Actium arch

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Roman denarius , struck probably 29 BC. With representation of the Actium arch (?), RIC ² I, 267

The Arch of Actium was a Roman arch of honor that was made for Octavian , later Augustus , on the occasion of his triumph in 29 BC. In the Roman Forum in Rome . Its localization has not yet succeeded.

occasion

In 32 BC BC Octavian succeeded in having the internal political disputes with his Mittriumvirn Marcus Antonius declared by the Roman Senate to be an external conflict with Cleopatra's Egypt . War was declared on Egypt, Octavian declared dux Italiae , the leader of Italy, and charged with waging the war. The Ptolemaic War lasted from 32 to 30 BC. And ended in the battle of Actium, which was victorious for Octavian, in 31 BC. And the capture of Alexandria , which led to the suicide of Mark Antony and Cleopatra, in 30 BC. BC The now rulerless Egypt was declared a Roman province .

Octavian had not only won the struggle for sole rule as the basis for the creation of a new state order, but also the basis for solving the economic problems that had been brought about by the years of conflict. Not only could around 70,000 legionnaires be released and turned into farmers, but the enormous quantities of grain in Egypt were now available to supply Rome. The Senate honored Octavian by granting him a triumph for victory at Actium, officially over Cleopatra, and a triumph for victory over Egypt.

In 29 BC Octavian celebrated a triple triumph, namely on August 13th the "over the Dalmater" ( de Delmatis ) granted earlier by the Senate , on August 14th "because of Actium" ( ex Actio ) and on August 15th "because of Egypt" ( ex Aigypto ). The dramaturgy of this three-day event culminated in the triumphal procession over Egypt, in which, in addition to the movable booty, Cleopatra's children, Alexander Helios and Cleopatra Selene , were also presented. With the triple triumph he established a direct relation to the victoriousness of Romulus , who was the first to celebrate three triumphs, which only Pompey had achieved since the end of the Etruscan kingship . The many honors that Augustus received on this occasion also included an arch crowned with trophies in Brundisium , and another in the Roman Forum.

Localization

The location of the Actium Arch in the Roman Forum has been the subject of scientific discussion for over 130 years. A universally accepted solution has not yet been presented. The basis of the problem is the fact that the Roman Senate in 20 BC. BC decided to recruit Octavian, now Augustus, for the recovery of the 53 BC. Under Marcus Licinius Crassus to honor the standard lost to the Parthians with another arch and a small triumph, an ovatio . This Partherbogen recorded a Scholion to Virgil with the deeds of Augustus performing Niken decorated and was "right next to the Temple of Caesar ", known better today as the "temple of Caesar."

Coin images

Denarius, 18 BC From Tarraco , representation of the Parthian Arch, RIC ² I, 136
Denarius of L. Vinicius, 16 BC BC, representation of the Parthian Arch (?), RIC ² I, 359

The coin images from the years 29 to 16 BC Chr. Give different arcs, which are to be connected with those of the forum. One emission shows a single-door arch with a quadriga and a driver on the attic , which is labeled IMP.CAESAR. Round picture fields, imagines clipeatae , adorn the arched pillars. Since the 27 BC The honorary title awarded to Octavian is still missing, the coins are dated before this year and generally refer to the arch of the year 29 BC. Chr. Related. However, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the coins refer to an arch decided by the Senate after Octavian's victory at Naulochos . Some coin series from the western provinces show a three-sided arch, on the attic of which a quadriga with Augustus can be seen, but this time flanked by barbarians wearing trousers and handing him the regained signa . The circulating legend names the occasion, the August title and the sixth tribunic power of Augustus, which he took in 17/16 BC. Chr. Held. The assignment to the Parthian Arch is undisputed. Another series comes from the mint master of the year 16 BC. Chr. Lucius Vinicius . It shows a very similar motif as the provincial coins, but shows the side passages not as arches, but flatly covered and crowned by small gables. The parapet is labeled SPQR / IMP.CAE. It is unclear which arch should be shown. Because the coinage of this time, which in connection with the 17 BC. The Ludi saeculares celebrated in the 3rd century BC and opened the new "Golden Age" consciously fall back on events from the end of the Roman Republic : Philippi , Naulochos, Actium. In this context, an interpretation of the arch shown as an Actium arch is possible.

Archaeological evidence

Situation plan south of the Caesar temple: foundations of the three-sided arch, foundations by Gamberini Montgenet and Castor temple

In 1888 the archaeologist Otto Richter examined the remains of the temple for Divus Iulius in the Roman Forum and documented the area adjacent to the temple foundation. To the south of the temple he had found four pillar foundations, the northernmost of which connected directly to the temple foundations. The foundation blocks of the temple were even slightly worked off in order to gain space for the connection of the pillar foundation. In a first publication of the results, he combined these foundations with the arch qui est iuxta aedem divi Iulii , i.e. the Parthian arch . On the other hand, he suspected the Actium Arch on the north side of the temple without evidence or evidence. When he presented the final results of his investigations, he rejected this interpretation because the distance and size of the pillar foundations did not seem to suit the depictions of the Parthian Arch. Instead, he now reconstructed the Actium arch on the foundations and relied on the Vinicius emission of the year 16 BC. BC, which shows a wider central passage.

From 1950 to 1952 Riccardo Gamberini Montgenet re-examined the area south of the temple, removed the travertine pavement in this area and exposed the remains of two foundations, immediately east of the well-known pillar monuments of the three-sided arch. He interpreted them as the foundations of the actium arch, which he assumed with one gate following the early coins. For the erection of the Parthian Arch, the Actium Arch was laid down, especially as it was damaged shortly after completion and had to be secured by complicated retaining walls in the soft ground.

Remains of the arch south of the Caesar temple

Building on these results, Filippo Coarelli came back to Otto Richter's ideas in 1985. He interpreted the previous foundations of the three-sided arch south of the Caesar temple as belonging to the arch for Naulochus, which had been replaced by the Actium arch. The Parthian arch, however, stood on the north side of the temple, the arch and Basilica Aemilia formed a structural unit and were blended into one another. In 1986 and 1987, the area of ​​the foundation in question was examined again, this time by Elisabeth Nedergaard. The most important result was the proof that the two foundations east of the three-sided arch were of different times: The northern one was laid in two phases, both of which were older than the three-sided arch; the southern one, on the other hand, was younger than the foundation of the three-sided arch, as it spilled over it. This ruled out the possibility of accommodating three arches in the area of ​​the Caesar temple. The foundation on which the three-sided arch stood south of the temple was cast from a slab in opus caementicium and must have been built between 29 BC. BC, the inauguration of the temple for Caesar, and 6 AD before the Castor temple with its eastern flight of stairs could take into account the southernmost passage of the three-sided arch. Nedergaard also relates all three-sided coin depictions to the Parthian Arch, which she locates south of the Caesar Temple. She assigns all the structural elements associated with the arches to this arch, as does the Fasti Capitolini that may have been attached to one of the arches. On the other hand, she leaves the location of the Actium arch open.

Remains of the arch south of the Caesar temple, view to the south

That the construction of the Actium Arch was ever carried out and that it was located near the Temple of Caesar was generally concluded - in addition to the imprecise testimony of Cassius Dio - from a 2.67 meter long, lost inscription, which was found in 1546/47 when the one Ransacked forum for building materials for St. Peter's Basilica . It came from the year 29 BC. And was set for Octavian as the keeper of the state. Their exact location is unknown and varies depending on the author: “in the building to which the Fasti Capitolini belong” or “near the columns of the Castor temple” or “in front of the portico of Faustina”, i.e. the temple of Antoninus Pius and Faustina on North edge of the forum. The information is spread over the eastern end of the forum. The affiliation to an arched monument on the Roman Forum has not been proven, however; the narrow width makes it rather unlikely that the inscription belonged to the arch south of the Caesar temple, as its central passage had a clear width of almost 4 meters. The inscription was therefore either considered to be a scaled-down copy of the inscription or it was assumed that it was only turned back on the Parthian Arch and came from the smaller Actium arch. The Actium Arch, however, would have given way to the Parthian Arch.

So far, the location of the Actium Arch, one of the most important monuments of early Augustan self-expression and propaganda, could not be determined. But there is a possibility that the arch can be found in the areas of the Roman Forum that have not yet been excavated.

Position of the building

Roman Forum around 20 BC Chr .; dark gray: those between 30 and 20 BC Inaugurated or renovated buildings

Notwithstanding the localization problems associated with the arch, it had an important place in Octavian's building policy. It was one of the first triumphant memorial buildings, even if as early as 121 BC. The Fornix Fabianus built and 56 BC. BC was also restored again and our knowledge of the bow for Naulochos is poor. In addition, he added himself to the series of monuments that illustrated the victory at Actium and kept the memory of him, but above all its consequences alive: the decoration of the podium front at the Caesar temple with the Rostra from the battle, the display of booty in the temple itself, the decoration of 29 BC Newly inaugurated Curia Iulia with a Victoria on the ridge, the erection of a four-pillar monument , which was cast from the bronze of the ship's beaks hijacked before Actium. Even if the victory over an internal enemy was not directly addressed, the connection was obvious. The arc for the victory at Actium fits into this picture, even if it had been officially won over Cleopatra.

At the same time, the arch was part of a fundamental redesign of the Forum Romanum, which had already been tackled before Actium, but now got a different face. The east side was now limited and occupied by the in 42 BC. Chr. By the Senate praised temple for the Divus Iulius, which was inaugurated one day after the triple triumph of Octavian. In the same year, on the opposite side of the forum, the Iulia Curia was inaugurated - both splendid marble buildings that stood out in their travertine environment. Further buildings followed. Lucius Munatius Plancus , who in a Senate session in 27 BC, renewed . Chr. Had applied for the award of the August title to Octavian, the temple of Saturn and had tritons placed in the gable fields , well-known symbols for the help Octavian had received from the gods at Actium. In this emotional charge of the forum buildings, the Actium Arch found its natural ambience, which it also strengthened. For this reason, however, the suggestion that the arch was laid down in favor of the Parthian Arch, not least in order to take back the emphasis on the victory at Actium, is mostly rejected.

literature

  • Filippo Coarelli : Il Foro Romano. Vol. 2. Quasar, Rome 1985, pp. 258-308.
  • Robert Alan Gurval: The Politics and Emotions of Civil War. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor 1995, pp. 36-47.
  • Fred S. Kleiner: The study of Roman triumphal and honorary arches 50 years after Kahler. In: Journal of Roman Archeology. Vol. 2, 1989, p. 195.
  • Leicester B. Holland: The Triple Arch of Augustus. In: American Journal of Archeology . Vol. 50, 1946, pp. 52-59.
  • Tonio Hölscher : monuments of the battle of Actium. In: Klio . Vol. 67, 1985, pp. 81-102 ( digitized version ).
  • Elisabeth Nedergaard: On the problem of the Augustus arches in the Roman Forum. In: Mathias Hofter (ed.): Emperor Augustus and the lost republic. An exhibition in the Martin-Gropius-Bau, Berlin, June 7th - August 14th, 1988. von Zabern, Mainz 1988, pp. 224–239.
  • Elisabeth Nedergaard: Arcus Augusti (a. 29 aC). In: Eva Margareta Steinby (Ed.): Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae. Vol. 1. Edizioni Quasar, Rome 1993, pp. 80-81.
  • John W. Rich: Augustus's Parthian honors. The temple of Mars Ultor and the arch in the Roman Forum. In: Papers of the British School at Rome. Vol. 66, 1998, pp. 69-128.
  • Otto Richter: The Augustus buildings on the Roman Forum. In: Yearbook of the German Archaeological Institute . Vol. 4, 1889, pp. 137-162.
  • Marion Roehmer : The arch as a state monument. On the political significance of the Roman honor arches of the 1st century AD (= sources and research on the ancient world. Vol. 28). Tuduv, Munich 1997, pp. 19-32.

Web links

Commons : Arches of Augustus in Rome  - collection of images, videos and audio files

Remarks

  1. ^ Cassius Dio 51, 19, 1.
  2. ↑ Virgil , Aeneid 8, 714; Livy , epistulae 133; Suetonius , Augustus 22; Cassius Dio 51:21; see. also Augustus, Res gestae divi Augusti 1, 21; the fasti triumphales only know the triumphs of the 13th over Dalmatia ( de Delmatis ) and the 15th over Egypt ( [ex Aigy] pto ).
  3. ↑ Cassius Dio 51, 21, 8; Eusebius of Caesarea , Chronicle 2, 140f. (ed. Schoene).
  4. ↑ Cassius Dio 51, 19, 1; see. also 49, 15, 1.
  5. ^ Cassius Dio 54, 8, 3.
  6. ↑ Veronese Scholion at Virgil, Aeneis 7, 605: qui est iuxta aedem divi Iulii ; on the literary tradition of the arches see also Andrea Scheithauer: Imperial building activity in Rome: The echo in ancient literature (= Heidelberg ancient historical contributions and epigraphic studies. Vol. 32). Franz Steiner, Stuttgart 2000, pp. 84-88.
  7. ^ RIC² I, 267.
  8. ↑ Cassius Dio 49:15, 1; so Filippo Coarelli: Il Foro Romano. Vol. 2. Quasar, Rome 1985, pp. 258-308; Paul Zanker : Augustus and the power of images. CH Beck, Munich 1987, p. 64; see. Robert Alan Gurval: The Politics and Emotions of Civil War. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor 1995, pp. 40-47.
  9. ↑ RIC² I, 131-137.
  10. ↑ Walter Trillmich : Coin Propaganda. In: Mathias Hofter (ed.): Emperor Augustus and the lost republic. An exhibition in the Martin-Gropius-Bau, Berlin, June 7th - August 14th, 1988. von Zabern, Mainz 1988, pp. 474–528, here: pp. 515 f.
  11. ↑ RIC² I, 359th
  12. ↑ Walter Trillmich: Coin Propaganda. In: Mathias Hofter (ed.): Emperor Augustus and the lost republic. An exhibition in the Martin-Gropius-Bau, Berlin, June 7th - August 14th, 1988. von Zabern, Mainz 1988, p. 488 f. see also: Hans-Werner Ritter: Considerations on the inscription of the Arch of Augustus on the Roman Forum. In: Communications of the German Archaeological Institute, Roman Department . Vol. 85, 1978, pp. 371-384.
  13. ↑ Otto Richter: The Temple of Divus Julius and the Arch of Augustus in the Roman Forum . In: Ancient monuments. Vol. 1. 1888. Reimer, Berlin 1891, pp. 14–15 ( online )
  14. ^ Otto Richter: The Augustus buildings on the Roman Forum. In: Yearbook of the German Archaeological Institute . Vol. 4, 1889, pp. 137-162.
  15. ↑ Riccardo Gamberini Montgenet never published his results himself, but Bernhard Andreae gives a summary of his results : Archaeological finds and excavations. In: Archäologischer Anzeiger. 1957, p. 151 f.
  16. ^ Filippo Coarelli: Il Foro Romano. Vol. 2. Quasar, Rome 1985, pp. 258-308.
  17. ^ Elisabeth Nedergaard: On the problem of the Augustus arches in the Roman Forum. In: Mathias Hofter (ed.): Emperor Augustus and the lost republic. An exhibition in the Martin-Gropius-Bau, Berlin, June 7th - August 14th, 1988. von Zabern, Mainz 1988, p. 235 f.
  18. ^ Elisabeth Nedergaard: On the problem of the Augustus arches in the Roman Forum. In: Mathias Hofter (ed.): Emperor Augustus and the lost republic. An exhibition in the Martin-Gropius-Bau, Berlin, June 7th - August 14th, 1988. von Zabern, Mainz 1988, p. 236 f.
  19. ^ Elisabeth Nedergaard: On the problem of the Augustus arches in the Roman Forum. In: Mathias Hofter (ed.): Emperor Augustus and the lost republic. An exhibition in the Martin-Gropius-Bau, Berlin, June 7th - August 14th, 1988. von Zabern, Mainz 1988, p. 236 f.
  20. ↑ For the location of the Fasti Capitolini , see: Laura Chioffi: Gli elogia augustei del Foro Romano. Aspetti epigrafici e topografici. Quasar, Rome 1996, pp. 26-36: am Fornix Fabianus ; Ch. J. Simpson: On the Unreality of the Parthian Arch. In: Latomus. Vol. 51, 1991, pp. 835-842; ders .: The Original Site of the Fasti Capitolini. In: Historia. Vol. 42, 1993, pp. 61-81: an der Regia .
  21. ↑ CIL 06, 00873 .
  22. ^ Attilio Degrassi : L'edificio dei Fasti Capitolini. In: Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia. Vol. 21, 1945-1946, pp. 80 f., 97.
  23. ^ Andrea Scheithauer: Imperial building activity in Rome: The echo in ancient literature (= Heidelberg ancient historical contributions and epigraphic studies. Vol. 32). Franz Steiner, Stuttgart 2000, p. 88 with note 91.
  24. ^ Bernhard Andreae: Archaeological finds and excavations. In: Archäologischer Anzeiger. 1957, p. 152; Fred S. Kleiner: The Arch of Nero in Rome. A Study of the Roman Honorary Arch before and under Nero. Bretschneider, Rome 1985, p. 25 f .; see also: Hans-Werner Ritter: Considerations on the inscription of the Arch of Augustus on the Roman Forum. In: Communications of the German Archaeological Institute, Roman Department. Vol. 85, 1978, pp. 371-384.
  25. ↑ Paul Zanker: Augustus and the power of images. CH Beck, Munich 1987, pp. 85-87; Robert Alan Gurval: The Politics and Emotions of Civil War. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor 1995, pp. 36-47; Marion Roehmer: The arch as a state monument. On the political significance of the Roman honor arches of the 1st century AD (= sources and research on the ancient world. Vol. 28). Tuduv, Munich 1997, pp. 19-32; Thomas Schäfer in: Klaus Bringmann, Thomas Schäfer: Augustus and the establishment of the Roman Empire (= study books history and culture of the old world ). Akademie Verlag, Berlin 2002, pp. 227-229.
  26. ↑ However, the thesis - not accepted in research - that the Parthian Arch would never have been built is also supported: Ch. J. Simpson: On the Unreality of the Parthian Arch. In: Latomus. Vol. 51, 1991, pp. 835-842; ders .: The Original Site of the Fasti Capitolini. In: Historia. Vol. 42, 1993, pp. 61-81.
  27. ^ Henner von Hesberg : The change in the appearance of the city of Rome under Augustus. In: Mathias Hofter (ed.): Emperor Augustus and the lost republic. An exhibition at Martin-Gropius-Bau, Berlin, June 7th - August 14th, 1988. von Zabern, Mainz 1988, pp. 93–115, especially pp. 97–99.
  28. ↑ Paul Zanker: Augustus and the power of images. CH Beck, Munich 1987, pp. 85-102, especially pp. 85-87.
  29. ^ Robert Alan Gurval: The Politics and Emotions of Civil War. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor 1995, pp. 36-47.

Coordinates: 41 ° 53 ′ 31.4 "  N , 12 ° 29 ′ 12.2"  E