Bow of orange

Theater and “Arc de Triomphe” of Orange
UNESCO world heritage
Arch of Orange, south side
National territory:	France
Type:	Culture
Criteria :	(iii) (vi)
Surface:	9.45 ha
Buffer zone:	232 ha
Reference No .:	163bis
UNESCO region :	Europe and North America
History of enrollment
Enrollment:	1981  ( session 5 )
Extension:	2007

The Arch of Orange (also Triumphal Arch or Augustus Arch of Orange ) is a three-sided arch of honor, probably from the late Augustan - early Iberian period, which was in front of the northern entrance to the ancient Arausio , today's Orange in the southern French department of Vaucluse , and was about 110 meters outside the city .

Almost all surfaces of the arch are covered with reliefs , among which the representations of weapons and tropaia predominate. There are also battle reliefs of victorious Romans fighting against defeated Gauls , as well as subordinate reliefs from the field of Roman religion .

Fastening holes for the attachment of metal letters, which roughly determine the occasion and time of the construction of the building, allow the inscription to be reconstructed, even if their interpretation is discussed.

The arch was converted into a fortress in the 13th century and an eight meter high tower was added. At that time it was owned by Raymond I des Baux, the prince d'Orange, and until 1725 belonged to the Principality of Orange .

A restoration that was carefully carried out in the 19th century was revised in the 1950s in line with the zeitgeist , so that a visual distinction between ancient findings and restoration is hardly possible for the layperson.

In 1840 the arch was declared a monument historique and thus placed under monument protection as a remarkable building. Since 1981, the monument is also a World Heritage Site of UNESCO .

location

Location of the arch in Roman Arausio

The arch rose above the road that, coming from the north, soon after 36 BC. Chr., Founded in colonia Iulia company Secundanorum Arausio shortly Arausio called, reached and as part of the Via Agrippa Arausio with Lugdunum, today's Lyon , joined. As Cardo maximus, the extension of the street formed one of the main urban axes. Remains of about 10 BC The city walls that were built in BC and are partially traceable are not detectable in the area of ​​the arch. It is therefore assumed that the arch was outside the city and was clearly in front of the actual entrance. This is supported by the fragments of graves found north of the arch, which certainly belonged to a necropolis outside the fortification.

Ilse Paar and Hans G. Frenz therefore suggested viewing the monument as a “city foundation arch” that was created in Augustan times. This term, coined by Almut von Gladiß , is intended to designate arches that were erected on the pomerium , the ritually plowed city limits, established by the augurs . Arthur Lincoln Frothingham saw markings of the pomerium in the arches in front of a city wall in 1905. This interpretation was only accepted to a limited extent for the sheet of orange. Since then, the monument has been widely marketed in travel guides under the catchy name “Stadtgründungsbogen”.

The essence of these arches, not serving as a triumphal monument, went well beyond marking a pomerium - a task that could more obviously be accomplished through a city wall. Similar to the arch of Glanum , the arch in orange was visible from afar in the plain. As a landmark, it marked the entrance to the Roman city and testified in its run-up to the grandeur and superiority of Roman civilization and culture, which was expressed within the city wall through theaters , temples and public spaces .

architecture

The three- sided arch , made of local limestone from the quarries near Sérignan , has a preserved height of 18.60 meters, a width of 19.56 meters and a depth of 8.40 meters. The middle passage, which is suitable for wagons and wagons, is 5.02 meters wide and has a clear height of 8.87 meters, the 2.92 meters wide side passages for pedestrians were 6.48 meters high.

The fronts of the arch pillars are provided with two fluted half-columns between the passageways, three-quarter columns as corner columns encompass the outer narrow sides of the arch. The half-columns stand on pedestals , have Attic bases with plinths and are crowned by Corinthian capitals . This is followed by a cranked entablature over the side passages , the architrave of which is structured by three horizontal bands separated from one another by means of astragals . While the architrave above the side passages is part of the arch pillars as a wall structure and jumps back accordingly, it spans the central half-columns freely in the area of ​​the central passage. An egg bar completes the architrave as a crowning profile . This is followed by a frieze rich in figures, only partially preserved on the south and east sides, with battle scenes swaying to and fro. On the north side, on the other hand, the frieze was left smooth and not sculpted. The frieze is followed by a tooth cut and a sequence of further profiles, a geison decorated with consoles on its underside . A rich sequence of profiles conveys to the concluding leaf-adorned Sima . The central passage is emphasized on both facades by triangular gables that span the projecting entablature area.

These triangular gables are hidden in front of the double attic above the entablature . While the lower attic takes up the protrusions and recesses of the blend architecture in the area of ​​the passages, the upper attic has been enriched by further protruding elements in the form of pedestals above the side passages.

The pilasters on which the archivolts of the passageways rest are covered with delicate tendril ornaments and feature filigree foliage and stems. In contrast to the ornamentation of the arch, which otherwise often fills the area, the pilaster reliefs have generous open spaces, whereby the detailed, fine quality of the tendril components comes into its own. The archivolts themselves are adorned with lavishly filled garlands of fruits and leaves, their undersides support a network of square and diamond-shaped flat fields. Honeycomb-shaped cassette fields richly decorated with changing profiles and provided with central flowers adorn the underside of the arch in the area of ​​the passageways.

The narrow sides of the arch were divided into three fields by means of two half-columns between the three-quarter columns of the corners. The structure of the blend architecture follows that of the façades, but has a different cranking scheme. The entablature now only recedes above the middle field, thus reversing the sequence of the facades and is crowned by a triangular gable across its entire width. The middle area of ​​the gable field is above the cranking a conche .

• Views and details
• 

  North side

• 

  North and east side

• 

  Middle passage

• 

  Detail of the coffered ceiling

Picture decorations

Relief with land weapons above the eastern passage on the south side

Relief with sea weapons over the eastern passage on the north side

South central pedestal of the 2nd attic

In addition to the rich ornamentation, the arch is decorated over and over with reliefs of different contents. The wall surfaces above the side passages show weapon reliefs on which shields, helmets, vexillas , swords and lances are depicted. The three image fields between the blinding columns on the outside are filled with tropaia , originally a symbol of victory placed on the battlefield, in front of which are bound barbarians prisoners of war .

The frieze, which is small in relation to these large-format reliefs, shows a series of battle scenes between naked, long-haired Gauls and Romans dressed in tunics . Since there are only naked figures among the fallen fighters, the victory of the Romans becomes clear.

If the relief fields above the passages are filled with weapons from the land war, the corresponding reliefs of the first attic show weapons from the sea war: rams , masts, anchors, tridents, ropes. The representations in the area of ​​the narrow sides of the attic are also maritime, the gussets of which above the gable triangles are filled with sea ​​creatures reminiscent of tritons . In contrast, the spandrels of the lateral gable triangles themselves are occupied by cornucopia , a bust of Sol appears in the gable niche.

The central pedestals of the upper attic are decorated with battle reliefs. Mounted Romans armored with chain mail and simple legionaries fight against the inferior, naked or in trousers fighting Gauls. Numerous drill holes surround the scene on the south side and were probably used to attach further display elements made in bronze. There are also battle scenes on the side walls of the central pedestals. It is unclear whether they originally took up the entire sides or were carried out only up to the abutting edges of the structural members connecting the side pedestals.

Compared to these mostly warlike relief contents, the depictions of the eastern pedestal on the upper attic are bound to a completely different topic. Its north side shows a series of cult objects , namely from left to right Aspergillum , Guttus , Patera , Simpulum and Lituus . The depiction of such cult implements points to the sphere of the Roman Pietas . While Guttus, Patera and Simpulum are generally pietas expressive cult devices, Aspergillum and Lituus are related to very specific priesthoods and their functions. The lituus is the cult device of the augurs who were important when founding cities and who were responsible for delimiting the area that was wrested from nature by the city or colony to be created.

The southern relief of the eastern pedestal is entirely beyond interpretation. It shows a female bust, surrounded by a puffy coat. This drapery, called velificatio , marks the appearance of deities in Roman art, especially Luna , Venus and Aura among the female . The goddess on the arch is usually addressed as the aura without committing to an interpretation.

• Reliefs of the facades
• 

  Middle tropaion on the east side

• 

  Eastern gable with sol and cornucopia

• 

  Cult devices on the upper attic

• 

  "Aura" on the upper attic

Inscriptions

Architrave inscription

It was not until 1811 that it was discovered that holes in the architrave on the north side belonged to an inscription and were used to attach metal letters. After the restoration of the building and the liberation of modern components between 1950 and 1955, fastening holes belonging to an inscription were found on the southern architrave. This made older readings of the inscription obsolete, but uncertainties still exist not only with regard to the final formula:

"TI • CAESAR • DIVI • AVGVSTI • F • DIVI • IVLI • NEPOTI • AVGVSTO • PONTIFICI • MAXI
POTESTATE • XXVIII • IMPERATORI • IIX • COS • IIII • RESTITVIT • R • P • COLONIAE ( or RESTITVTORI)"

"In honor of Tiberius Caesar , son of Divus Augustus, grandson of Divus Iulius , the pontifex Maximus ,
holder of tribunician power for the 28th time , imperator for the eighth time , consul for the fourth time , the community of the colony [ the bow] again (or: ... consul for the 4th time, the restorer of the colony ) "

The inscription addressed to Tiberius could be dated in this reading to the year 26/27 AD based on the mentioned title. However, especially the spelling of the numbers and the abbreviations of the titles do not necessarily match the formulas to be expected in the early imperial era. In addition, very different hole patterns for the same letter must often be assumed for the reconstructed reading. For the letters A and E alone , there were six different fixation patterns, five for R and V, and seven for the O alone. That is why the correctness of the mostly accepted reading was not only questioned, but completely rejected. For the reconstruction of the final formula to restitutori coloniae , "the [meaning is Tiberius] restorer of the colony ", an occasion to reconstruct is only very deliberate; a special donation on the part of Tiberius towards the colony is not recorded. It was believed that a fitting event had been found in the suppression of the unrest led by Iulius Sacrovir in AD 21 in northern France and in the subsequent strengthening of the veteran colonies. If, on the other hand, one assumes a restoration of the arch by the colony, the restituit could refer to restoration work as well as to a rededication of the arch to Tiberius. The separation of different construction phases on the arch, which was required and also represented in a structural restoration, was countered by the assumption that only one early construction phase was needed, the inscription announcing a rededication of the building originally intended for Germanicus , who died posthumously in AD 19, to Tiberius. But the inscription is also considered to be completely irrelevant for the dating of the arch. Regardless of its dating, it is certain that it was attached to the decorated architrave afterwards.

Relief inscriptions

Spread over the arch, numerous names are engraved on the shields of the weapon reliefs and the tropaia, including MARIO, DACVRDVS, SACROVIR (US), BODVACVS.

The oldest surviving description of the arch from 1535 by Aymar du Rivail (1491–1558) mentions the inscriptions:

“ Et extra ipsam civitatem a borea est triumphalis arcus prælii navalis undequaque perfectus et integer, et in quinque scutis ibi insculptis adhuc leguntur totidem nomina sequentia:
MARIO. DACVDO. VDILLVS. CATVLVS. RODVACVS
reliqua ventus et vetustas corroserunt. "

The name Boduacus is known from two other inscriptions from Nîmes and Verona , Iulius Sacrovir from the uprising in eastern Gaul from the year 21, which is handed down by Tacitus . It cannot be decided whether the inscriptions on the shield refer to historical personalities, simply represent artists' inscriptions or even arms manufacturers . A member of the sacrovirus family (ex Sacroviri gente) is known from a grave inscription found in orange from the first half of the 1st century, without any reference to the inscription on the arch.

Dating

The dating of the arch is the subject of ongoing discussion. This discussion is based on:

1. Content and interpretation of the architrave inscription as well as its assessment as a date-relevant criterion;
2. the assessment of structural forms and ornaments as an expression of a datable architectural style ;
3. the art style reflected in the reliefs and their associated time;
4. the conceptual unity of the architectural findings.

The spectrum of dating approaches still represented today ranges from the 2nd decade of the 1st century to the beginning of the 3rd century, with the majority of researchers assuming that the arch was dated to the 3rd decade of the 1st century. But the dating remains uncertain and approaches that deviate significantly from it are to be taken seriously as part of the discussion.

If the first editor of the inscription, Pierre Herbert, had read the beginning of the first line as IMP CAIO I CÆ AVGVSTO DIVI I FIL in 1862 and saw in it a dedication to Augustus, the son of the deified Gaius Iulius Caesar , he carried out another editing Félicien de Saulcy in 1866 as a dedication to TI CAESARI DIVI AUGUSTI FIL DIVI IULI NEP. This reading dated the monument to the time of Tiberius. It seemed to confirm the dating previously presented by Charles Lenormant on the basis of the Sacrovir inscription on the reliefs. In 1880, Alexandre Bertrand made an impression of the fixation holes and the result was the reading TI CAESARI DIVI AUGUSTI F DIVI IULI NEPOTI AUGUSTO, which refined and supplemented the reading by Félicien de Saulcy and also basically confirmed it. In this form, supplemented by further elements of the title, which specifically dated the inscription to the year 24/25, the inscription found its way into volume 12 of the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum under the number 1230 and came very close to the current reading. After further modifications by André Piganiol and Robert Amy, which led to the dating to the year 26/27, the arch was considered a permanently dated monument, erected in the Tiberian period.

Doubts arose from the uncertain reading of the final formula and the fact that the inscription had been attached to the architrave that was not prepared for installation. The inscription thus only offered a terminus ante quem for dating. So Ilse Paar and Hans G. Frenz suggested, following their interpretation as the “city foundation arch”, to see an Augustan building in the monument.

Arch of Cavaillon

Against a dating even close to around 35 BC. Colony was founded in the early or mid-Augustan period, however, all forms of construction and decorative elements of the arch spoke. Therefore, Pierre Gros suggested that the arch was intended for the deceased Germanicus and that it was rededicated in 26/27, and that the construction was therefore carried out in 20-26 / 27. Annette Küpper-Böhm put a more differentiated approach up for discussion. After comparing it with other monuments in the region, such as the arches of Cavaillon and Glanum, the theater of Arles , she comes to the conclusion that the building in Orange was built in the second decade. A reconstruction in the Tiberian period, when the first upper attic was added, led to the rededication and installation of the inscription on the architrave. Finally, in the 2nd century, the upper attic was redesigned and brought into the shape we know today. The most important evidence of this are the reliefs of the upper attic. As early as the 19th century it was recognized - albeit without any consequences for the dating of the building - that the battle reliefs of the upper attic did not really fit an early imperial era. The composition and execution are more reminiscent of sarcophagi of slaughter, as we have known them since Trajan times.

Arch of Septimius Severus , Rome

James C. Anderson Jr. finally, who attaches no value to the reconstruction of the inscription, but considers Küpper-Böhm's approach to be ingenious , breaks completely with the usual dating of the arch in the early 1st century. Based on the battle reliefs of the upper attic, he arrives at the time of Septimius Severus at the end of the 2nd century, but sees no need to separate different construction phases and rejects a hypothetical first phase of the upper attic. A date in the late 2nd century was already represented by Paolino Mingazzini . For Anderson, the tendril motifs of the archivolt pilasters are incompatible with Julian-Claudian architectural ornamentation; rather, such elements would have come into fashion at the earliest in the Flavian period , i.e. from around the year 70. The emphasis on the half-columns by single pedestals drawn through to the floor is not detectable in front of the Arch of Septimius Severus . He puts the damnatio memoriae Getas in the year 211 up for discussion as the reason for putting the inscription on the architrave , because Geta would have been named on the original inscription of the smooth, worn north frieze, which was erased under Caracalla . Since this time approach cannot be reconciled with what has been worked out so far about the development of Roman decorative forms, especially the Corinthian capital, but also other elements such as tendrils and garlands, Anderson is forced to use the previous dates of most Roman buildings to be questioned not only in Gallia Narbonensis but also in the western provinces. So far, this has not been successful.

Post-ancient use

North side of the arch, Joseph de La Pise 1640

The prince d'Orange, Raymond I des Baux (died 1282) converted the Arch of Orange into a fortress in the 13th century . The most noticeable innovation was an eight meter high, crenellated tower that was placed on the upper attic. In order to dissipate the pressure to which the arch was now exposed due to this massive structure, the north, west and east sides were provided with sloping retaining walls up to the level of the fighter capitals . However, these measures could not prevent cracks running through the arch from forming over the centuries. The south side was "smoothed out" by removing the profiles of the cornices, the blending architecture of the west side was largely destroyed.

The passages were divided in their height, in the eastern area living rooms were set up. A passage was created between the central and eastern passage. An opening cut into the lower parapet through the facing gable from the south outside led to the upper area of ​​the arch and the tower. The work carried out in the area of ​​the attic, for example the drawing in of vaults that were later removed, permanently obscured the ancient findings.

The oldest, more detailed description of the bow comes from Thomas Platter the Younger . In his diary he noted on February 23, 1597:

"Outside of the place when you want to tear to Saint Esprit and Leon, ettwan a guard from the place, you also see a sigbogen or (arcum triump [h] alem) thriumph thurn C. Marii. The door or arch is three, but the middle is more elegant, graceful and higher than the other two. Otherwise the whole square is to be seen from a distance like a thurn, is also called in French (la Tour des Arcs) the arch Thurn. There are battles on all sides and all sorts of weapons of war, also quarrels on horseback, as well as the ship next to the (divinatrice) fortune teller deß C. Marii, who had predicted luck to the dispute, whose Plutarchus in the life of the fathers remembered. It is otherwise that a few years ago there was a moor around it, so that it is better protected from the weather, winds and rain. "

The arch remained in this condition, described and drawn soon after by Joseph de La Pise in 1640, until it was restored in the early 18th century.

Restorations

The apparently good state of preservation of the Arch of Orange, which is largely an intact testimony to ancient architecture for the layman, is the result of over 200 years of restoration and renewal.

As early as 1721 a prince de Conti , probably Louis Armand II. De Bourbon , ordered the demolition of the tower built on the arch in the 13th century. Taking further security measures was too costly for the Principality of Orange . After the arch had passed into the possession of the arbalétiers , the Society of Crossbowmen of Orange, in 1725 , the pilasters in the western and central passageways and the western archivolt on the south side were renewed, as was the left half-column on the south side. To secure the structure, the upper part of the west side was walled up in 1772.

In the years 1808/09, Alexandre Reux, departmental architect of Vaucluse, carried out security and maintenance work on the arch. As part of this work, the pilasters as well as the fighter capitals and the archivolt of the western passage on the south side were added, and the south-east corner was completely restored. In addition, the pilasters on the north side were added and the additions leaning against the western facade were demolished. When Route nationale 7 was expanded in 1809 , a square was created with an arch in the middle, around which the road was led on both sides. Auguste Caristie was entrusted with the further work on the arch, under whose direction the last additions were removed and the base area of ​​the arch exposed in 1810/11.

From 1825 Auguste Caristie began the extensive restoration and construction of the arch. Using only two antique components, the entire, heavily damaged west side of the arch was completely redesigned. The additions to the north side comprised the corner columns, parts of the weapon relief above the western passage, the corner pilasters of the lower and the western pedestals of the upper attic. On the badly damaged south side, he had the western half-columns and all the profiles renewed. With the exception of the best-preserved east side, the entire entablature on the arch above the blend columns was renewed. Caristie made sure that the additions and renewals were identified as such and did not work on the ornamentation.

This almost modern approach to monument conservation was discarded during the restoration work between 1950 and 1957. Now the additions, which can be recognized as modern, were subsequently ornamented and artificially weathered by means of sandblasting . Since then, it has hardly been possible to distinguish between the ancient and modern additions.

literature

• Auguste Nicolas Caristie: Monuments antiques à Orange. Arc de triomphe et théâtre. Didot, Paris 1856.
• André Piganiol : L'inscription de l'arc de triomphe d'Orange. In: Comptes rendus des séances de l'Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres. Volume 98, Issue 1, 1954, pp. 20-21 ( online ).
• Robert Amy , Paul-Marie Duval , Jules Formigé , Jean-Jacques Hatt , Gilbert Charles-Picard , André Piganiol : L'Arc d'Orange (= Gallia. Supplement 15). Center national de la recherche scientifique, Paris 1962.
• Ilse Paar : The Arch of Orange and the Gallic Uprising under the leadership of Julius Sacrovir in AD 21 In: Chiron . Volume 9, 1979, pp. 215-236.
• Pierre Gros : Pour une chronologie des arcs de triomphe de Gaule Narbonnaise (à propos de l'arc de Glanum). In: Gallia . Volume 37, Issue 1, 1979, pp. 55-83 ( online ).
• Pierre Gros: Une hypothèse sur l'arc d'Orange. In: Gallia. Volume 44, Issue 2, 1986, pp. 191-201 ( online )
• Hans G. Frenz : On the dating of the arch of Orange. In: Mihály Praznovszky (Ed.): 2nd International Colloquium on Problems of Provincial Roman Art. Lectures at the conference in Veszprém, 14 May – 18 May. May 1991. Laczkó Dezső Múzeum, Veszprém 1991, pp. 83-89.
• Annette Küpper-Böhm: The Roman arch monuments of Gallia Narbonensis in their urban context (= Cologne studies on the archeology of the Roman provinces. Volume 3). Leidorf, Espelkamp 1996, ISBN 3-89646-131-1 , pp. 86-109. 184 f. Plate 21-23.
• James C. Anderson: Roman Architecture in Provence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2013, pp. 81-93.
• Florian Stilp: L'Arc d'Orange. Les Belles Lettres, Paris 2017.

Web links

Commons : Arch of Orange  - collection of images, videos and audio files

• Sources from the 16th and 17th centuries in the GALLIA ROMANA project of the University of Tours

Remarks

1. ↑ entry no. PA00082097 in the Base Mérimée of the French Ministry of Culture (French).
2. ↑ Entry on the website of the UNESCO World Heritage Center ( English and French ).
3. ↑ Ilse Paar: The Arch of Orange and the Gallic uprising under the leadership of Julius Sacrovir in AD 21. In: Chiron. Volume 9, 1979, pp. 224-227.
4. ↑ Hans G. Frenz: On the dating of the arc of Orange. In: Mihály Praznovszky (Ed.): 2nd International Colloquium on Problems of Provincial Roman Art. Lectures at the conference in Veszprém, 14 May – 18 May. May 1991. Laczkó Dezső Múzeum, Veszprém 1991, p. 85.
5. ↑ Almut von Gladiß: The Arc du Rhône of Arles. In: Communications of the German Archaeological Institute, Roman Department . Volume 79, 1972, pp. 17-87; here: p. 28 f.
6. ^ Arthur Lincoln Frothingham: De la véritable signification des monuments romains qu'on appelle «arcs de triomphe». In: Revue archéologique . Ser. 4, Volume 6, 1905, pp. 216-230, especially p. 219 ( digitized version ).
7. ↑ See Marion Roehmer : The arch as a state monument. On the political significance of the Roman arches of honor (= sources and research on the ancient world. Volume 28). tuduv, Munich 1996, 78–94, here: p. 93 f .; but compare in agreement with Anna Viola Siebert: Instrumenta Sacra. Investigations into Roman sacrificial, cult and priest implements (= religious historical experiments and preliminary work. Volume 44). De Gruyter, Berlin 1999, p. 166 f.
8. ↑ For example Thorsten Droste : Provence. Ancient arenas, Romanesque cloisters, cities with history - a journey through France's sunny province. 7th edition. Dumont, Ostfildern 2011, ISBN 978-3-7701-3927-9 , pp. 81-85; Cony Ziegler: Provence: with Camargue. 2nd Edition. Iwanowski, Dormagen 2004, p. 273; Bernhard evening: Provence, Côte d'Azur. 14th edition. Baedeker, Ostfildern 2013, p. 309.
9. ↑ On location and function with the older literature see Annette Küpper-Böhm: The Roman arch monuments of Gallia Narbonensis in their urban context. Leidorf, Espelkamp 1996, pp. 107-109 with note 604; P. 127 f.
10. ↑ Georg Grube: The attic on Roman triumphal arches with special consideration of the arch of Orange. Schneider, Karlsruhe 1931, p. 14.
11. ^ Robert Amy, Paul-Marie Duval and others: L'Arc d'Orange. Center national de la recherche scientifique, Paris 1962, pp. 57–59, plate 41.
12. ^ Robert Amy, Paul-Marie Duval and others: L'Arc d'Orange. Center national de la recherche scientifique, Paris 1962, p. 40 f .; Annette Küpper-Böhm: The Roman arch monuments of the Gallia Narbonensis in their urban context. Leidorf, Espelkamp 1996, p. 99, plate 22, 2-4.
13. ^ Anna Viola Siebert: Instrumenta Sacra. Investigations into Roman sacrificial, cult and priest implements (= religious historical experiments and preliminary work. Volume 44). De Gruyter, Berlin 1999, pp. 163-167.
14. ↑ Annette Küpper-Böhm offers a compilation of the interpretations: The Roman arch monuments of Gallia Narbonensis in their urban context. Leidorf, Espelkamp 1996, p. 105 with note 586.
15. ↑ First mentioned by Auguste Pelet: Description des monuments grecs et romains exécutés en liége à l'échelle d'un centimètre par mètre. 1839, p. 15.
16. ^ André Piganiol: L'inscription de l'arc de triomphe d'Orange. In: Comptes rendus des séances de l'Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres. Volume 98, Issue 1, 1954, pp. 20-21; Robert Amy, Paul-Marie Duval and others: L'Arc d'Orange. Center national de la recherche scientifique, Paris 1962, p. 145.
17. ↑ CIL 12, 01230 : Ti (berio) Caesar (i), divi Augusti f (ilio), divi Iuli nepoti, Augusto, Pontifici Maximo, [Tribunicia]
    Potestate XXVIII Imperatori IIX Co (n) s (uli) IIII restituit R ( es) P (ublica) coloniae ( or : restitutori coloniae) .
18. ↑ James C. Anderson, Jr: Roman Architecture in Provence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2013, p. 89.
19. ↑ James C. Anderson, Jr: The Date of the Arch at Orange. In: Bonner Jahrbücher . Volume 187, 1987, pp. 159-192, here: pp. 162-169; ders .: Roman Architecture in Provence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2013, pp. 88 f.
20. ^ Robert Amy, Paul-Marie Duval and others: L'Arc d'Orange. Center national de la recherche scientifique, Paris 1962, p. 157; Pierre Gros: Pour une chronologie des arcs de triomphe de Gaule Narbonnaise (à propos de l'arc de Glanum). In: Gallia. Volume 37, Issue 1, 1979, p. 75; Doris R. Peters: Decorative reliefs on Roman honorary arches in southern Gaul. Bochum 1986, p. 170 f .; rejecting Ilse Paar: The Arch of Orange and the Gallic uprising under the leadership of Julius Sacrovir in AD 21 In: Chiron . Volume 9, 1979, pp. 215-236.
21. ↑ Annette Küpper-Böhm: The Roman arch monuments of Gallia Narbonensis in their urban context. Leidorf, Espelkamp 1996, pp. 90-92; Christian Witschel: The perception of Augustus in Gaul, in the Illyricum and in the northern provinces. In: Detlev Kreikenbom (ed.): Augustus - The view from the outside. The perception of the emperor in the provinces of the empire and in the neighboring states. Files from the international conference at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz from October 12 to 14, 2006. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 2008, p. 57 f.
22. ^ Pierre Gros: Une hypothèse sur l'arc d'Orange. In: Gallia. Volume 44, Issue 2, 1986, pp. 191-201.
23. ↑ Compiling the proponents of this opinion: James C. Anderson, Jr .: Anachronism in the Roman Architecture of Gaul: The Date of the Maison Carrée at Nîmes. In: The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians. Volume 60, Issue 1, 2001, pp. 68-79; here: p. 71 with note 12; ders .: Roman Architecture in Provence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2013, pp. 88 f.
24. ↑ James C. Anderson, Jr: The Date of the Arch at Orange. In: Bonner Jahrbücher . Volume 187, 1987, p. 166.
25. ↑ CIL 12, 01231 : ] vidillus // Avot // [3] S [3] FE [3] // Dacurdus // Mario // Sacrovir [os] // [3] osre // Catus [3] // Boducacus // Vaune // Bene / [6] // Av [ot] // [3] dix .
26. ^ Aymar Du Rivail: De Allobrogibus libri nouem, ex autographo codice Bibliothecae Regis editi, cura et sumptibus Alfredi de Terrebasse. Girard, Vienne 1844, p. 90 ( digitized version ); Georges Grente: Dictionnaire des Lettres françaises. Volume: Le XVIe siècle. Completely revised edition under the direction of Michel Simonin. Fayard, Paris 2001, p. 446.
27. ↑ Translation: 'And outside the city to the north is a perfectly preserved triumphal arch for a sea victory. And on five shields carved there you can read the following names: MARIO.DACVDO.VDILLVS.CATVLVS.RODVACVS. The rest are destroyed by wind and age. '
28. ↑ CIL 12, 03475
29. ↑ CIL 05, 03503
30. ↑ Tacitus, Annals 3.40 to 55.
31. ↑ For example Émile Espérandieu : Recueil général des bas-reliefs de la Gaule romaine. Volume 1. Imprimerie nationale, Paris 1907, pp. 191-198.
32. ^ First, Joseph Déchelette: Les inscriptions gauloises des trophées des l'arc d'Orange. In: Bulletin de la Société nationale des antiquaires de France. 1910, pp. 384-390; Robert Amy, Paul-Marie Duval and others: L'Arc d'Orange. Center national de la recherche scientifique, Paris 1962, p. 91
33. ↑ James C. Anderson, Jr: The Date of the Arch at Orange. In: Bonner Jahrbücher . Volume 187, 1987, p. 168; ders .: Roman Architecture in Provence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2013, pp. 87 f.
34. ↑ Vincent Faure, Jacques Gascou, Jean-Marc Mignon, Jacques Planchon, Stéphanie Zugmeyer: Un sévir augustal d'Orange et de Lyon. In: Revue archéologique de Narbonnaise. Volume 32, Issue 1, 1999, pp. 21-30, especially pp. 28 f.
35. ↑ Pierre Herbert: L'inscription de l'arc de triomphe d'Orange. Dezobry, Paris 1862, p. 6 ( Google Books ).
36. ^ Félicien de Saulcy: Age de l'arc d'Orange. In: Revue archéologique. Volume 14, 1866, pp. 313-315 ( digitized version ).
37. ^ Charles Lenormant: Mémoire sur l'arc de triomphe d'Orange. In: Comptes rendus des séances de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres Année. Volume 1, Number 1, 1857, pp. 232-249; esp. 238-240 ( digitized version ).
38. ↑ Alexandre Bertrand: Bulletin de la Société des Antiquaires de France. 1880, p. 202
39. ↑ See for example Fred S. Kleiner: The study of Roman triumphal and honorary arches 50 years after Kähler. In: Journal of Roman Archeology. Vol. 2, 1989, p. 195; Pierre Gros: La France gallo-romaine. Nathan, Paris 1991, p. 47 f.
40. ^ Robert Amy, Paul-Marie Duval and others: L'Arc d'Orange. Center national de la recherche scientifique, Paris 1962, p. 149; Ilse Paar: The Arch of Orange and the Gallic Uprising under the leadership of Julius Sacrovir in AD 21 In: Chiron. Volume 9, 1979, pp. 217-219.
41. ↑ Ilse Paar: The Arch of Orange and the Gallic uprising under the leadership of Julius Sacrovir in AD 21. In: Chiron. Volume 9, 1979, pp. 224-227.
42. ↑ Hans G. Frenz: On the dating of the arc of Orange. In: Mihály Praznovszky (Ed.): 2nd International Colloquium on Problems of Provincial Roman Art. Lectures at the conference in Veszprém, 14 May – 18 May. May 1991. Laczkó Dezső Múzeum, Veszprém 1991, p. 85.
43. ^ Pierre Gros: Une hypothèse sur l'arc d'Orange. In: Gallia. Volume 44, No. 2, 1986, pp. 191-201, so also Fred S. Kleiner: Arch at Orange. In: Nancy Thomson de Grummond (Ed.): An Encyclopedia of the History of Classical Archeology. Routledge, New York 1996.
44. ↑ Annette Küpper-Böhm: The Roman arch monuments of Gallia Narbonensis in their urban context. Leidorf, Espelkamp 1996, pp. 90-103, especially pp. 100-103; Christian Witschel, for example, cautiously approving: The perception of Augustus in Gaul, in the Illyricum and in the northern provinces. In: Detlev Kreikenbom (ed.): Augustus - The view from the outside. The perception of the emperor in the provinces of the empire and in the neighboring states. Files from the international conference at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz from October 12 to 14, 2006. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 2008, p. 57 f.
45. ↑ James C. Anderson: Roman Architecture in Provence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2013, pp. 81-93.
46. ↑ Paolino Mingazzini: Sulla datazione di alcuni monumenti comunemente assegnati ad età augustea. In: Archeologia Classica. Volume 9, 1957, pp. 193-205; ders .: La datazione dell'arco di Orange. In: Communications from the German Archaeological Institute. Roman department. Volume 75, 1968, pp. 163-167.
47. ↑ James C. Anderson: Roman Architecture in Provence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2013, p. 82.
48. ↑ James C. Anderson: Roman Architecture in Provence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2013, p. 81.
49. ↑ James C. Anderson: Roman Architecture in Provence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2013, p. 91 f.
50. ↑ James C. Anderson: Roman Architecture in Provence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2013, p. 93 and passim.
51. ↑ Platter A λ V, folio 157–158, printed in: Thomas Platter: Description of the journeys through France, Spain, England and the Netherlands 1595–1600. Published by Rut Keizer on behalf of the Historical and Antiquarian Society of Basel (= Basler Chroniken. Volume 9). Schwabe, Basel / Stuttgart 1968, p. 205; compare also the French translation Félix et Thomas Platter à Montpellier. Montpellier 1892, p. 319 ( digitized version ).
52. ^ Joseph de La Pise: Tableau de l'histoire des princes et principauté d'Orange. La Haye 1640, pp. 19-27 ( digitized version ).
53. ^ Aubin-Louis Millin: Voyage dans les départemens du midi de la France. Volume 2. Paris 1807, p. 140 ( digitized version ).
54. ↑ On Reux's work, see Annette Küpper-Böhm: The Roman Arch Monuments of Gallia Narbonensis in their Urban Context. Leidorf, Espelkamp 1996, p. 89.
55. ↑ Auguste Nicolas Caristie: Monuments antiques à Orange. Arc de triomphe et théâtre. Didot 1856, pp. 6-14.
56. ^ Robert Amy, Paul-Marie Duval and others: L'Arc d'Orange. Center national de la recherche scientifique, Paris 1962, p. 13 f.

Coordinates: 44 ° 8 ′ 32 "  N , 4 ° 48 ′ 17"  E

This article was added to the list of excellent articles on April 4, 2016 in this version .