of the form and location of individual monuments. In contrast, 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 specificity about building heights. The result has a greater sense
of verisimilitude, but is consciously mediated by the second operating principle. The modeling team members decided not to aim for a hyperrealistic
digital representation. Instead, they conceptualized the digital reconstruction models as knowledge representations based on documented archaeological information, period-specific analogs, and valid secondary information
such as Renaissance drawings of lost building components. Features that
cannot be recreated or located with certainty are not included. At times
technological and resource limitations restricted development. Thus there
are few statues, no people, little vegetation, and no graffiti; building surfaces
do not show age or wear. Structures whose form and placement are controversial are not shown. The result occupies a precarious position between the
hyperrealistic renderings familiar from contemporary films, with historic
environments recreated in toto, and rigorously documented archaeological
reconstructions often depicted as a sanitized (if informative) line drawings
without textures or color.
/ 6 9 : 1 , m a r c h 2 010
2/2/10 5:21 PM
6. For well-executed line drawings of the reconstructed forum see those by
Elizabeth H. Riorden in John E. Stambaugh, The Ancient Roman City (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988); Cairoli Fulvio Giuliani and
Patrizia Verduchi, L’area centrale del Foro Romano (Florence: L.S. Olschki,
1987), 163, fig. 233. For a discussion and bibliography of two- and threedimensional reconstructions of ancient Rome, see Lothar Haselberger,
“Mapping Augustan Rome: Introduction to an Experiment,” in Mapping
Augustan Rome, ed. Elisha Ann Dumser, Journal of Roman Archaeology, suppl.
series 50 (2002), 9–28. Zanker’s influential book Forum Romanum: Die Neugestaltung durch Augustus considered over six hundred years of the forum’s
history, but provided only two reconstructions for the Imperial period: a
simplified black-and-white sketch and a tightly cropped photograph of the
famous plaster model of Rome at the time of Constantine built at approximately 1:250 scale; Forum Romanum: Die Neugestaltung durch Augustus
(Tübingen: E. Wasmuth, 1972).
7. It is only in rare cases that researchers possess the technical and scientific
skills to execute complex restoration drawings, models, or full-scale building
reconstructions; Fikret Yegül and Tristan Couch, “Building a Roman Bath
for the Cameras,” Journal of Roman Archaeology 16, no. 1 (2003), 153–77.
8. Diane Favro, “In the Eyes of the Beholder: VR Urban Models and Academia,” Journal of Roman Archaeology, suppl. series 61 (2006), 321–34.
9. The most detailed description of the Roman funeral remains Polybius
(6.52–54) who was writing in the first half of the second century BCE. His
aim, however, was not to describe the funeral; rather he used certain aspects
of the funeral institution as examples to illustrate why Romans are braver
than their Carthaginian foes.
10. Flower, Ancestor Masks, 97.
11. Graham Zanker, Modes of Viewing in Hellenistic Poetry and Art (Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press, 2004). In the Roman funerary context, the
patron (the family of the deceased) may have prevented the representation
of buildings in the forum because they were associated with other clans.
12. Catharine Edwards, Writing Rome: Textual Approaches to the City (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996); Andrews Burnett, “Buildings
and Monuments on Roman Coins,” in Roman Coins and Public Life under the
Empire: E. Togo Salmon Papers II, ed. George Paul and Michael Ierardi (Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999).
13. Diana Kleiner, Roman Sculpture (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1992),
248–50; Mario Torelli, Lexicon Topigraphicum Urbis Romae (LTUR), ed. Eva
Margareta Steinby (Rome: Quasar, 1999) vol. 4, 95–96. The building identifications are for the most part agreed upon by scholars, though the arch depicted
on the Debt Burning relief remains variously identified either as the Arch of
Tiberius equated with the arch joining the Basilica Iulia and Temple of Saturn
over the Vicus Iugarius or as an unverified arch on the Clivus Capitolinus. A
procession of sacrificial animals (the souvetaurilia) is carved on the back of each
relief which led early restorers to place the Analgypha as opposing balustrades
atop the rostra; however, the archaeological evidence is inconclusive.
14. The Rostra Augusti was a speaker’s platform usually reserved for popular assemblies, political campaigning, and imperial rituals. In the JulioClaudian age it was common for speeches to be delivered across the forum,
with the emperor on the platform at the Temple of Divus Iulius and the
presumptive heir on the Rostra Augusti as at the funerals of Octavia Maior
and Augustus; Dio Cass. 54.35.5; Suet. Aug. 100. The depiction of Roman
speakers atop a simplified dias was an established artistic trope and in these
reliefs substitutes for a more realistic representation of the rostra.
15. On the Debt Burning relief the Temple of Castor and Pollux and the
Basilica Iulia are accurately sited in relation to one another. The Temple of
Saturn is shown in alignment, but actually juts far forward; the Temple of
Vespasian and Titus is also aligned frontally, though in the forum it sits at
right angles to the other buildings depicted.
16. The following interpretation of the building depictions on the Anaglypha reliefs runs contra to Richardson’s proposal that their placement was
arbitrary; Lawrence Richardson Jr., A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient
Rome (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992), 292–93.
17. Visuality refers to the cultural constitution of vision. While the concept
of the period eye has been explored for post-antique painting and artwork,
it has only recently been considered in relation to Roman architecture,
urban design, and processional events. Paul Zanker wisely cautions scholars
not to over generalize by imaging ancient viewers are imbued with the
knowledge of all antiquity, rather than the specifics of a particular period,
class, and gender; “In Search of the Roman Viewer,” in The Interpretation of
Architectural Sculpture in Greece and Rome, ed. Dianna Buitron-Oliver (Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art, 1997), 179; Diane Favro, “Ancient
Rome through the Veil of Sight,” in Sites Unseen: Landscape and Vision, ed.
Dianne Harris and Dede Ruggles (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh
Press, 2007), 111–30; Diane Favro, “The Festive Experience: Roman Processions in the Urban Context,” in Festival Architecture, ed. Sarah Bonnemaison and Christine Macy (New York: Routledge, 2007), 10–42.
18. De arch. 4.5.1. Vitruvius also told architects to locate altars “on a lower
level than the statues in the temples, so that those who are praying and
sacrificing may look upwards towards the divinity;” De arch. 4.9.
19. Gregory S. Aldrete, Gestures and Acclamations in Ancient Rome (Baltimore:
The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999); Richard Brilliant, Gesture and
Rank in Roman Art: The Use of Gestures to Denote Status in Roman Sculpture
and Coinage (New Haven: The Academy, 1963).
20. Roman statues could depict both deceased and living people. The numerous sculpted works in Rome formed a second population, as evident in a funerary relief showing the deceased shaking hands with a sculpture; Kleiner, Roman
Sculpture, 236. In republican-period funeral processions the actors or family
members wearing ancestral masks imitated motionless statues in chariots; by
the time of the Principate actors were more animated, interacting directly with
the audience; Jörg Rüpke, “Triumphator and Ancestor Rituals: Between Symbolic Anthropology and Magic,” Numen 53, no. 3 (2006), 251–89.
21. Especially influential in architectural and urban design circles were
Donald Appleyard, Kevin Lynch, and John Myer, The View from the Road
(Cambridge: MIT Press, 1964); and Kevin Lynch, The Image of the City
(Cambridge: MIT Press, 1960). The diagrams and notational systems
explored in these works, however, did not gain wide popularity. In a few cases
these representational strategies were applied to the analysis of historical
environments, but generally by practitioners, not historians; G. E. Kidder
Smith, Italy Builds: Its Modern Architecture and Native Inheritance (New York:
Reinhold, 1955); Rob Krier, Urban Space, trans. Christine Czechowski and
George Black (New York: Rizzoli, 1979).
22. Heinrich Drerup, “Bildraum und Realraum in der römischen Architektur,” Römische Mitteilungen 66 (1959), 145–74; Daniela Corlàita Scagliarini,
“Spazio e decorazione nella pittura pompeiana,” Palladio 23–25 (1974–76),
3–44; Lise Bek, “Towards Paradise on Earth: Modern Space Conception in
Architecture, a Creation of Renaissance Humanism,” Analecta romana Istituti
Danici, suppl. 9 (Rome, 1980); Franz Jung “Gebaute Bilder,” Antike Kunst
17 (1984) 71–122; John R. Clarke, Houses of Roman Italy, 100 B.C.–A.D. 250:
Ritual, Space, and Decoration (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991),
1–77; Bettina Bergmann, “The Roman House as Memory Theater: The
House of the Tragic Poet in Pompeii,” Art Bulletin 76, no. 2 ( June 1994),
225–56. For consideration of urban sightlines see Francesca Bocchi, “Nuove
metodologie per la storia delle città: La città in quattro dimensioni,” in
Medieval Metropolises, Proceedings of the Congress of Atlas Working Group,
ed. Francesca Bocchi (Bologna: Grafis, 1999), 11–28; S. J. R. Ellis, “The
Distribution of Bars at Pompeii: Archaeological, Spatial and Viewshed
Analysis,” Journal of Roman Archeology 17, no. 1 (2004), 371–84.
D e at 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
JSAH6901_03.indd 33
33
2/2/10 5:21 PM
23. Diane Favro, “Reading the Augustan City,” in Narrative and Event in
Ancient Art, ed. Peter Holliday (New York: Cambridge University Press,
1993), 230–57; Michael Koortbojian, “In Commemorationem Mortuorum:
Text and Image Along the ‘Streets of Tombs’“ in Art and Text in Roman
Culture, ed. Jaś Elsner (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
24. The domestic architecture preserved around the Bay of Naples is the most
common subject of kinetic, as well as stationary, visual analyses, though
research is expanding; Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, Houses and Society in Pompeii
and Herculaneum (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994); G. P. Earl,
“Wandering the House of the Birds: Reconstruction and Perception at Roman
Italica,” The 6th International Symposium on Virtual Reality, Archaeology
and Cultural Heritage VAST (2005), http://public-repository.epoch-net.org/
publications/VAST2005/shortpapers/short1056.pdf (accessed 30 July, 2007).
Fixed sightline analysis is problematic for ancient processional events where
the audience members, as well as the parade participants, were frequently in
motion; Favro, “The Festive Experience,” 10–42.
25. Research on the senses in historical contexts is expanding in tandem with a
surge of publications about sensorial contemporary architecture; Michael Benedikt, “Coming to Our Senses,” Harvard Design Magazine 26 (Spring/Summer
2007), 83–91. For example, olfactory stimuli are mentioned for the Roman
funeral (specifically the need for perfumes to mask the smell of death), but such
discussions rarely consider the architectural context; Herodian 4.2; Constance
Classen, Aroma: The Cultural History of Smell (London: Routledge, 1994), 13–50.
26. In effect, illustrations are used to present findings of research rather than
operating as part of the research; Diane Favro, “The Street Triumphant:
The Urban Impact of Roman Triumphal Parades” in Streets: Critical Perspectives on Public Space, ed. Zeynep Çelik, Diane Favro, and Richard Ingersoll
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994) 151–64.
27. Seamless access to archaeological and modeling data about a digital
reconstruction is essential. Experiments are underway to make the veracity
parameters of reconstructions evident either graphically (e.g., digital watermarks) or with accompanying graphs (e.g. veracity sliders); Kim Veltman,
“Developments and Challenges in Digital Culture,” Proceedings of the Moscow
EVA Conference (Moscow: Russian Ministry of Culture, 2001), http://www.
sumscorp.com/articles/pdf/2001%20Developments%20in%20Digital%20
Culture.pdf (accessed 30 June 2007); John Pollini, “The Problematics of
Making Ambiguity Explicit in Virtual Reconstructions: A Case Study of the
Mausoleum of Augustus,” abstract, http://www.chart.ac.uk/ 21st Annual
Conference of CHArt: Computers and the History of Art http://www.chart.
ac.uk/chart2005/abstracts/pollini.htm (accessed 30 June 2007).
28. Such phenomenological experiments acknowledge a greater scholarly
comfort level today with fuzzy logic and indeterminacy.
29. Oliver Grau, Virtual Art: From Illusion to Immersion translated by Gloria
Custance (Cambridge MIT Press, 2003), 25–26.
30. For short references to funeral processions of the middle and late Republic period, see Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 5.17.2; 11.39.55; Horace, Serm. 1.6.43;
Plutarch, Lucul. 43. For the speech on the rostra see Polybius 6.53.1; “in foro,”
Cicero, De Orat. 11.84.341; the ancient sources are collected in Friedrich
Vollmer, “Laudationum funebrium Romanorum historia et reliquiarum editio,” in Jahrbücher für classische Philologie, Suppl. (1891), 445–528.
31. The crowd may have already gathered in the forum since, by the late
Republic, some funerals were announced in advance; see Cic. de Leg. 2.24.61.
32. Court cases did not adjourn for a funerary parade; Cic. De Or. 2.225. To
compensate, funerals were loud; see Horace Sat. 1.6.42–44 where an orator is
said to have such a loud voice that he could drown out three concurrent funerals.
33. The housing situation for Roman senators is examined in J. P. Guilhembet,
“Les résidences urbaines des sénateurs romains des Gracques à Auguste: La
maison dans la ville,” L’Information historique 58, no. 5 (1996), 185–97. Useful
case studies are Steven M. Cerutti, “The Location of the Houses of Cicero and
34 j s a h
JSAH6901_03.indd 34
Clodius and the Porticus Catuli on the Palatine Hill in Rome” American Journal of Philology 118, no. 3 (1997), 417–26; M. Medri, “Fonti letterarie e fonti
archeologiche: un confronto possibile su M. Emilio Scauro il Giovane, la sua
domus magnifica e il theatrum opus maximum omnium,” Mélanges d’archéologie
et d’histoire de l’École française de Rome 109, no. 1 (1997), 83–110; E. Papi,
“Domus est quae nulli villarum mearum cedat (Cic. Epist. 5.6.18). Osservazioni
sulle residenze del Palatino alla metà del I secolo a.C.,” in Horti romani: atti del
convegno internazionale, Roma, 4–6 maggio 1995, ed. Maddalena Cima and Eugenio La Rocca (Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 1995), 45–67. The exact
route of the Sacra Via is controversial. Some scholars argue the name refers to
a processional path rather than to a specific street, a distinction that is supported by the discrepancies between the textual and archaeological evidence,
and by changes in definition over time, most specifically after the fire of Nero;
Filippo Coarelli, LTUR, vol. 4, 223–28; Richardson, New Topographical Dictionary, 338–40. Debates over the pre-Neronian route are explored by Adam
Ziolkowski in Sacra Via: Twenty Years after, Journal of Juristic Papyrology Supplements 3 (Warsaw: Fundacja im. Rafała Taubenschlaga, 2004).
34. Possible but not necessarily probable entries existed along the Argiletum
to the north, the Vicus Iugarius and the Vicus Tuscus to the south, the Clivus
Argentarius to the northwestern entrances that connected to the Sacra Via
and the southeastern entrances to the forum along the road paralleling the
northern course of the Sacra Via. Parades could be quite long. By the late
Republic, Sulla’s funeral was remarkable even for a funus publicum; in addition
to the countless horn and flute players, the professional mourners and the
family, priests and priestess, the senate, all magistrates including their lictors,
many knights, and all of his legions joined the parade; App. B. Civ. 1.14.106.
35. The similarity was noted in antiquity; Sen. Consolatio ad Marciam 3.1
refers to the funeral of Drusus as “very much like a triumph;” Hendrik
Simon Versnel, Triumphus: an Inquiry into the Origin, Development and Meaning
of the Roman Triumph (Leiden: Brill, 1970). Understanding of the triumphal
route implicitly guides the discussion of the pompa funebris.
36. See above, note 2; Polybius 6.53–54 contains the fullest description.
37. See above, note 3. Jörg Rüpke, contends that the parade of ancestors is
actually a parade of living statuary; “Triumphator and Ancestor Rituals,” 272.
38. Nicholas Purcell, LTUR, vol. 2, 325–36 describes the state of the evidence and provides bibliography. For a relatively recent three-dimensional
reconstruction of the republican forum, see Karthryn Welch, “A New View
of the Origins of the Basilica: The Atrium Regium, Graecostasis, and
Roman Diplomacy,” Journal of Roman Archaeology 16, no. 1 (2003), 5–34.
39. Mark Gillings, “The Real, the Virtually Real, and the Hyperreal: The
Role of VR in Archaeology,” in Envisoning the Past, ed. Sam Smiles and
Stephanie Moser (Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2004), 229–30.
40. Siting validation is obtained through the use of a GIS base layer. 1:500
geo-referenced cadastral maps of the modern archaeological site created by
S.A.R.A. Nistri, Srl. function as the glue that holds the individual archaeological studies together. All maps and plans were geo-referenced in ESRI
ArcMap, exported to Google Earth via Arc2Earth, and then imported into
Google Sketchup.
41. Randall Davis, Howard Shrobe, and Peter Szolowits, “What Is a Knowledge Representation?” AI Magazine 14, no. 1 (Spring 1993), 17–33.
42. Each type of model (from schematic to the more detailed) is limited.
The nature of the evidence for the forum of the mid-Republic invites controversy. The most in-depth examination of the republican forum is Filippo
Coarelli’s two-volume work Foro Romano (Rome: Quasar, 1983–85), but
many of its conclusions have been challenged. For example, Coarelli’s reconstruction of a circular Comitium has been repeatedly questioned, and portions of the reconstruction seem to defy archaeological evidence. No
satisfactory alternative, however, has been proposed. The approach taken in
this study is to work within research boundaries already established by
/ 6 9 : 1 , m a r c h 2 010
2/2/10 5:21 PM
archaeologists, classicists, and historians, focusing on experiential analysis
and avoiding topographical debate. Where feasible, alternatives are considered. Above all, the use of a GIS as a base layer ensures that the reconstructions adhere to real-world constraints.
43. For temples of the mid-Republic the plans and positions may be known
as with those of Opimian Concord, Castor and Pollux, Vesta, and Saturn,
but the height and exact configuration in the Republic era remain uncertain.
For the Temple of Saturn, only the podium may relate to the republican
version of the structure; the rest of the temple, which would have affected
the view from the forum, has been obliterated. The Basilica Porcia and the
Curia Hostilia exist only as fragmented foundations of questionable identity.
While significant portions of the Basilica Iulia survive, its form and elevation
would have differed drastically from the earlier Basilica Sempronia.
44. Republican reconstructions are found in Peter Connolly, The Ancient
City: Life in Classical Athens & Rome (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998)
108 and Welch, “A New View,” 29 fig. 11 (by Stinson), though with distorting views elevated above eye level.
45. Not only do most pictorial reconstructions place the observer high
above ground level, they also exaggerate the topography as with the depiction by Alberto Carpiceci in Rome 2000 Years Ago (Florence: Bonechi
edizioni, 1981), 8–9 (fig. 8). The same is true for the plaster of paris model
of Rome (generally referred to as the Plastico) begun in the 1930s, which
elevated major hills in Rome by 15 to 25 percent to make them more visible;
Giuseppina Pisani Sartorio, “Le plan de Gismondi,” in Rome: L’Espace urbain
et ses représentations, ed. Francois Hinard and Manuel Royo (Paris: Presses
de l’Université de Paris–Sorbonne, 1991), 264. For the influence of Jupiter’s
temple and the Capitoline Hill on the mental image of the city, see Catherine Edwards, Writing Rome: Textual Approaches to the City (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 69–95.
46. The following case studies explore hypothetical funerals of the Cornelii
dating roughly to 183–145 BCE. There is no direct evidence from these
funerals. Instead, we use the funerals as a point of departure to follow the
hypothetical routes that such events must have taken.
47. Flower, Ancestor Masks, 48–52; Val. Max. 8.15.1; and App. Iber. 23.
48. For an alternate view on this manipulation, see Flower, Ancestor Masks,
48–52, who notes (48): “Although our sources are not explicit on this point,
they imply that the whole procession started at the house and continued up to
the temple of Jupiter on the Capitol to pick up Africanus, before making its
way to the Forum.” Appian and Valerius Maximus both note the retrieval of
Scipio Africanus’s imago from the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus. Valerius Maximus writes (“Whenever the gens Cornelia need to hold a funeral, the
imago is sought from [the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus].”) Most likely,
Valerius Maximus is ignoring the details of the stemma of the Cornelii. While
it is possible that every branch of the Cornelii brought out the imago of Africanus—the Sullae did—one wonders whether the Cornelii Lentuli did the same.
49. For a comprehensive collection of the ancient sources see Flower, Ancestor Masks, 185–222.
50. Ancient sources do not specify why or when the imago of Scipio Africanus was placed in the Capitoline temple. Certainly, Scipio had always demonstrated a special relationship with the temple; Liv. 38.51.12; and 26.19.7;
J. R. Fears “The Cult of Jupiter and Roman Imperial Ideology” II.17.1
Aufsteig und Niedergang der römischen Welt (1981), 44; Ann Vasaly, Representations: Images of the World in Ciceronian Oratory (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1993), 73. The similar mythologies of Scipio and Alexander
the Great underscore the particular difficulties of republican evidence;
James S. Ruebel, “Politics and Folktale in the Classical World,” Asian Folklore Studies 50, no. 1 (1991), 17–18.
51. On the Cornelii and the Tomb of the Scipios, see Toynbee, Death and
Burial, 39–40.
52. Livy (44.16.10–11) notes that the house, which probably stood on the
Vicus Tuscus, was purchased and demolished by Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus in 170 BCE to build the Basilica Sempronia; Richardson, New Topographical Dictionary, 134; E. Papi, LTUR, vol. 2, 88. Therefore, the purely
pragmatic need to compensate for the extremely short march to the rostra
by extending the parade to the Capitoline Hill would have been obviated
within thirteen years of Scipio’s death.
53. Did the main procession move up the Capitoline to retrieve the mask? Or
was it a separate processional element? Appian reports that the imago of Scipio
was still being fetched from the temple during his own time; App. Iber. 23. He
implies that the imago was incorporated into the full procession, but compares
it to other imagines that are brought “from the Forum.” Rather than consider
“from the Forum” an egregious error, recall that Appian was writing during
the first third of the second century CE. While the form of the funeral and
the representation of the imagines had changed drastically since the Republic,
the tradition of manipulating the conveyance of the imagines continued.
54. They may have been sitting in bleachers that were built in anticipation of
the upcoming games; E. J. Jory, “Gladiators in the Theatre,” The Classical Quarterly, new series 36, no. 2. (1986), 537–39. See below for the imperial model,
which included bleachers that served a different purpose; Herodian 4.2.5.
55. It must be underscored that such abstracted models are experiments. As
a result they should be treated as hypotheses for investigations much like the
trials undertaken within a scientific laboratory. These models represent an
aggregation and 3-D visualization of the published work of others. They
address the question, “If the forum had looked like this, how might we reread the rest of the evidence?”
56. Dion. Hal. Rom. Ant. 4.61.3; Einar Gjerstad, Early Rome III: Fortifications, Domestic Architecture, Sanctuaries, Stratigraphic Excavations (Lund: C.
W. K. Gleerup, 1960); John W. Stamper, The Architecture of Roman Temples:
The Republic to the Middle Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2005). For a full discussion of the reconstruction problem see, Mantha Zarmakoupi, review of Stamper, Bryn Mawr Classical Review, 4:22, 2006, and the
review of Stamper by John Senseney, American Journal of Archaeology 111,
no. 2 (April 2007), 384. Cairoli Giuliani notes that in the Gjerstad reconstruction the dimensions of the Temple of Jupiter would have exceeded
those of the Parthenon in its 12-meter central intercolumniation; L’edilizia
nell’antichita (Rome: La Nuova Italia Scientifica, 1990), 16–17.
57. The Capitoline temple was frequently mentioned in speeches given in
the forum, underscoring the crucial intervisuality between these urban
nodes. Livy notes that Manlius Capitolinus was not convicted for sedition
because the site of his trial in the Campus Martius afforded magnificent
views of Jupiter’s temple; Livy 6.20.5; for a full discussion see Vasaly, Representations, 15. While elite speakers in the Comitium could have seen the
Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, the audience could not. They relied
on their knowledge of its location rather than an actual prospect.
58. The Roman funeral procession included bands of musicians and, often,
persons singing dirges in praise of the dead; John G. Landels, Music in
Ancient Greece and Rome (London: Routledge, 1999), 179–80. The recreation
of both the basic sounds and the music of ancient instruments is extremely
problematic; as a result, only generalized interpretations of sound can be
inferred from the architectural context. New attempts to simulate Roman
performances are underway by experimental archaeologists; see for example
http://www.soundcenter.it/synauliaeng.htm and http://www.musicaromana.de/ (accessed 30 June 2007).
59. Pliny mentions the statues on the rostra; NH 34.23–25. For a hypothetical plan of statue placement in the Comitium and on the rostra, see Markus
Sehlmeyer, Stadtrömische Ehrenstatuen der republikanischen Zeit: Historizität
und Kontext von Symbolen nobilitären Standesbewusstseins (Stuttgart: Franz
Steiner, 1999), map 2.
D e at 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
JSAH6901_03.indd 35
35
2/2/10 5:21 PM
60. Though Roman spectators in elevated locations (such as the poor in the
highest seats in theaters) may have had totalizing views of events, their sight
was compromised by distance and lack of precision, especially without ocular aids. Regarding ancient spectator seating and associated legislation see
Elizabeth Rawson, “Discrimina Ordinum: The Lex Julia Theatralis,” Papers
of the British School at Rome 55 (1987), 83–114; F. Pina Polo, Contra Arma
Verbis: Der Redner vor dem Volk in der späten römischen Republik (Stuttgart:
Franz Steiner, 1996), 23–25; cf. Robert Morstein-Marx, Mass Oratory and
Political Power in the Late Roman Republic (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2004), 51, esp. note 57.
61. On the effect of the chronological arrangement, see Maurizio Bettini,
Anthropology and Roman Culture: Kinship, Time, Images of the Soul (Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991), 167–83; and Bodel, “Death on Display,” 264.
62. Cic. De leg 2.23.58. Elite Roman women could also receive similar funerary honors; Cic. De orat. 2.11; Suet. Iul. 26, Suet. Calig. 10.
63. Cic. Amic. 25.96; Varro, Rust. 1.2.9.
64. Plut. C. Grach 5.3; for a full discussion of the evidence, see MorsteinMarx, Mass Oratory, 45–7.
65. Plautus Curc. 475–6 refers to a canalis in the forum and archaeological
explorations have confirmed the existence of second-century vaulting; John
N. Hopkins, “The Cloaca Maxima and the Monumental Manipulation of
Water in Archaic Rome,” Aquae Urbis Romae: The Waters of the City of Rome
4 (March 2007), 9.
66. The senaculum was the area where senators congregated before being
summoned to enter the Senate House; Varro, Ling. 5.156. The Graecostasis
was a raised tribunal for ambassadors from foreign states; Varro, Ling. 5.155.
67. For the general topography of the area, see Paolo Carafa, Il comizio di
Roma dalle origini all’etá di Augusto (Roma: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 1998).
68. On the Basilica Porcia, see E. M. Steinby, LTUR, vol. 1, 187; and Liv. 39.44.7.
On porticoed viewing at funerals during the Empire, see Cassius Dio 75.74.4.
69. Though it is possible statues faced different directions, the majority of
examples found in situ were oriented in the same direction; Peter Stewart,
Statues in Roman Society: Representation and Response (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 262.
70. For a discussion of Cicero’s famous reference to the Capitol, see Vasaly,
Representations, 83–84.
71. The evidence is hardly clear. Valerius Maximus in the paragraph subsequent to his description of Scipio’s imago recounts that an effigies of Cato was
placed in the Curia, but makes no direct funerary association; Val. Max.
8.15.2.
72. Valerius Maximus notes that Scipio allegedly did not participate in business without first having spent some time in the Temple of Jupiter on the
Capitoline and for this reason was considered by some to be the god’s progeny; Val. Max. 1.2.2, Raymond Marks, From Republic to Empire: Scipio Africanus in the Punica of Silius Italicus (New York: Peter Lang, 2005), 169, 187.
73. Price, “From Noble Funerals,” 57–58.
74. For example, Herodian records that at the funeral of Septimius Severus
the Roman magistrates gave up their authority; 4.2.
75. Price emphasizes the role of the deceased emperor’s apotheosis as a
defining act that separated him from his mortal republican forebears; “From
Noble Funerals,” 57–105.
76. Dio Cass.75.4–5, Herodian 4.2, SHA Sev. 7.
77. Dozens of statues stood in the forum, including republican remnants
such as the statue of Marsyas. By the late second century CE the new sculptural additions were predominantly of the imperial family; Stewart, Statues
(see note 69), 5, 87–8, 134.
78. Dio Cass. 43.49.
79. Suet. Iul. 84–85; Aug. 100.
36 j s a h
JSAH6901_03.indd 36
80. The high podium of this building was identified as “rostra aedes divi
Iuli;” Pierre Gros, LTUR, vol. 3, 117. At his funeral Augustus was eulogized
at the opposing rostra; Roger B. Ulrich, The Roman Orator and the Sacred
Stage: The Roman Templum Rostratum, Collection Latomus 222 (Brussels:
Latomus, 1994), 186–87.
81. Cassius Dio includes the description of the funeral after a list of dreams
as part of Septimius’s propaganda to legitimize his rule; 75.4–5; Timothy
Barnes, “The Composition of Cassius Dio’s ‘Roman History,’” Phoenix 38,
no. 3 (Autumn 1984), 245; Price, “From Noble Funerals,” 59–61.
82. The funeral given by Septimius compensated for the numerous disrespectful acts against Pertinax after he was murdered; SHA Pert. 11, 14; Dio
Cass., 74.13.1–2.
83. The traditional dress of mourning was the grayish toga pulla; Juv. X.245.
In addition, Roman men put aside all ornaments and did not cut their hair;
Herodian, 4.2; Terent. Heaut. II.3.47; Suet. Jul. 67, Aug. 23, Cal. 24.
84. Evidence on the time of day for imperial Roman funerals is scant. Presumably the funeral procession did not arrive at the rostra until the sun fell on the
platform at mid-morning. It exited the forum in mid-afternoon to allow
enough daylight to complete the activities at the burial site; Plut. Vit. Sull. 38.
85. Roman funeral music and ritual lamentation has been reconstructed by
composer Walter Maioli. His “Neniae,” performed by Synaulia Research
Group, is recorded on Synaulia, Music of Ancient Rome, Volume 1: Wind
Instruments (Amiata Records 1996). Regarding the significance of music in
funerals of the Imperial era see John R. Levison, “The Roman Character of
Funerals in the Writings of Josephus, Journal for the Study of Judaism 33, no.
3 (Sept. 2002), 274–76.
86. Damaged in the fire of 191/192 CE, the condition of the temple of
Vespasian and Titus directly south of Concord’s temple is uncertain for the
time of Pertinax’s funeral; Dio Cass. 72.24.1.
87. The Rostra Augusti was embellished with statues, including one of
Augustus (Tac. Ann. 4.67), as documented by ancient texts and the oration
relief on the Arch of Constantine (see Figure 14).
88. SHA Pert. 3.4.9.
89. Dio Cass. 75.5.
90. Septimius may have undertaken more extensive reworking of the Forum
Romanum in lieu of creating an imperial forum. The addition of his great arch
visually, if not literally, closed in and defined the space with monumental gateways
at the four main entries. Septimius Severus is also associated with the creation of
the Forma Urbis Romae, a great marble map of the entire city. A comprehensive
study of Severan building in Rome is underway by Susann Lusnia.
91. Though not officially adopted by Marcus Aurelius, Septimius referred
to him as “father;” Dio Cass. 76.7. The equestrian statue also reflected the
impact of the gigantic Equus Domitiani that stood in the center of the forum
until Domitian suffered damnatio memoriae; Stat. Silv. 1.1.
92. A fire in the late second century ravaged the Palatine slopes and Temple
of Vesta, as well as the Forum Pacis; the extent of destruction in the central
forum is uncertain; Dio Cass. 73.24.
93. Charmaine Gorrie, “Julia Domna’s Building Patronage, Imperial Family Roles and the Severan Revival of Moral Legislation,” Historia: Zeitschrift
für Alte Geschichte 53, no. 1 (2004), 65–68.
94. Restoration work on the Temple of Vespasian is thought to date to
before 203 CE; CIL VI.938. Archaeological evidence affirms the erection of
the columns as part of the Severan reworking of the area around the rostra;
Patrizia Verduchi, “Rostra Augusti,” LTUR, vol. 4, 216.
95. In the intervening years numerous sculptures had been added to the
forum, including the large reliefs of the Plutei Traiani/Hadriani. Most major
buildings had been restored or renovated. The new Temple of Antoninus
and Faustina to the southeast, erected in the mid-second century CE, stood
just outside the main open part of the forum.
/ 6 9 : 1 , m a r c h 2 010
2/2/10 5:21 PM
96. The SPQR dedication refers not only to Septimius’ foreign conquests,
but also obliquely to the defeat of his political rivals, though he did not want
to overtly celebrate a triumph for a victory over other Romans. One source
records Septimius declined a Parthian triumph claiming ill-health; SHA Sev.
9; 16,6; Simon Swain, Stephen Harrison, Jaś Elsner, Severan Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 202–6. Nevertheless, the honor of the
triumph was acknowledged in various events as memorialized in a frieze
above the side arches depicting the pompa triumphalis.
97. The bronze Equus Severi commemorated a dream of Septimius that
foretold his succession. In the dream a horse threw off Pertinax and then
lifted Septimius on his back; the event took place at the spot where popular
assemblies met during the Republic just to the east of the site selected for
the arch; Herodian 2.9.6.
98. The original bronze letters are not extant, but the inscription can be read
from the cuttings into the stone; CIL VI.1033, cf. 31230.
99. Richard Brilliant, The Arch of Septimius Severus in the Roman Forum,
Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 29 (1967); LTUR, vol. 1, 103–5.
100. Ann. 2.41.
101. Through the location of the arch of Tiberius remains controversial,
many follow Coarelli, who identifies it with the buttressing arch between
the Temple of Saturn and the Basilica Iulia; Coarelli, LTUR, vol. 1, 107–8.
In line with Roman pictorial conventions the arch is depicted frontally on
the oration relief from the Arch of Constantine (see Figure 14).
102. Early scholars argued that stairs and a small open space were cut into
the rostra’s northern side to provide access after the construction of the
Severan arch; Christian Hülsen, The Roman Forum, Its History and Monuments, trans. Jesse Carter, 2nd ed. (Rome: Loescher, 1906), 62–64. Such an
adjustment has been called into question by subsequent excavations; Verduchi, LTUR, vol. 4, 216. The remains of the nearby Umbilicus also seem to
date to the Severan period. After the restoration of the central pavement of
the forum, Septimius emphasized his reverence for Rome’s history by preserving the Augustan-era inscription of L. Naevius Surdinus. On the complex archaeology of the area see Giuliani and Verduchi, L’area centrale,
38–50. The Roman exploitation of architectural design to exclude wheeled
traffic is evident at Pompeii where the higher level of the forum prevented
vehicles from entering.
103. SHA Sev. 7; Herodian 4.2; Toynbee, Death and Burial, 59–61.
104. Many modern sources identify this as the route followed by the Sacra
Via after the devastating fire of Nero; Coarelli, LTUR, vol. 2, 227.
105. A third alternative would have the processional vehicles drive around the
Arch of Septimius on the east. The exact configuration of the paving in the
area during the Severan age complicates assessment of this route; furthermore,
the circumvention of the emperor’s arch seems unlikely for symbolic reasons.
106. The break in the front balustrade of the upper rostra shown on the
oration relief on the Arch of Constantine may indicate the position of a
temporary stair; Hülsen, The Roman Forum, 70.
107. The procession could also have entered the forum north of Caesar’s
temple and then moved across the front to rejoin the southern street that
paralleled the Basilica Iulia, but this route would have omitted passage
through the Parthian arch of Augustus.
108. The parking of processional vehicles (such as those carrying the gifts
to the deceased) remains problematic in every scenario. In this case the space
behind the rostra was especially tight, compelling the parade participants
and vehicles to line up along one of the streets to the east.
109. Facing southwest, the façade of the arch was lit by the sun for most of
the day, increasing its visual attraction. The triumphal procession has generally been given as the raison d’être for the siting of the arch. The argument
is far from secure. The exact entry point of the triumph into the forum is
contested. Furthermore, the choreography of the triumph is currently called
into question by comprehensive digital reconstructions indicating that the
large triumphal retinues could not easily navigate certain spaces such as the
arch with steps and the sharp turn onto the Clivus Capitolinus, necessitating
a transfer from vehicles to foot transport.
110. Beneath this was added a second line (impp. caes. severus et antoninus pii felices augg. restituerunt), which indicates a restoration, probably
not extensive, by Severus and Caracalla; CIL VI.938.
111. Brilliant argued persuasively that the iconographic program on the
arch was meant to be read by moving around the structure beginning at the
south corner facing the forum; Arch of Septimius, 169, 220–50.
112. The familiar left to right narrative of the triumphal register as well as the
larger relief panels encouraged viewers to move their gaze toward the north.
113. Regarding the dynastic emphasis of Severan architecture in Rome see
Susann Lusnia, “Urban Planning and Sculptural Display in Severan Rome:
Reconstructing the Septizodium and Its Role in Dynastic Politics,” American
Journal of Archaeology 108, no. 3 (Oct. 2004), 534.
114. Brilliant, Arch of Septimius, 87–88; LTUR, vol. 1, 104. The new Severan
arch directly faced another monument spanning the road between the
Basilica Aemilia and the Temple of Divus Iulius; this arched structure
remains controversial, identified either as part of the Porticus Gaii et Lucii
or, less convincingly, as Augustus’s Parthian arch; Richardson, New Topographical Dictionary, 313; Filippo Coarelli, Il Foro Romano II (Rome: Edizioni
Quasar 1985), 269–308.
115. Dies Imperii of Trajan: CIL VI.42–44; official date of the Parthian Triumph of Septimius Severus: Feriale duranum col. 1, lines 14–16.
116. For the name and date see, Suet. Aug. 100.4; for the name alone see,
Strabo 5.3.9; cf. Mart. 2.59.2. On the mausoleum and funeral of Augustus
see Price, “From Noble Funerals,” 67–70.
117. Penelope J. E. Davies, Death and the Emperor: Roman Imperial Funerary
Monuments, from Augustus to Marcus Aurelius (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 49–67.
118. The funerary associations of commemorative arches in or near the forum
have been noted by scholars; Karl Lehmann-Hartleben, “L’Arco di Tito,” Bullettino della Commissione archeologica del Governatorato di Roma 62 (1934), 107–11.
119. Davies, Death, 32–34.
120. Cornelius Vermeule speculated that the arch of Septimius was intended
as a dynastic funerary monument with chambers to house the deceased;
“Review of The Arch of Septimius Severus in the Roman Forum by Richard
Brilliant,” American Journal of Archaeology 72, no. 3 (July 1968), 296. The
roughly finished surfaces and difficult access of the chambers probably precludes such an interpretation.
121. Viewing platforms in commemorative columns and arches were only
accessible by narrow stairs that passed by or through interior chambers
possibly holding valuables. This, as well as the lack of wear, indicates these
belvederes must have been used only occasionally by privileged viewers.
Regarding the Column of Marcus Aurelius, a construction date after the
emperor’s death indicates a funerary association; Aur. Vict. Caes. 16; Davies,
Death, 42–48.
122. Significantly, images of the Arch of Septimius Severus on coins emphasize the balustrade thus reinforcing the significance of the walkway; BM
Coins, Rom. Emp. 5.216n.320; RIC 4.124 no. 259.
123. The great bronze sculptures on top of the arch may have been so large
as to obscure the pediment of the temple of Concord depending on their
form and scale, and on the exact height of the temple.
124. The artists working for Constantine, the first Christian emperor, may
have purposely omitted the temples from this depiction of the forum.
125. Richard Bayliss, “Archaeological Survey and Visualization: The View
from Byzantium,” in Theory and Practice in Late Antique Archaeology, ed. Luke
Lavan and William Bowden (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 288.
D e at 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
JSAH6901_03.indd 37
37
2/2/10 5:21 PM