Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-17T19:46:16.284Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Tripod ‘Worth Seeing’ in the Olympieion at Athens (Paus. 1.18.8)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2023

Brian Martens Open the ORCID record for Brian Martens [Opens in a new window]
Brian Martens*
Affiliation:
University of St Andrews
*
bam21@st-andrews.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study proposes a new reconstruction of the tripod that Pausanias (1.18.8) recorded in the Olympieion at Athens. According to his brief description, the bronze tripod was supported by Persians made from Phrygian marble. A sculptor's sketch found during the excavations of the Athenian Agora is identified as a representation of that monument. The sketch, carved from poros limestone, depicts a standing male figure dressed in eastern attire supporting the foot of a tripod. The figural type finds its closest parallels among the colossal statues from the Forum of Trajan in Rome, suggesting a new date and context for the monument in the Olympieion. The scenario favoured here is that the tripod was dedicated following Trajan's victories in Parthia, perhaps completed or commissioned by Hadrian. Cassius Dio (68.17.2) records that Trajan departed for his Parthian campaigns from Athens, where memories of Persian defeat were actively curated.

Keywords

TrajanHadrianOlympieionAthensPersia and Parthiatripodsculptors’ sketches and modelspavonazzetto
Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 113 , November 2023 , pp. 137 - 169
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

I INTRODUCTION

Κεῖνται δὲ καὶ λίθου Φρυγίου Πέρσαι χαλκοῦν τρίποδα ἀνέχοντες, θέας ἄξιοι καὶ αὐτοὶ καὶ ὁ τρίπους.

There are also dedicated Persians of Phrygian stone supporting a bronze tripod; both they and the tripod are worth seeing.

In the passage above, Pausanias (1.18.8) describes a tripod that stood in the precinct (ἐν τῷ περιβόλῳ) of Zeus Olympios at Athens.Footnote 1 His text is our only historical source for the lost monument. No surviving part of the tripod or its foundations has been identified, despite excavations in the Olympieion and its environs.Footnote 2 Drawing on the description of Pausanias, Rolf Schneider, in 1986, offered an influential reconstruction of the tripod-bearing Persians as bent down on one knee.Footnote 3 Schneider's evidence comprised three over-life-size pavonazzetto statues from Rome, representing kneeling male figures in eastern attire, which he identified as supports for a tripod dedication (Fig. 1).Footnote 4 He argued that the statues belonged to a monument that was erected in Rome to celebrate the negotiated return of the Roman military standards from Parthia in 20 b.c. Schneider proposed that the monument in Athens was typologically analogous, and by extension, that it also dated to the Augustan period.Footnote 5 Schneider's hypothesis was upended in 2016, when Johannes Lipps published fragments of other kneeling captives from Rome that belong to the same series.Footnote 6 Lipps has shown that the statues — now numbering at least five, and more probably, at least eight, if arranged in mirrored pairs — cannot belong to a three-legged monument and must instead come from an architectural façade. The publication of this additional material demonstrates that the existence of an Augustan tripod monument in Rome is a scholarly mirage. The kneeling figures from Rome are not relevant to the appearance of the Athenian monument described by Pausanias, therefore re-opening the discussion of a reconstruction.

FIG. 1. Over-life-size pavonazzetto statue of a kneeling male figure in eastern attire. The hands and head are early modern restorations. Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli 6117. (Photo: © Vanni Archive/Art Resource, NY)

II THE TRIPOD ACCORDING TO PAUSANIAS

Date

Pausanias’ description of the tripod in Athens, excerpted above, allows us to draw conclusions regarding the date, character and size of the monument; let us take each in turn, beginning with the chronology. Previous proposals for the date of the tripod have spanned the Hellenistic period to the reign of Hadrian.Footnote 7 Up to now, most researchers, in agreement with Schneider, have accepted that the tripod was an Augustan dedication. Since the date in the early Principate rests on the now re-identified kneeling statues from Rome, the evidence is due for a careful reappraisal.

The inclusion of the tripod in the text of Pausanias fixes a terminus ante quem in the early a.d. 160s. The date is inferred from Pausanias’ description of the odeion at Patras (7.20.6). While visiting that building, Pausanias issues an apology for not mentioning the Odeion of Herodes Atticus in his account of Athens. He explains that construction of the Athenian concert hall had not yet commenced by the time he finished his first book, adding that it was commissioned by Herodes in memory of his late wife Regilla. Pausanias therefore wrote his book on Athens and Attica sometime before or shortly after the death of Regilla, which probably occurred in a.d. 160 or 161.Footnote 8

A terminus post quem for the monument is established by the identification of the material used for the statues of the Persians as ‘Phrygian stone’ (λίθου Φρυγίου). Here, Pausanias is referring to a prestigious type of white marble with deep red and purple veins (e.g. Fig. 1) that was quarried near Dokimeion in Phrygia (Fig. 2).Footnote 9 The coloured stone was also known in antiquity as marmor synnadicum (after the placename of its administration and distribution: Synnada) and marmor phrygium. Today, it is commonly called pavonazzetto.

FIG. 2. Map of the Mediterranean basin showing the approximate extent of the Roman Empire in a.d. 117 and locations discussed in the text. (Drawing: T. Ross)

Systematic exploitation of the pavonazzetto-producing quarries near Dokimeion began in the late first century b.c., during the reign of Augustus, to satisfy the needs of imperial building projects in Rome.Footnote 10 The Temple of Mars Ultor in the Forum of Augustus, dedicated in 2 b.c., supplies a securely dated example of pavonazzetto in the city for architectural purposes.Footnote 11 The temple's monolithic columns and paving slabs of pavonazzetto created an impressive space for displaying the Roman military standards, which had arrived in the capital from Parthia in October of 19 b.c., following a negotiated surrender in the preceding year.

For an early use of pavonazzetto for figural sculpture, we turn to the nearby Basilica Aemilia/Paulli on the Forum Romanum.Footnote 12 Fragments of over-life-size statues of eastern figures carved from pavonazzetto were discovered in the Augustan building.Footnote 13 The statues, standing with an arm raised in a gesture of structural support, were presumably positioned in mirrored pairs below an architrave in the interior of the basilica. The general concept might have derived from the famed Persian Stoa in Sparta, which was erected in the fifth century b.c. from spoils of the Battle of Plataea.Footnote 14 According to Vitruvius (1.1.6) and Pausanias (3.11.3), the Spartan stoa employed representations of Persians to support the roof, a metaphor for the everlasting servitude of the enemy. The statues in the Basilica Aemilia/Paulli similarly alluded to the subjugation of an eastern foe, namely the Parthians, heirs to the Persian empire.Footnote 15 The difficult-to-acquire stone from Phrygia was selected for these figures in order to exoticise their eastern origin. The striking patterns created by the veined stone conveyed the stereotyped luxuriousness of eastern garments.Footnote 16 In fact, pavonazzetto was used exclusively in this context to depict fabric and attire. The separately attached faces and hands of the statues were carved from white marble, which was subsequently painted.Footnote 17

While pavonazzetto was used extensively for public building projects in Augustan Rome, it was, as far as we know, absent in contemporary Athens. One telling non-appearance occurs at the Odeion of Agrippa, a concert hall constructed in the years around 15 b.c., by the son-in-law and general of Augustus. The stage floor of the odeion was paved with slabs of white and coloured marbles, which were sourced from local and regional quarries.Footnote 18 The floor anticipates a wider pattern of use: marbles under imperial control, such as pavonazzetto, tend to be scarce outside Rome until the late first century a.d.,Footnote 19 particularly in the eastern Mediterranean basin. It was around this time that the quarrying of pavonazzetto expanded. Consular dates inscribed on architectural products from the quarries witness an intense period of extraction and shipping beginning during the reign of Domitian (the earliest inscriptions provide the date a.d. 92), with increasing demand under Trajan and Hadrian.Footnote 20 The quarries continued to be exploited in the third century and later.Footnote 21 The Prices Edict of Diocletian, issued in a.d. 301, lists pavonazzetto (Δοκιμηνοῦ) among the most expensive stones in the empire.Footnote 22

The largest recorded deployment of pavonazzetto at Athens was for the Library of Hadrian, a building complex that was presumably completed in advance of the emperor's final visit to the city in a.d. 131/2.Footnote 23 According to Pausanias (1.18.9), the structure incorporated 100 columns of ‘Phrygian stone’ (Φρυγίου λίθου) that Hadrian had donated to the city. Several fragmentary shafts of these columns survive today.Footnote 24 The same stone also decorated the walls of the library, as Pausanias further describes. Chrysanthos Kanellopoulos has identified pavonazzetto mouldings and revetment slabs that were once attached to the interior walls.Footnote 25 These colourful architectural elements created an impressive visual statement of empire in Athens.

Character

The use of ‘Phrygian stone’ also provides information regarding the character of the tripod monument. The extraction of pavonazzetto near Dokimeion was under the control of imperial administrators, and as a result, acquisition of the stone was highly restricted.Footnote 26 Even though limited quantities of pavonazzetto might have been available through non-imperial channels (e.g. for making revetment),Footnote 27 large blocks for carving figural sculpture are unlikely to have been available to private citizens. Pausanias (1.18.9) makes clear that the Athenians were able to obtain pavonazzetto for the Library of Hadrian only through imperial benefaction.Footnote 28 Coloured stones of any kind were utilised sparingly at Athens and are especially rare in the city for figural sculpture. The tripod is therefore overwhelmingly likely to have been an imperial dedication.Footnote 29

Size

From Pausanias’ account, it is also possible to draw a general conclusion concerning the size of the monument. The description of the tripod and its figures as ‘worth seeing’ (θέας ἄξιοι) suggests a colossal scale, in addition to exceptional artistry. While there is no exclusive pattern for his use of the phrase, Pausanias often deploys these words to describe very large statues.Footnote 30 At the Olympieion, for instance, he declares that the chryselephantine statue of Zeus is ‘worth seeing’ because ‘in size it exceeds all other statues save the colossi at Rhodes and Rome’ (ὅτι μὴ Ῥοδίοις καὶ Ῥωμαίοις εἰσὶν οἱ κολοσσοί, τὰ λοιπὰ ἀγάλματα ὁμοίως ἀπολείπεται) (1.18.6).Footnote 31 In the same passage, Pausanias refers to the colossal statue (τὸν κολοσσόν) of Hadrian that the Athenians erected inside or near the precinct as similarly ‘worth seeing’. Given these uses of the phrase, particularly in the context of the Olympieion, it is reasonable to conclude that the tripod caught the attention of Pausanias in part because of its large size.

* * *

To summarise, the tripod and its supporting figures, both presumably of colossal scale, were surely erected through imperial agency. The use of pavonazzetto establishes a terminus post quem of the Augustan period, but this early date seems unlikely for the monument. In Athens, the first archaeologically attested use of the stone occurs in the second century a.d. Given the patterns of use of pavonazzetto in the city, and throughout the empire, a date after c. a.d. 100 seems likely. The tripod was certainly standing by the early a.d. 160s, since it was recorded in the first book of Pausanias’ travels. Therefore, the potential donors are Trajan, Hadrian and Antoninus Pius. Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus are improbable candidates because the main military achievements of their co-reign did not occur until the mid-160s.Footnote 32

III NEW EVIDENCE FROM THE ATHENIAN AGORA

A fragmentary sculptor's sketch or model, carved from poros limestone, was excavated in 1939, from a footing trench of the Post-Herulian Wall (Fig. 3; H. 0.15; W. 0.11; D. 0.06 m).Footnote 33 The find-spot, discussed further below, establishes a terminus ante quem of the last quarter of the third century a.d. for the object. The sketch represents a standing male figure that supports, on his head, the foot of a tripod (Figs 4–5). Despite the fragmentary condition of the sculpture, the identification of the carried object as a tripod is verified by the stabilising hoop, rendered as a curved horizontal band, about 3 cm above the head of the figure.Footnote 34 The foot of the tripod takes the shape of a lion's paw, typical of ritual furniture.

FIG. 3. Plan of the Athenian Agora, with the findspot of the sculptor's sketch indicated by the red arrow in grid square Q 14. (Plan: ASCSA, Agora Excavations)

FIG. 4. Limestone sculptor's sketch from the Athenian Agora, four views. (Photos: C. Mauzy. Ephorate of Antiquities of Athens City, Ancient Agora, ASCSA: Agora Excavations. © Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports/Hellenic Organization of Cultural Resources Development (H.O.C.RE.D.))

FIG. 5. Detail of the figure on the sculptor's sketch from the Athenian Agora. (Photo: C. Mauzy. Ephorate of Antiquities of Athens City, Ancient Agora, ASCSA: Agora Excavations. © Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports/Hellenic Organization of Cultural Resources Development (H.O.C.RE.D.))

The figure in the sketch stands with the left leg engaged. The figure wears at least three garments: (1) trousers, rendered at the lower left leg; (2) a sleeved tunic, which is belted loosely at the waist and terminates below the knees; and (3) a ground-length cloak draped over the back and fastened below the centre of the neck by a large, disc-shaped fibula. The preserved left foot is a raised dome, without carved footwear. The head is turned slightly to the left side and bowed. The blank face is framed by medium-length hair. The facial features were not rendered, so it cannot be determined whether the figure had a beard and/or moustache or was clean-shaven. The back of the sketch is worked flat; presumably the two additional legs of the tripod were not carved because the figural type was repeated for each of the corresponding sides.

Andrew Stewart, who provided the official publication of the sketch, suggested that the figure carries something at chest level: ‘an offering tray?’.Footnote 35 Stewart mistook the pose of the figure for a non-existent object, thereby missing a critical detail: the left hand is, in fact, held over the right wrist at the level of the waist — a pose used in Roman art to represent submission and captivity, rarely deployed before the early second century a.d.Footnote 36 Stewart concluded that the figure ‘looks somewhat like a Telesphoros, but what he (or anyone else) would be doing supporting a tripod is a mystery’.Footnote 37 The distinctive pose, taken together with the costume and the function of the figure as a support, confirm that the sketch portrays a stereotyped image of a captive man. It is the only representation of a tripod–captive group known to me that survives from Greco-Roman antiquity; its importance, therefore, cannot be overstated. Given the otherwise unattested subject and the Athenian provenance, it is reasonable to propose that the creator of the sketch imitated a well-known local monument: the tripod described by Pausanias in the Olympieion.

To evaluate this claim, it is necessary to understand the sketch within its own context. Why was a sketch of the tripod created? Sculptors used three-dimensional sketches and models for the planning of figures and compositions.Footnote 38 Athenian carvers frequently employed poros limestone for this purpose because it was inexpensive and easily carved.Footnote 39 Our figure was carved almost exclusively with chisels, an approach characteristic of sketches in poros limestone. The aim was not to carve a product in detail, but to work out the overall contours of the figure and its relationship to the larger composition. While the circumstances of the related commission are lost to us today, it is possible that a request for a reduced-scale version of the monument in the Olympieion necessitated the creation of the sketch. Special meaning had accrued to the local landmark, which earlier had aroused the interest of Pausanias. Reduced-scale versions of monuments were traded in antiquity as votive offerings and as souvenirs, providing two potential uses.Footnote 40 Another possibility, although less likely, is that the sketch survived in the third century a.d., as one of the original models used in the construction of the tripod monument. Whatever its specific purpose, the archaeological find-spot of the sketch connects it to a local marble-carving atelier. The sketch was excavated from a footing trench of the Post-Herulian Wall, where the fortification passes in front of the two southernmost rooms of the west stoa of the Library of Pantainos (Fig. 3).Footnote 41 Marble chippings and unfinished works demonstrate that sculptors worked in those rooms in the third century a.d., until the building was destroyed during the Herulian raid in a.d. 267.Footnote 42 The workshop specialised in small-format works and portraiture, and the sculptors who laboured there were skilled practitioners of mechanical copying. The sketch demonstrates that the monuments of Roman-period Athens influenced local artists.

* * *

The identification of the poros limestone sketch from the Athenian Agora allows me to propose a new reconstruction for the tripod seen by Pausanias in the Olympieion (Fig. 6). In the drawing presented here, it is assumed that the statues were attached to piers that actually performed the role of supporting the bronze tripod. This structural format accords with other uses of supporting figures in Roman Athens, as for example the giants and tritons from the north façade of the Odeion of Agrippa in the Agora (Fig. 7).Footnote 43 Those colossal figures, six in total, were added during renovations to the concert hall in the mid-second century a.d. Standing with one arm raised in a gesture of structural support, they emerge from an integral pier that carried the weight of the architrave. Finally, the colossal size is consistent with the description of Pausanias (Section II).Footnote 44 The height of the supporting statues in the illustration, c. 3 m, or about twice life-size, is hypothetical, based on the dimensions of the pavonazzetto statues of Dacian prisoners from the Forum of Trajan, to which we now turn.

FIG. 6. Proposed reconstruction of the tripod monument. (Drawing: T. Ross)

FIG. 7. Triton of the north façade of the renovated Odeion of Agrippa in the Athenian Agora. (Photo: C. Mauzy. Ephorate of Antiquities of Athens City, Ancient Agora, ASCSA: Agora Excavations. © Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports/Hellenic Organization of Cultural Resources Development (H.O.C.RE.D.))

IV PARTHIANS SUPPORTING A TRIPOD

The captive figure on our sketch displays similarities with the colossal (H. c. 3 m) pavonazzetto statues of Dacian prisoners from the Forum of Trajan in Rome.Footnote 45 Several of these statues, later transferred to the attic of the Arch of Constantine, echo the posture and composition of the tripod-supporting figure with particular closeness (e.g. the statue on the left in Figure 8). The principal difference is the composition of the cloak: the Agora figure wears the garment clasped below the sternal notch, whereas the prisoners from the Forum of Trajan wear the mantle clasped below the right shoulder, with fabric drawn around the left arm. The striking similarities support the chronological range proposed above for the monument in Athens, which I established through a contextualised reading of Pausanias’ description (Section II). The Forum of Trajan marked an early — and more probably, the first — deployment of the figural type.Footnote 46 Notably, the motif appears on coins of Trajan dated to c. a.d. 106–111 (Fig. 9).Footnote 47 On these iconographic grounds, it is possible to refine the terminus post quem for the Athenian tripod: c. a.d. 105–112, when the imperial complex in Rome was constructed.

FIG. 8. Colossal pavonazzetto statues of captive Dacian men from the Forum of Trajan, re-used in the attic of the Arch of Constantine. (Photo: D. Castor, public domain)

FIG. 9. Silver denarius of Trajan, representing, on the reverse, a Dacian captive with hands crossed in front. New York, American Numismatic Society 1882.13.2. (Photos: American Numismatic Society, public domain)

If we accept that the limestone sculpture from the Agora is a sketch of the monument in the Olympieion, then it cannot portray a Dacian prisoner. Pausanias identified the figures supporting the tripod as Persians (Πέρσαι), and by this, he surely meant Parthians, the heirs to the Persian empire.Footnote 48 In fact, ancient authors routinely referred to the Parthians as Persians.Footnote 49 Pliny (HN 6.16) makes the point plainly: ‘The kingdom of the Persians, by which we now understand that of the Parthians …’ (namque persarum regna, quae nunc parthorum intellegimus). Is it possible, then, to identify the figure in the sketch as a Parthian? Without clear prompts such as an inscription, it is hazardous to seek the ethnicity of conquered peoples in Roman visual culture, because artists drew on stereotypes to communicate otherness. Emphatically, they did not endeavour to create accurate portraits. That said, there are instances in which Roman artists incorporated realistic elements in their works, such as single items of dress, and less often, weapons or other attributes. For example, Schneider has identified a small handful of Roman images dated to the first and second centuries a.d. that represent Parthians wearing a distinctive V-neck tunic, which recalls the sleeved jacket actually worn by men in that society.Footnote 50 While this type of garment is not rendered on the sketch from the Agora, its absence does not preclude a Parthian identity.Footnote 51 In Athens, the Parthian–Persian equation probably resulted in more generalised imagery that drew on pre-existing representations of Persians in local art.

Over the course of the second and third centuries a.d., representations of conquered peoples became increasingly more typecast, and the Dacian captives in the Forum of Trajan provided a leading model.Footnote 52 For example, two colossal pavonazzetto statues (original H. c. 3.20 m) from Ephesos adopt the figural type.Footnote 53 The statues were incorporated into the façade of the East Gymnasium, a complex constructed during the Severan period.Footnote 54 The better preserved of the two statues, now in İzmir, includes a hexagonal shield resting against the left leg, and next to it, a bow and quiver. Given the architectural context, the statues have been plausibly identified as prisoners commissioned to celebrate the victories of Septimius Severus in Parthia.Footnote 55 The presence of the bow would support this interpretation because Roman authors describe it as the weapon of choice for Parthians.Footnote 56 The Arch of Septimius Severus in Rome (dedicated in a.d. 203) drew on similar visual models. The Parthian prisoners on the arch are dressed in a manner comparable to the Agora sculpture. They wear trousers and long-sleeved tunics that terminate below the knees. One prisoner, being led in chains, wears the cloak over both shoulders, with the clasp arranged below the sternal notch. These figures from Ephesos and Rome echo the general remarks of Roman authors, who describe Parthians as wearing loose-fitting garments with long robes that cover their legs.Footnote 57 The main intention of the sculptors of these monuments was not to depict reality, but to create a readily identifiable image of an eastern foe, and in particular, to associate the Parthians with the Persians. Nowhere could this equation be more salient than in Athens.

V A TRAJANIC VICTORY MONUMENT IN ATHENS

The figural type represented on the sculptor's sketch, together with the legacy of Athens as a memorial setting for Persian defeat, open up the possibility that the tripod monument commemorated Trajan's victories in Armenia and Parthia. A historical outline of Trajan's Parthian war can be reconstructed from the histories of Cassius Dio (68.17–33), whose text was epitomised by the historian Xiphilinos in the eleventh century.Footnote 58 We are told that, some time after dedicating the column in his imperial forum in May a.d. 113, Trajan departed Rome to conduct a campaign against Armenia and Parthia on the grounds that the Parthian king Osroes had violated an agreement with Rome by independently installing a new king in Armenia. On his way east, Trajan stopped in Athens, where he received an embassy from Osroes (Cass. Dio 68.17.2).Footnote 59 The Parthian delegation pleaded for peace, but Trajan reserved judgment and proceeded to Syria.

By the autumn of a.d. 114, Trajan had entered Armenia and declared the region a province (Fig. 2). In recognition of the annexation, the senate honoured Trajan with the title of Optimus. Trajan then invaded northern Mesopotamia, making it a province too. Despite a disastrous earthquake in Antioch in the winter of a.d. 115/116, Trajan continued his campaign, marching south to the Parthian capital Ctesiphon and capturing it. The senate subsequently bestowed on Trajan the title of Parthicus in February a.d. 116, and the conquest was commemorated on Roman coinage (Fig. 10). Trajan later travelled further south to the Persian Gulf. According to Cassius Dio (68.29.1), the emperor, while standing on the seashore, recalled the achievements of Alexander, remarking ‘I should certainly have crossed over to the Indian people, too, if I were still young’ (πάντως ἂν καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς Ἰνδούς, εἰ νέος ἔτι ἦν, ἐπεραιώθην). Although he had not reached India, Trajan had brought the Roman empire to its greatest geographical extent (Fig. 2). Yet Roman control of these newly acquired regions was short lived. A series of revolts followed, and in a.d. 117, Trajan was forced to depart for Italy due to an illness, dying en route in Cilicia. His successor and adopted son Hadrian relinquished Armenia and Mesopotamia, re-establishing the Euphrates River as the eastern boundary of the empire.

FIG. 10. Aureus of Trajan representing, on the reverse, Parthian captives seated beneath a trophy. London, British Museum R.7740. (Photos: © The Trustees of the British Museum)

Memorials of Trajan's visit to Athens

Athens was an appropriate location for a memorial that celebrated Trajan's accomplishments in Parthia, for several reasons. First, as discussed above, Trajan departed for Parthia from Athens, where he had received an embassy from king Osroes — it was Trajan's only known visit to Athens,Footnote 60 and the first recorded imperial visit to the city since Augustus’ final stay, over 130 years earlier.Footnote 61 On these grounds alone, the emperor's presence must have drawn great attention.Footnote 62 The most visible impact of the visit was probably the substantial imperial entourage and the infrastructure required to support it. James Oliver suggested that Trajan was accompanied by a large military force, evidenced by epitaphs that marked the graves of Roman soldiers buried in Athens.Footnote 63 Presumably, the Roman military was stationed at Piraeus in preparation for the war and during its on-going operations.Footnote 64

Trajan's visit may have caused the Athenians to erect statues in his honour.Footnote 65 One probable example is located on the Acropolis. A statue of Trajan was added to a Julio-Claudian dynastic monument, which the demos had erected in front of the west façade of the Parthenon some time before Tiberius’ succession in a.d. 14.Footnote 66 The base of the monument, over 4.5 m long, supported statues of Augustus and his adopted family; from left to right, the inscriptions name Drusus the Younger (IG II2 3256), Tiberius (IG II2 3254), Augustus (IG II2 3253) and Germanicus (IG II2 3255). The new statue of Trajan was added to the far-right side of the base (IG II2 3284).Footnote 67 Dedicated by the Areopagos, the boule and the demos, the statue honoured Trajan as ‘god, invincible son of a god’ (θεὸν θεοῦ υἱὸν ἀνείκητον) and ‘benefactor and saviour of the world’ (εὐεργέτη καὶ σωτῆρα τῆς οἰκουμένης). The imperial nomenclature includes the title Dacicus, but not Optimus or Parthicus, narrowing the date of the statue to c. a.d. 102–114.Footnote 68 The original group had been erected to commemorate the adoptions made by Augustus in a.d. 4, which established the line of succession.Footnote 69 The addition of the statue of Trajan connected the living emperor to his predecessors, specifically through acts of adoption — meaningful for Trajan, who had been adopted by his predecessor Nerva. More importantly, the new statue, erected at a time of looming conflict with Armenia and Parthia, linked Trajan to the earlier victory achieved in these regions by Augustus and Tiberius. The martial overtones of the inscription substantiate this interpretation.

Moreover, it is possible that the designation ἀνίκητος, or invincible, recalled honours for Alexander the Great, who had conquered Persia over four hundred years earlier. According to a fragmentary speech of Hypereides (5.32) against Demosthenes, a bronze statue of Alexander was proposed in Athens naming him ‘king [and] invincible god’ (εἰκό[να Ἀλεξάν]δρου Βασιλ̣[έως τοῦ ἀνι]κήτου θε[οῦ).Footnote 70 We have no evidence that such a statue of Alexander was actually erected,Footnote 71 but if it was, Trajan's new statue was surely in dialogue with it.Footnote 72 Plutarch (Alex. 14.4) records that, before Alexander departed for Persia, the oracle at Delphi proclaimed to him, ‘You are invincible, O child!’ (Ἀνίκητος εἶ, ὦ παῖ) (see also Diod. Sic. 17.93.4). Whatever the historicity of the oracle,Footnote 73 Plutarch shows that the story was current in Trajan's day. Indeed, Trajan seems to have admired Alexander and cultivated his memory.Footnote 74 During his campaign in Parthia, Trajan stopped at Babylon and sacrificed to Alexander in the room where he died (Cass. Dio 68.30.1).

Another statue of Trajan may have been erected around the same time in the lower city. Fragments of an over-life-size Pentelic marble statue of an emperor (original H. c. 2.30 m) (Figs 11–12) were excavated from the north stoa of the Library of Pantainos, in a room that opened onto the street joining the Agora with the Roman market (Fig. 13, no. 1).Footnote 75 The emperor is represented as a victorious general. An imprisoned male figure crouches at his side, with one knee on the ground, looking sharply upward. The emperor wears ceremonial military costume, including the cuirass and the paludamentum that hangs freely from the left shoulder. The breastplate depicts Athena being crowned by winged nikai, and below this main scene, a cosmic personification spreads his arms in a supporting gesture, referring to the breadth and stability of Roman rule. Sheila Dillon recently assigned additional fragments to the statue, including the right shoulder and separately attached arm.Footnote 76 Dillon's research demonstrates that the arm was outstretched, with the hand grasping a small orb, further communicating the authority of the emperor. The quality of workmanship is exceptional. Great care was expended on the surface textures of the garments, in particular. The statue was a magnificently carved agent of imperial power in Athens.

FIG. 11. Reconstructed statue of Trajan with a kneeling captive, probably from an imperial shrine located between the Agora and the Roman market, Athens; position of the left arm unknown. (Drawing: B. Martens and T. Ross. Photos: C. Mauzy. Agora Excavations; Ephorate of Antiquities of Athens City, Ancient Agora, ASCSA: Agora Excavations © Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports/Hellenic Organization of Cultural Resources Development (H.O.C.RE.D.))

FIG. 12. Right arm and hand holding an orb, from the statue of Trajan. (Photo: C. Mauzy. Ephorate of Antiquities of Athens City, Ancient Agora, ASCSA: Agora Excavations © Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports/Hellenic Organization of Cultural Resources Development (H.O.C.RE.D.))

FIG. 13. Plan of the Library of Pantainos and the south street stoa, showing the find-spots of sculpture and epigraphy discussed in the text; green = sculptor's workshop; yellow = probable imperial shrine. (Plan: W. B. Dinsmoor, Jr, ASCSA Agora Excavations, with additions by author)

T. Leslie Shear, Jr, identified the emperor as Trajan and the kneeling figure as a Dacian. Shear reasoned that the group had been displaced from an imperial shrine, which he proposed to locate in the next room to the east (Fig. 13, yellow).Footnote 77 The adjacent room was set off architecturally from the rest of the complex (Fig. 14). Its entrance had a temple-like façade, with more elaborate column bases and wider intercolumnations than the stoa from which it projected. The spaces between the columns were occupied by statue bases, as demonstrated by the lack of wear in the places they were once positioned (Fig. 14, bottom). One of these footprints matches the dimensions of a base for a statue of Trajan that was found nearby in a re-used context (Fig. 13, no. 2); probably the base was originally positioned in the colonnade, at the entrance of the shrine.Footnote 78 The base records the dedication of a statue, c. a.d. 98–102, by the emperor's chief priest, Tiberius Claudius Atticus Herodes of Marathon, the father of Herodes Atticus. Additional statues of Trajan stood in the area. A second statue offered by Claudius Atticus, with a nearly identical text, was discovered at the entrance to the Roman Agora (Fig. 13, no. 3).Footnote 79 A fragmentary plaque for attachment to a base of a statue of Trajan (c. a.d. 98–117) was found in the northwest corner of the Library of Pantainos (Fig. 13, no. 4).Footnote 80 Dillon has presented pieces of a second marble statue of an emperor from the area, but its poor preservation thwarts an identification — the armoured figure presumably represents Trajan or Hadrian (Fig. 13, no. 5).Footnote 81 In all, no fewer than three, and perhaps as many as five statues of Trajan are witnessed along the street leading from the Agora to the Roman market. We recall that the Library of Pantainos complex itself was dedicated to Trajan, c. a.d. 98–102, together with Athena Polias and the city of the Athenians (IG II/III3 4,2 1405).Footnote 82

FIG. 14. Façade of room 3 of the south street stoa, probably used as an imperial shine; lower drawing shows footprints of statue bases on the stylobate. (Drawing: W. B. Dinsmoor, Jr, ASCSA, Agora Excavations)

Let us return to the kneeling prisoner as a local expression of Trajanic victory iconography (Fig. 15). The ethnic identity of the figure is difficult to pin down. Representations of kneeling captives appear on coins of Trajan only after he was engaged in war in Dacia in a.d. 101–102, and the motif is deployed most frequently on coins after a.d. 102, following his first campaign in that region.Footnote 83 This evidence suggests that the statue group dates to after a.d. 102.Footnote 84 Like the statue on the Acropolis, it is probable that Trajan's visit prompted its erection. The very high quality of the statue certainly supports the hypothesis. The surface of the statue was painstakingly finished, perhaps with the intention that it would be seen by the emperor himself. In this scenario, the captive emphasised the recent triumphs of the emperor in Dacia — a victory not referenced in the dedicatory inscription on the Library of Pantainos, which excludes the title Dacicus. Another interpretation is that the captive is a Parthian. In this respect, it is worth pointing out that the mantle, secured at the sternal notch by a large disc fibula, matches the configuration on our sculptor's sketch. If a Parthian captive was intended, then the group must date after a.d. 116, when the emperor gained the title Parthicus. Probably the ethnic identity of the kneeling figure was ambiguous even in antiquity. Ancient viewers, most of whom are unlikely to have ever encountered a Dacian or a Parthian, drew on an accumulated knowledge of visual stereotypes to recognise the captive figure as a representation of the ‘other’ — perhaps at once Dacian and Parthian. That said, at Athens, where there existed a long tradition of Persian defeat, local audiences may have preferred, consciously or not, the latter identification.

FIG. 15. Details of the kneeling captive from the statue of Trajan. (Photos: C. Mauzy. Ephorate of Antiquities of Athens City, Ancient Agora, ASCSA: Agora Excavations, © Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports/Hellenic Organization of Cultural Resources Development (H.O.C.RE.D.))

The Persian Wars tradition

Athens curated and promoted the memory of Greek triumph over eastern foes, most especially the Persians.Footnote 85 The Acropolis became a favoured setting for celebrating these victories, both mythical and historical. Alexander the Great dedicated Persian armour to Athena, after defeating Darius’ forces at the Granicus River in 334 b.c. (Arr., Anab. 1.16.7; Plut., Alex. 16.8). Some of the captured shields, with their origins triumphantly inscribed, were possibly hung on the architrave of the Parthenon — a building that was itself a testament to Persian defeat.Footnote 86 Later, an Attalid king dedicated sculptural groups on the Acropolis that linked a series of famous victories: a gigantomachy, an amazonomachy, the battle against the Persians at Marathon and a battle against the Gauls in Mysia (Paus. 1.25.2).Footnote 87 Some time between 27 and 18/17 b.c., the Athenian demos erected a round Ionic building, or monopteros, to Roma and Augustus on the Acropolis (IG II2 3173).Footnote 88 The reasons for the dedication are not well established, but its ultimate effect seems clear. The monopteros was very probably finished by 19 b.c., when Augustus, having regained the Roman military standards from Parthia, passed through Athens on his return journey to Rome.Footnote 89 The location of the monopteros, in front of the east end of the Parthenon, integrated the recent accomplishments of Augustus into the wider memory landscape of Persian defeat. Beyond the Acropolis, in eastern Attica, the cult of Livia was installed in the Temple of Nemesis at Rhamnous, most probably in connection to vengeance over eastern foes.Footnote 90 Nemesis, the goddess of divine retribution, had helped to deliver a decisive victory over the Persians at the Battle of Marathon.

In conception, the tripod in the Olympieion recalled the golden (or gilded) tripod erected at Delphi from the spoils of the Persian defeat at Plataea in 479 b.c. (Hdt. 9.81.1; Thuc. 1.132.2; Dem. 59.97; Diod. Sic. 11.33; Paus. 10.13.9).Footnote 91 The quotation of this monument, one of the most celebrated war memorials in Greece, may further explain why the Athenian tripod drew the interest of Pausanias. The inclusion of a Trajanic victory monument in the text certainly fits with his interests in the juxtaposition of the Greek past with more recent events. Pausanias’ description of the tripod immediately follows extended comment on a statue of the fourth-century b.c. speech-writer Isocrates, who had advocated intensely for an Athenian-led campaign to liberate the Greek cities of Asia Minor from Persian rule. Pausanias uses the monuments to draw a contrast: the conquered easterners are placed in a position of perpetual architectural servitude, bearing an offering, while Isocrates is elevated on a high column. The inclusion of the tripod monument in Pausanias’ text is, however, more than just carefully crafted allusion: it reflects a built landscape that propagated living memories of Persian defeat.

Another dedication to Zeus

Finally, Trajan's impending military operations in Parthia occasioned a vow to Zeus. The Palatine Anthology (6.332) preserves an epigram, composed by Hadrian, which commemorates the dedication of Dacian spoils by Trajan to Zeus Kasios. The gift is also recorded by Arrian (Parth. 36). The visit to Zeus, whose cult was connected with Mount Kasios near Antioch, occurred before the incursion into Parthia. The epigram (lines 7–10) promises more, if Zeus delivers victory over the Parthians:

ἀλλὰ σύ οἱ καὶ τήνδε, Κελαινεφὲς, ἐγγυάλιξον

κρῆναι ἐϋκλειῶς δῆριν Ἀχαιμενίην,

ὄφρα τοι εἰσορόωντι διάνδιχα θυμὸν ἰαίνῃ

δοιά, τὰ μὲν Γετέων σκῦλα, τὰ δ᾽ Ἀρσακιδέων.

But, cloud-wrapped Lord, entrust to him, too, the glorious accomplishment of this Achaemenid war, that your heart's joy may be doubled as you look on the spoils of both foes, the Getae [i.e., Dacians] and the Arsacids [i.e., the Parthian dynasty].Footnote 92

One could readily imagine that Trajan had made a similar vow to Zeus Olympios in Athens, before departing on his expedition.

VI COMPLETION OR COMMISSION UNDER HADRIAN?

The period between the presentation of the title of Parthicus to Trajan in February a.d. 116 and the emperor's death in August a.d. 117 leaves little time to organise the construction of an elaborate victory monument in Athens. There is, in fact, no surviving memorial anywhere for Trajan's Parthian War.Footnote 93 According to Cassius Dio (68.29.3), commemorations had been planned in Rome. Following the capture of Ctesiphon, a triumphal arch (ἁψῖδα … τροπαιοφόρον) was commissioned in the capital in honour of Trajan, and ‘many other’ tributes were planned in his forum; how those efforts materialised is unknown. Trajan was commemorated in Rome after his death with celebration of games called the Parthica (Cass. Dio 69.1.3).

A scenario deserves consideration with regard to the compressed timeline: did Hadrian complete, or even commission, the tripod monument after the death of Trajan? The emperor's unexpected death fuelled suspicion about Hadrian's legitimacy as successor. Cassius Dio (69.1.1–4) presents unease regarding the circumstances of Hadrian's adoption by Trajan, insisting that it was Trajan's wife Plotina who had made the arrangement (see also SHA, Hadr. 4.10). Some degree of controversy would help to explain Hadrian's special attention to his predecessor during the early years of his reign. In Rome, for example, Hadrian enlarged the Forum of Trajan with the construction of the temple for his adoptive father (SHA, Hadr. 19.9).Footnote 94 Amanda Claridge argued that Hadrian also commissioned the narrative frieze carved on the Column of Trajan as a modification to transform the structure into the emperor's tomb.Footnote 95 In Pergamon, the porticoes framing the Temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan were completed during the reign of Hadrian.Footnote 96 Furthermore, the statue group inside the temple, at first comprising figures of Zeus and Trajan, was reconfigured with the addition of a statue of Hadrian. The group presented, in acrolithic form, divine and familial ties.

In Athens, too, Hadrian actively promoted the memory of his adopted father. A remarkable example of the carefully curated dynastic relationship was on display on the Athenian Acropolis. An inscribed plaque, once affixed to a base for a statue of Hadrian, declares the emperor the ‘son of god Trajan Parthicus Zeus Eleutherios’ (IG II2 3312 + 3321 + 3322). Antony Raubitschek, who restored the inscription, argued that the plaque could belong to the base of the statue (εἰκόνα) of Hadrian that Pausanias (1.24.7) recorded inside the cella of the Parthenon — the only portrait statue that the ancient traveller remembered seeing in that space.Footnote 97 The identification of Trajan with Zeus Eleutherios (‘of freedom’) — the god who helped the Athenians defeat the Persians at Plataea — likely derived from the emperor's victories in Parthia, as suggested by the title Parthicus, the only part of the imperial nomenclature included in the text.Footnote 98 If it were displayed inside the Parthenon, then the inscription would, in effect, have elevated Hadrian as the brother of Athena, both being children of Zeus, as Raubitschek observed.Footnote 99 The inscribed text thus performed double duty: to emphasise the legitimacy of Hadrian and to exploit a fictitious genealogy that promoted sacred bonds between Athens and Rome. The relationship was evoked in the lower city as well. Pausanias (1.3.2) records a statue of Hadrian that stood in front of the Stoa of Zeus Eleutherios alongside a statue of the god.Footnote 100 The large marble torso of Hadrian found nearby is surely the same statue, given the find-spot and scale (original H. c. 2.75 m).Footnote 101 On the cuirass of that figure, Athena is crowned by nikai while standing on the she-wolf of Rome.

There are further indications that the tripod monument may have been dedicated after the death of Trajan. First, Pausanias (1.18.6) associated the precinct of the Olympieion with the interventions of Hadrian, not least because of the many statues of the emperor he saw there. He and other authors record that Hadrian oversaw the dedication of the Olympieion (Paus. 1.18.6; Philostr., V S 533; Cass. Dio 69.16.1; SHA, Hadr. 13.6), even though the superstructure of the temple seems to have been largely completed before his reign. Second, Pausanias (1.18.9) indicates that the use of pavonazzetto was extensive at Athens under Hadrian, who had gifted 100 columns of Phrygian stone to Athens for the construction of a library complex (Section II). It is plausible, therefore, that the monument was completed early in the reign of Hadrian. Whether it was commissioned initially by Trajan or posthumously in his honour cannot be determined on the present evidence. The war in Parthia was, at any rate, of special significance to Hadrian, who had accompanied Trajan on the campaign.

VII THE LEGACY OF THE TRIPOD MONUMENT

The existence of the sculptor's sketch in a mid-third-century a.d. context suggests that the tripod drew admiration in its later life, evidently enough to be desirable in small format for private consumption (Section III). The sketch reveals that it was not only the sculptured monuments of Classical and Hellenistic Athens that were copied. The motif of the standing captive easterner was redeployed elsewhere in Achaia, asserting the wide resonance of the visual model. The colossal male architectural supports of the so-called Captives’ Façade at Corinth share general similarities with the figure represented on the sculptor's sketch. The colossal figures have been assigned to the south side and main entrance of the basilica located along the Lechaion Road, which opened onto the Forum.Footnote 102 The upper colonnade of the façade seems to have comprised four to eight figures engaged to rectangular piers, each with its own figural base and Corinthian capital. The figures represent both male and female subjects, presumably alternating in the composition.

The most complete figure stands 2.57 m high (Fig. 16). The figure is dressed in eastern attire: a thin, sleeved tunic with trousers; a heavier, loose garment tied over the waist; and a back-mantle, clasped in a central position below the neck. One arm is crossed over the torso; the other was probably raised toward the chin. The captive has curly, shoulder-length hair and wears a pointed cap made from soft fabric. A relief figure on a base for one of the engaged statues shows a captive male figure with hands in a different position: crossed over the waist. The date of the façade has not been resolved, but there is general agreement that it was erected in the mid-second to early third centuries a.d. Researchers have associated the façade with the Parthian victories of Lucius Verus or Septimius Severus.Footnote 103

FIG. 16. Colossal male figure from the Captives’ Façade, Corinth. (Photo: Petros Dellatolas. ASCSA, Corinth Excavations)

VIII CONCLUSION

This article has corrected the identification of a limestone sculptor's sketch from the Athenian Agora as a captive male figure supporting the leg of a tripod. Specifically, it has proposed that the sketch represents the tripod recorded by Pausanias in the Olympieion. The newly revealed iconography of the supporting figures, coupled with Pausanias’ identification of their material as Phrygian stone, has led to the conclusion that the tripod monument was dedicated following Trajan's victories in Parthia. The emperor's military achievements in the region, however fleeting, warranted commemoration: Trajan brought the Roman empire to its largest extent, and he was the first Roman to take the Parthian capital of Ctesiphon. The tripod monument was probably completed after the death of the emperor. Whether the dedication was commissioned by Trajan or Hadrian cannot be answered on the present evidence; arguments have been presented above for both scenarios. The monument sheds new light on Trajanic Athens, and in particular on the effect that the emperor's visit in a.d. 113 had on the city. Trajan's decision to meet the Parthian embassy in Athens, where victory over the Persians was celebrated widely, was deliberate. The erection of the tripod in the Olympieion positioned the accomplishments of Trajan in this centuries-old tradition.

Footnotes

For John McK. Camp II

This article is offered to John Camp on the occasion of his retirement from the directorship of the Agora Excavations. I am grateful for what John has taught me, and continues to teach me, about the topography and monuments of Athens, and the sources for their study. I thank the staff of the Agora Excavations, who facilitated my work in the storerooms of the Stoa of Attalos. I also thank the editor and the three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

1 Pausanias presumably refers to the high Hadrianic precinct wall. He places other monuments inside this peribolos: a bronze Zeus, a temple (ναός) of Kronos and Rhea, a precinct (τέμενος) of Ge Olympia, a statue of Isocrates on a pillar, and the temple of Zeus with its chryselephantine statue (1.18.6–8). The bronze statues described by Pausanias (1.18.6) as standing in front of columns at the Olympieion (the ‘colonies’: ἀποίκους πόλεις) might have been arranged along the exterior of the precinct wall, perhaps in front of its buttresses; cf. Wycherley Reference Wycherley1963: 163. It is not clear whether or not the colossal statue of Hadrian dedicated by the Athenians, described by Pausanias (1.18.6) as ‘behind the temple’, was also within the peribolos. Willers Reference Willers1990: 46, pl. 6.1–2 dubiously identified the lower torso of a colossal marble statue of a nude male figure found at the Olympieion as belonging to that statue.

2 For the archaeology of the Olympieion, see Wycherley Reference Wycherley1963; Travlos Reference Travlos1971: 402–11, figs 521–31; Wycherley Reference Wycherley1978: 155–66; Willers Reference Willers1990: 26–53; Tölle-Kastenbein Reference Tölle-Kastenbein1994; Boatwright Reference Boatwright2000: 150–3; Camp Reference Camp2001: 36, 173–6, 200–1; Knell Reference Knell2008: 68–73; Lagogianni-Georgakarakos and Papi Reference Lagogianni-Georgakarakos and Papi2018: 121–5 (D. Anelli and N. Cecconi).

3 Schneider Reference Schneider1986: 52–7, pl. 9; reviewed by Cohon Reference Cohon1990: 264–8.

4 The statues, all found in Rome, are Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli 6115 and 6117 (De Nuccio and Ungaro Reference De Nuccio and Ungaro2002: 433, nos 136–7 (M. De Nuccio); Gasparri Reference Gasparri2010: 137–44, nos 54–5, pls. LXXIX.1–6, LXXX.1–6 (E. Dodero)); and Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek I.N. 1177 (De Nuccio and Ungaro Reference De Nuccio and Ungaro2002: 433–6, no. 138 (J. Fejfer); Moltesen Reference Moltesen2002: 310–13, no. 104 (J. Fejfer)).

5 Schneider Reference Schneider1986: 52, 82–90, 195, nos KO 4–6. The presumed connection between the tripod monuments in Rome and Athens is reasserted in subsequent publications by Schneider (Reference Schneider and Wiesehöfer1998: 111–12; Reference Schneider2002: 84–5, 100; Reference Schneider, Curtis and Stewart2007: 72; Reference De Nuccio and Ungaro2016: 423–4).

6 Lipps Reference Lipps2016. The existence of these statues was earlier reported by Freyberger et al. Reference Freyberger, Ertel, Lipps and Bitterer2007: 546 (T. Bitterer); see also Gasparri Reference Gasparri2010: 139–40 (E. Dodero).

7 e.g. Schneider Reference Schneider1986: 82 (Augustan, possibly dedicated during the emperor's visit in 19 b.c.); Cohon Reference Cohon1990: 268 (supports a Hellenistic date, noting that it could be Augustan or Hadrianic); Spawforth Reference Spawforth and Hornblower1994: 239 (no earlier than Hadrian because the Olympieion was unfinished until a.d. 131/32); Schäfer Reference Schäfer1998: 68 (Augustan); Moltesen Reference Moltesen2002: 310–13, no. 104 (J. Fejfer) (Augustan: Roman monument was possibly a copy of a group in Athens); Schröder Reference Schröder2004: 414 (Hadrianic); Landskron Reference Landskron2005: 90, 103 (Augustan); Rose Reference Rose2005: 24 n. 22 (insufficient evidence for a tripod in Augustan Rome); Hardie Reference Hardie, Bridges, Hall and Rhodes2007: 130 (probably dedicated by Hadrian); Schmalz Reference Schmalz2009: 82 (Augustan); Spawforth Reference Spawforth2012: 104, 107, 119, 130–1 (accepts Schneider's Augustan date); Pensabene Reference Pensabene2013: 360 (Augustan); Whitmarsh Reference Whitmarsh and Schubert2013: 67 (‘obscure and underinterpreted (although it cannot but evoke the fifth-century conflicts)’); Reference Whitmarsh, Galinsky and Lapatin2015: 56 (‘surely Augustan, commemorating that emperor's ‘victory’ over the Parthians’); Lipps Reference Lipps2016: 238 (possibly early second century a.d.); O'Sullivan Reference O'Sullivan2016: 353 (‘thought … to have been a dedication made by Augustus’); Bruno and Vitti Reference Bruno, Vitti, Napoli, Camia, Evangelidis, Grigoropoulos, Rogers and Vlizos2018: 294 (erected by Augustus).

8 Pretzler Reference Pretzler2007: 23–4. Habicht Reference Habicht1985: 11 concluded that Pausanias began writing before c. a.d. 155.

9 Fant Reference Fant1989. Other sources of pavonazzetto existed in Asia Minor and on the Aegean island of Skyros, but they were exploited to a lesser degree than the Phrygian quarries: see Attanasio et al. Reference Attanasio, Bruno, Prochaska, Yavuz, Pensabene and Gasparini2015.

10 Strabo (12.8.14) credits the expansion of the quarries to Roman intervention. Tibullus (3.3.13) supplies the earliest textual reference to the marble: see Fant Reference Fant1989: 7. For the Augustan date, see e.g. Gregarek Reference Gregarek1999: 39; Pensabene Reference Pensabene2010: 78; Reference Pensabene2013: 360–1; Dalla Rosa Reference Dalla Rosa2016: 316–18.

11 Pensabene Reference Pensabene2013: 44. The Hall of the Colossus in the Forum of Augustus also made abundant use of pavonazzetto; see Ungaro Reference Ungaro2002b.

12 For the building, see Lipps Reference Lipps2011.

13 The placement of these architectural figures is unresolved. In addition to the pavonazzetto series, there are also several statues carved from giallo antico. For the sculptures, see Schneider Reference Schneider1986: 115–25, 200, nos SO 1–22, pl. 25; Landwehr Reference Landwehr2000: 75–6, Beil. 33a–c (arguing for a post-Augustan date in a.d. 22); Schneider Reference Schneider2002: 91, figs 2–3; Rose Reference Rose2005: 62–3; Bitterer Reference Bitterer2007; Freyberger et al. Reference Freyberger, Ertel, Lipps and Bitterer2007: 535–50 (T. Bitterer); Schneider Reference Schneider, Curtis and Stewart2007: 72–4, figs 21–2; Reference Schneider, Bintliff and Rutter2016; Claridge and Siwicki Reference Claridge and Siwicki2019: 311–12.

14 Schneider Reference Schneider1986: 108–15; 2007: 74–5. For an effort to re-date the architectural figures of the Persian Stoa to the Augustan period, see Spawforth Reference Spawforth2012: 118–21.

15 Schneider (Reference Schneider, Bintliff and Rutter2016: 416–21, 424–6) advocates a more positive reading of the statues, arguing that the figures represent Trojans linking Rome to its mythical past.

16 The imagined appearance of these garments was likely mediated through earlier contacts with Persian clothing; for the fifth-century b.c. interactions, see Miller Reference Miller1997: 153–87.

17 For traces of paint, see Freyberger et al. Reference Freyberger, Ertel, Lipps and Bitterer2007: 543 (T. Bitterer); Schneider Reference Schneider, Bintliff and Rutter2016: 406, figs 17.6, 17.7. In the case of the kneeling statues in Naples and Copenhagen, the black-stone heads and hands are early modern restorations; see Schneider Reference Schneider1986: 20; De Nuccio Reference De Nuccio2002: 428–9; Gasparri Reference Gasparri2010: 137 (E. Dodero); Lipps Reference Lipps2016: 207.

18 Bruno and Vitti Reference Bruno, Vitti, Napoli, Camia, Evangelidis, Grigoropoulos, Rogers and Vlizos2018: 292, 294, identifying the stones as Pentelic, Hymettian, and Karystian, in addition to an unidentified green and violet marble. Agrippa's involvement in the quarrying and trade of Phrygian marble has been proposed on the basis of a restored quarry inscription, but the evidence is not compelling; see Fant Reference Fant1989: 8–9.

19 Fant Reference Fant and Harris1993. Pavonazzetto is attested in a number of theatres in the western Mediterranean basin that were built in the late republican or early imperial period, but in many cases, the uses of the stone are not certainly dated or phased; see Beck Reference Beck, Haug, Hielscher and Lauritsen2022: 101–4, with table 1.

20 Fant Reference Fant1989: 9–10, 29; Hirt Reference Hirt2010: 291–303, with the appendix on 370–402, nos 1–459.

21 Niewöhner Reference Niewöhner and Thonemann2013.

22 For the relevant Greek text of the edict, see Giacchero Reference Giacchero1974: 211. The stones listed seem to have been priced not as squared blocks, but as revetment; see Corcoran and DeLaine Reference Corcoran and DeLaine1994.

23 For the library, see Travlos Reference Travlos1971: 244–52, figs 314–24; Shear, Jr Reference Shear1981: 374–6; Spetsieri-Choremi Reference Spetsieri-Choremi1995; Boatwright Reference Boatwright2000: 153–7; Camp Reference Camp2001: 202–3, figs 197–8; Choremi-Spetsieri and Tigginaga Reference Choremi-Spetsieri, Tigginaga and Vlizos2008; Lagogianni-Georgakarakos and Papi Reference Lagogianni-Georgakarakos and Papi2018: 110–13 (G. Sarcone); Kanellopoulos Reference Kanellopoulos2020; Sourlas Reference Sourlas and Lagogianni-Georgakarakos2021.

24 Kanellopoulos Reference Kanellopoulos2020: 140.

25 Kanellopoulos Reference Kanellopoulos2020.

26 Imperial control of the quarries is established by quarry inscriptions: Fant Reference Fant1989; Dalla Rosa Reference Dalla Rosa2016; Hirt Reference Hirt2017: 237–8.

27 Russell Reference Russell2013: 48, 193–200. For the private use of pavonazzetto for wall revetment at Ephesos, see Hirt Reference Hirt2017; the precise circumstances of acquisition are not known in this instance. The discovery of additional sources of pavonazzetto, beyond Dokimeion, may help to explain some private uses of the stone (Attanasio et al. Reference Attanasio, Bruno, Prochaska, Yavuz, Pensabene and Gasparini2015).

28 Another Hadrianic benefaction described by Pausanias (1.18.9), a gymnasium built with 100 columns imported from quarries in Libya (a coloured stone known today as giallo antico), is mentioned in a letter from Hadrian to the Athenians (IG II2 1102): Geagan Reference Geagan1979: 395–7; Lagogianni-Georgakarakos and Papi Reference Lagogianni-Georgakarakos and Papi2018: 155 (C. De Domenico).

29 Surviving dedications by the emperor are rare in Greece (Schörner Reference Schörner2003: 150–2). The Olympieion was an appropriate venue for imperial dedications. According to Cassius Dio (69.16.1), Hadrian ‘dedicated there (a statue of?) a snake, which had been brought from India’ (δράκοντα ἐς αὐτὸ ἀπὸ Ἰνδίας κομισθέντα ἀνέθηκε).

30 Another large Athenian statue that Pausanias (1.14.1) described as ‘worth seeing’ is the Dionysos located at the entrance of the odeion in the Agora. The Dionysos has been identified among fragments of a white marble statue that once stood c. 4.25 m high: see Thompson Reference Thompson1950: 79–80, pl. 52.b–c. For statues described by Pausanias as ‘worth seeing’ with specific reference to large size, see 2.34.11 (Hermione), 3.17.3 (Sparta), 4.31.10 (Messene, with Themelis Reference Themelis, Palagia and Pollitt1996: 156–66), 8.26.7 (Aliphera), and 8.30.3 (Megalopolis). For other statues called ‘worth seeing’, Pausanias does not comment on their size, but large scale is implied: see 1.28.2 (Athenian Acropolis), 3.22.4 (Akriai), 7.20.6 (Patras), 9.20.4 (Tanagra), 9.23.5 (Akraiphia) and 9.31.2 (Thespiae). Pausanias uses the phrase ‘worth seeing’ to describe statuary in several additional cases, for which size is not mentioned: see 1.6.4 (Athenian Acropolis), 2.29.1 (Epidauros), 3.19.6 (Amyklai) and 3.25.10 (Oitylos). A group of herms at the Gymnasium of Ptolemy in Athens is described as ‘worth seeing’ (1.17.2) because of their large quantity. For buildings and monuments, see, inter alia, 2.29.11 (theatre on Aegina), 8.45.4–5 (temple of Athena Alea at Tegea), 9.2.7 (Temple of Hera at Plataea) and 10.32.2–7 (Corycian cave). Some monuments called ‘worth seeing’ are attested archaeologically and are large: see e.g. Paus. 2.1.7 (theatre and race-course at Isthmia), 2.27.3 (Tholos at Epidauros), 2.27.5 (theatre at Epidauros), 3.14.1 (theatre at Sparta), 5.12.6 (Forum at Rome), 10.32.1 (theatre at Delphi).

31 Trans. Jones Reference Jones1918.

32 In this unlikely scenario, the tripod monument would commemorate Lucius Verus’ war in Parthia, which concluded in a.d. 166, too late for inclusion in the text of Pausanias.

33 Agora S 1170; see Stevens Reference Stevens1949: 269 n. 3 (mentioned and identified as a sculptor's model); Stewart Reference Stewart2013: 621–2, no. 6, fig. 7.

34 The sketch cannot be for a bronze folding table (a genre which often has feet resembling the paws of a lion) because the hoop would prevent its collapse. Moreover, there is no instance known to me in which the foot of a folding table rests upon a figure; cf. Klatt Reference Klatt1995.

35 Stewart Reference Stewart2013: 621.

36 For the meaning of the gesture, see Schmidt Reference Schmidt and Koch2002: 212–15, 218–19. For the infrequent use of the gesture before the Trajanic period, see Pinkerneil Reference Pinkerneil1983: 62, 125. For a Domitianic example of the gesture, see Caló Levi Reference Caló Levi1952: 13, pl. IV.3.

37 Stewart Reference Stewart2013: 621.

38 On the purpose of sketches and models, see Stewart Reference Stewart2013: 642–6.

39 Stewart Reference Stewart2013 published sixteen sculptors’ sketches from the Agora excavations, all carved from a pale-yellow, poros limestone that was sourced locally. For additional Athenian examples, see Heberdey Reference Heberdey1919: 123–5, nos 1–12, figs 132–5.

40 For use as souvenirs, see Popkin Reference Popkin2022: 25–92. As votive objects, e.g. Acts 19.23–27.

41 For the tower, see Frantz Reference Frantz1988: 131, pl. 5 (J. Travlos).

42 For the sculptor's workshop, see Shear Reference Shear1933a: 308; Reference Shear1935: 394–8, 415–16; Stevens Reference Stevens1949; Harrison Reference Harrison1953: 6, 48–9; Thompson and Wycherley Reference Thompson and Wycherley1972: 114, 187; Thompson Reference Thompson1976: 133, 296; Walters Reference Walters1988: 65, n. 68; Camp Reference Camp1992: 142; Katakis Reference Katakis2002: 514, n. 1622; Lawton Reference Lawton2006: 22–3; Camp Reference Camp2010: 133; Stewart Reference Stewart2013: 619–22, 641–2; Van Voorhis Reference Van Voorhis2018: 47; Martens Reference Martens2021: 381.

43 For the colossal figures, see Thompson Reference Thompson1950: 103–24, figs 16–20, pls 61–73; Travlos Reference Travlos1971: 376, figs 488–9; Thompson and Wycherley Reference Thompson and Wycherley1972: 113, pl. 61; Despinis Reference Despinis2003: 114–16, figs 271–4; Camp Reference Camp2010: 117; Lagogianni-Georgakarakos and Papi Reference Lagogianni-Georgakarakos and Papi2018: 102–3 (E. Gagliano). For figured supports, see King Reference King1998: 289–301; Stefanidou-Tiveriou Reference Stefanidou-Tiveriou and Zachos2007: 492–4, 496–503; Mylonas Reference Mylonas2019. For the method of supporting the architrave, cf. also the statues of Dacians from the Forum of Trajan; see Waelkens Reference Waelkens1985: 650: ‘sham supporters’.

44 See n. 30.

45 For the statues of Dacian prisoners from the Forum of Trajan, see Caló Levi Reference Caló Levi1952: 14–16; Zanker Reference Zanker1970: 510–12, figs 11–18; Pinkerneil Reference Pinkerneil1983; Waelkens Reference Waelkens1985: 645–6; De Lachenal Reference De Lachenal1987 (esp. for the history of collection and reception); Kleiner Reference Kleiner1992: 213; Ferris Reference Ferris2000: 77–9; Packer Reference Packer2001: 229, s.v. Dacian atlantes; Ungaro Reference Ungaro2002a; Sinn Reference Sinn and Bol2010: 187–90, 335, fig. 279a–j. The statues display differences in size, material and composition; on the basis of scale, they might be grouped into two main groups: those that approach c. 3 m high (pavonazzetto and grey marble) and those c. 2.20–2.40 m high (white marble and other coloured stones). For additional uses of pavonazzetto in the Forum of Trajan, see Milella Reference Milella2002.

46 Pinkerneil Reference Pinkerneil1983: 129.

47 The figural type appears only on coins of Trajan; see RIC II 251, no. 99; BMC III 82–3, nos 381–384 (pl. 15.13); Caló Levi Reference Caló Levi1952: 14 (pl. V.1).

48 Later in his work, Pausanias (5.12.6) refers to the Parthians as Πάρθοι, while commenting on Trajan's main military accomplishments in the sanctuary of Zeus at Olympia, where he saw a statue of Trajan: ‘This emperor subdued the Getae beyond Thrace (Γέτας τοὺς ὑπὲρ Θρᾴκης), and made war on Osroes the descendant of Arsaces and on the Parthians (Πάρθοις)’; trans. Jones and Ormerod Reference Jones and Ormerod1926.

49 Spawforth Reference Spawforth and Hornblower1994: 240; Schneider Reference Schneider, Curtis and Stewart2007: 70, 84, n. 91; Bridges Reference Bridges2015: 160–2; Makhlaiuk Reference Makhlaiuk, Silverman and Waerzeggers2015: 315–17.

50 Schneider Reference Schneider, Curtis and Stewart2007: 54–7. See also Landskron Reference Landskron2005: 114–20.

51 For the varied elements of Parthian dress in Roman art from the early imperial period, see Pinkerneil Reference Pinkerneil1983: 64–5, table 3.2.

52 Ferris Reference Ferris2000: 77–9.

53 (1) İzmir, Archaeological Museum 5: Aurenhammer Reference Aurenhammer1990: 162–3, no. 144 (pls 99a, 127a and c, 128a–b). (2) Selçuk, Ephesos Museum 372: Aurenhammer Reference Aurenhammer1990: 163–4, no. 145 (pls 99b, 127b, 128c–d).

54 Strocka Reference Strocka2017: 430 proposes a date for the statues in the Trajanic period.

55 Aurenhammer Reference Aurenhammer1990: 163.

56 Pinkerneil Reference Pinkerneil1983: 164–7; Landskron Reference Landskron2005: 200.

57 Lerouge Reference Lerouge2007: 352–4.

58 Lepper [1948] Reference Lepper and DeVoto1993; Lightfoot Reference Lightfoot1990.

59 Graindor Reference Graindor1931: 25. We do not know where in Athens the meeting between Trajan and the Parthian embassy occurred, but I wonder if the parties convened in the Olympieion. For a reconstruction of the route taken by Trajan from Rome, see Strocka Reference Strocka2017: 399.

60 Geagan Reference Geagan1984: 77.

61 Geagan Reference Geagan1979: 383–4; Reference Geagan1984: 69; Perrin-Saminadayar Reference Perrin-Saminadayar and Perrin2007: 126–7. Augustus made a final visit to Athens in 19 b.c.; for the emperor's two or three visits to the city, see Perrin-Saminadayar Reference Perrin-Saminadayar and Perrin2007: 126 n. 4.

62 Cf. Strocka Reference Strocka2017: 401–2.

63 Oliver Reference Oliver1941: 246. See also Geagan Reference Geagan1979: 383–4.

64 Trajan's statue presence at Piraeus is attested by a colossal portrait head found in Kantharos Harbour (Piraeus, Archaeological Museum 276); see Carducci Reference Carducci1933; Gross Reference Gross1940: 100–1, 130, no. 54, pl. 27b; Toynbee Reference Toynbee1958: 285, n. 1; Vermeule Reference Vermeule1968: 390, no. 5; Steinhauer Reference Steinhauer2001: fig. 508; Grigoropoulos Reference Grigoropoulos2016: 254; Freyer-Schauenburg and Goette Reference Freyer-Schauenburg and Goette2020: 175–6, fig. 18a–d. The head, worked for insertion, is carved from Thasian marble. The marble provenance is suggestive evidence for an imperially endorsed commission.

65 In quantity of monuments, Trajan was the most celebrated emperor in Athens since Claudius; later, both were far surpassed by Hadrian. In addition to the statues of Trajan reviewed herein, note the existence of a marble portrait head, possibly from Athens (Athens, National Archaeological Museum 3298): see Datsouli-Stavridi Reference Datsouli-Stavridi1985: 39–40, pl. 35; Stefanidou-Tiveriou and Kaltsas Reference Stefanidou-Tiveriou and Kaltsas2020: 61–3, no. IV.1.15, figs 62–4 (T. Stefanidou-Tiveriou). Two heads found in Athens have been identified as possible portraits of Trajan, but the identification is improbable in both instances: (1) Athens, National Archaeological Museum 3294: Romiopoulou Reference Romiopoulou1997: 70, no. 68; Kaltsas Reference Kaltsas and Hardy2002: 338, no. 713; and (2) Agora S 347: Karo Reference Karo1933: 202 (Claudius); Romanelli Reference Romanelli1933: 101–2, no. 3, fig. 12 (Claudius); Shear Reference Shear1933a: 308–9, fig. 17 (Claudius); 1935: 411–13, figs. 35–6 (Claudius); Stuart Reference Stuart1938: 82 (not Claudius); Schweitzer Reference Schweitzer1942: 13 (Claudius); Harrison Reference Harrison1953: 27–8, no. 17, pl. 12 (Flavian priest?); Hafner Reference Hafner1954: 85, no. A 44 (Claudius); Bieber Reference Bieber1956: 206 (Trajan); Hanfmann et al. Reference Hanfmann, Vermeule, Young and Jucker1957: 253, no. 46 (‘certainly a Julio-Claudian emperor, and certainly not Trajan’); Harrison Reference Harrison1960: fig. 11 (Trajan); Poulsen Reference Poulsen1962: 95, s.v. no. 59, no. 8 (posthumous portrait of Claudius); Thompson Reference Thompson1962: 135 (Trajan); Daltrop et al. Reference Daltrop, Hausmann and Wegner1966: 97 (possibly Trajan); Vermeule Reference Vermeule1968: 387–8, s.v. Claudius, no. 4 (Claudius), 430; Thompson Reference Thompson1976: 209–10 (Trajan?, possibly associated with Agora I 7353); Balty Reference Balty1977–1978: 55, no. 3 (Trajan); Camp Reference Camp1990: 213 (Trajan?); Riccardi Reference Riccardi2000: 124–5, figs 20–1 (likely an uncanonical portrait of Trajan); Fittschen Reference Fittschen, Ewald and Noreña2010: 233, n. 44 (Ostia cuirass-statue type of Trajan); Gawlinski Reference Gawlinski2014: 83 (possibly Trajan); Freyer-Schauenburg and Goette Reference Freyer-Schauenburg and Goette2020: 173–5, no. B 1:1, fig. 17a–f (Trajan, recarved from an earlier portrait); Leone Reference Leone2020: 201, no. 53, fig. 75 (portrait of a man of the Flavian or Trajanic period); Stefanidou-Tiveriou and Kaltsas Reference Stefanidou-Tiveriou and Kaltsas2020: 59 (T. Stefanidou-Tiveriou) (identification as Trajan is problematic); Dillon Reference Dillon and Dickenson2021: 68–9, fig. 3.10 (Trajan); Reference Dillon, Damaskos, Karanastasi and Stefanidou-Tiveriou2022: 81, 83, figs 12–14 (Trajan). In my view, Agora S 347 probably comes from a statue of Nero–Apollo Patroös. After the emperor's damnatio memoriae, the head was probably re-carved to represent Apollo alone.

66 Rose Reference Rose1997: 138, no. 68; Boschung Reference Boschung2002: 106–8; Højte Reference Højte2005: 250, no. Augustus 130. A second statue on the Acropolis is evidenced by an inscribed plaque, presumably for attachment to a base. The fragment, found north of the Erechtheion, preserves no titles and is therefore dated to c. a.d. 98–117; see IG II2 3285: Raubitschek Reference Raubitschek1945: 132–3 (with revised reading of the text); Højte Reference Højte2005: 387, no. Trajan 102; Geagan Reference Geagan2011: 144.

67 Graindor Reference Graindor1931: 25–6; Geagan Reference Geagan1979: 386; Reference Geagan1984: 77; Højte Reference Højte2005: 387, no. Trajan 103; Camia Reference Camia2011: 30–1; Geagan Reference Geagan2011: 144.

68 Follet Reference Follet1976: 57.

69 Rose Reference Rose1997: 138, no. 68.

70 For the text and its restoration, see Whitehead Reference Whitehead2000: 459.

71 Stewart Reference Stewart1993: 208.

72 The epithet invictus (ἀνίκητος) becomes common for emperors only from the reign of Caracalla; see Geagan Reference Geagan1983: 172. At Athens, the only other imperial use known to me is a third-century a.d. monument of uncertain nature; see Geagan Reference Geagan1983: 169–72 (SEG 33.181). For the use of the epithet for Alexander the Great, see Whitehead Reference Whitehead2000: 459–60. For Trajan's usage, in imitation of Alexander, see Kühnen Reference Kühnen2008: 169.

73 The oracle was possibly invented, though it is worth noting that Plutarch was a priest at Delphi.

74 Kühnen Reference Kühnen2008: 165–72.

75 Agora S 2518, with associated fragments Agora S 1798, S 2503, S 2512, S 2515, and S 2517. For the statue, see Vermeule Reference Vermeule1959: 47, no. 107 (fragment S 1798); Shear, Jr Reference Shear1973b: 404–5, pl. 75c (Trajan and a Dacian); Vermeule Reference Vermeule1974: 15, no. 194B (Trajan or Hadrian); Stemmer Reference Stemmer1978: 42–3, no. III 21a, pl. 25.2–5 (Trajan); Shear, Jr Reference Shear1981: 371, n. 63 (Trajan and a Dacian); Pinkerneil Reference Pinkerneil1983: 113–15, 119–20 (Trajan and a Dacian); Kleiner Reference Kleiner1992: 241 (Trajan and a Dacian); Ferris Reference Ferris2000: 77 (Trajan and a Dacian); Riccardi Reference Riccardi, Camp and Mauzy2009: 61, fig. 60; Camia Reference Camia2011: 31–2; Dillon Reference Dillon and Dickenson2021: 68, n. 65 (probably Trajan); Reference Dillon, Damaskos, Karanastasi and Stefanidou-Tiveriou2022.

76 Dillon Reference Dillon, Damaskos, Karanastasi and Stefanidou-Tiveriou2022.

77 Shear, Jr Reference Shear1973b: 404; Reference Shear1981: 371, n. 63. For imperial shrines in porticoes, see Price Reference Price1984: 140–3; and for cuirassed statues in imperial shrines, see Price Reference Price1984: 181–3.

78 Agora I 7353; see Shear, Jr Reference Shear1973a: 175–6, no. 2, pl. 39h; Camp Reference Camp1980: 22, fig. 45; Højte Reference Højte2005: 387, no. Trajan 101; Camp Reference Camp2010: 129; Perrin-Saminadayar Reference Perrin-Saminadayar and Perrin2010: 233–4, 237–8, no. 5; Camia Reference Camia2011: 31.

79 Verdélis Reference Verdélis1947–1948: 42–6, no. 2; Shear, Jr Reference Shear1973a: 176; Højte Reference Højte2005: 386–7, no. Trajan 100; Camia Reference Camia2011: 31, n. 58. The current whereabouts of this base are unknown.

80 IG II2 3284a (=Agora I 380); see Meritt Reference Meritt1934: 74, no. 72, with drawing; Geagan Reference Geagan2011: 150, no. H260, pl. 26.

81 Agora S 2501, S 2502, S 2504, S 2431: Dillon Reference Dillon, Damaskos, Karanastasi and Stefanidou-Tiveriou2022: 82–3, figs 15–18.

82 Agora I 848: Camp Reference Camp2001, 197, fig. 191; Reference Camp2010: 132–4; Geagan Reference Geagan2011: 127–8, no. C217.

83 For an early example, dated to a.d. 101–102, see BMC III 48, no. 137 (pl. 11.12). For later examples, dated variously between c. a.d. 103–111, see e.g. RIC II 256, no. 187; 258, nos 214–15 (pl. 8.145); 276, nos 447–8; 279, nos 485–8 (pl. 11.206); 280, no. 499; 281, nos 510–2; 283, nos 551, 551a, 552 (pl. 10.182). For representations of Dacians on coins of Trajan, see RIC II 238–9. See also Ferris Reference Ferris2000: 77: ‘for the reign of Trajan, more than for any other previous or subsequent reign, the figure of the defeated barbarian, in this case the male Dacian, was to become virtually a representative symbol of the reign itself, particularly on coinage.’

84 If so, it is not possible to associate the figure with either of the statues donated by Tiberius Claudius Atticus, which are dated earlier on the basis of the imperial nomenclature. The improbability that the statue and the base belong together was already pointed out by Shear, Jr Reference Shear1981: 371, n. 63. Cf. Dillon Reference Dillon, Damaskos, Karanastasi and Stefanidou-Tiveriou2022: 80–1, who hypothesises the association of the statue with one of these bases.

85 Spawforth Reference Spawforth and Hornblower1994.

86 Williams Reference Williams2013: 63–5.

87 Stewart Reference Stewart2004.

88 The circumstances of the dedication and the function of the building are not well established; for a range of interpretations, see e.g. Hoff Reference Hoff, Walker and Cameron1989: 6; Reference Hoff and Small1996: 185–94; Schäfer Reference Schäfer1998; Camp Reference Camp2001: 187–8; Rose Reference Rose2005: 50–3; Spawforth Reference Spawforth2012: 106–7; Morales Reference Morales, Vanacker and Zuiderhoek2017.

89 Hoff Reference Hoff, Walker and Cameron1989: 5–6; Morales Reference Morales, Vanacker and Zuiderhoek2017: 145–7.

90 Kajava Reference Kajava2000: 48–60; Lozano Gómez Reference Lozano Gómez2002: 60–3; Stafford Reference Stafford2013. On the date of the dedicatory inscription on the architrave of the temple (IG II2 3242), see Schmalz Reference Schmalz2009: 103–5, no. 132 (late Augustan), with discussion of earlier research.

91 Stephenson Reference Stephenson2016. Note also the fourth-century b.c. acanthus column at Delphi, which comprised three female figures supporting a tripod: Martinez Reference Martinez and Martinez2021.

92 Trans. Paton Reference Paton1916, with modifications.

93 Lightfoot Reference Lightfoot1990: 115.

94 Claridge Reference Claridge2007.

95 Claridge Reference Claridge1993; Reference Claridge2007: 88–90.

96 Schowalter Reference Schowalter and Koester1998: 247–8; Burrell Reference Burrell2004: 315.

97 Raubitschek Reference Raubitschek1945: 130.

98 Raubitschek Reference Raubitschek1945: 131. See also Geagan Reference Geagan1984: 77.

99 Raubitschek Reference Raubitschek1945: 130.

100 For imperial cult in the annex of the Stoa of Zeus Eleutherios, see Thompson Reference Thompson1966; Thompson and Wycherley Reference Thompson and Wycherley1972: 103; Price Reference Price1984: 141–2; Camp Reference Camp2010: 74–5.

101 Athens, Agora S 166; see Shear Reference Shear1933b: 178–83, no. 5, figs 8–10, pl. VI; Harrison Reference Harrison1953: 71–4, no. 56, pls 36–7; Camp Reference Camp2010: 63–4, no. 16, fig. 33; Karanastasi Reference Karanastasi2012–2013: 358, no. 1, pl. 1.1–3.

102 Stillwell et al. Reference Stillwell, Scranton and Freeman1941: 55–88; Johnson Reference Johnson1931: 101–7, nos 217–26; Sanders et al. Reference Sanders, Palinkas, Tzonou-Herbst and Herbst2018: 103, no. 34, fig. 92.

103 On the date of the monument, see e.g. Ridgway Reference Ridgway1981: 444 (Severan); Sturgeon Reference Sturgeon, Williams and Bookidis2003: 354, n. 16 (Antonine); Strocka Reference Strocka2010 (Neronian); Ajootian Reference Ajootian2014: 316 n. 6, 363–4 n. 174 (possibly second century a.d.).

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ajootian, A. 2014: ‘Simulacra civitatum at Roman Corinth’, Hesperia 83.2, 315–77.10.2972/hesperia.83.2.0315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Attanasio, D., Bruno, M., Prochaska, W. and Yavuz, A. B. 2015: ‘Analysis and discrimination of Phrygian and other pavonazzetto-like marbles’, in Pensabene, P. and Gasparini, E. (eds), ASMOSIA X: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference. Interdisciplinary Studies on Ancient Stone, Rome, 753–64.Google Scholar
Aurenhammer, M. 1990: Forschungen in Ephesos X/1. Die Skulpturen von Ephesos. Bildwerke aus Stein, Idealplastik I, Vienna.Google Scholar
Balty, J.-C. 1977–1978: ‘Un nouveau portrait de Trajan’, Les cahiers de Mariemont 8–9, 44–62.10.3406/camar.1977.976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, D. 2022: ‘Use, aesthetics and semantics of coloured marble columns in the western Mediterranean during the Late Republic and Early Roman Empire’, in Haug, A., Hielscher, A. and Lauritsen, M. T. (eds), Materiality in Roman Art and Architecture: Aesthetics, Semantics and Function, Berlin, 95–112.Google Scholar
Bieber, M. 1956: Review of Hafner 1954, American Journal of Archaeology 60.2, 205–7.10.2307/500714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bitterer, T. 2007: ‘Sulle statue degli orientali della Basilica Aemilia’, Archeologia Classica 58, 155–63.Google Scholar
Boatwright, M. T. 2000: Hadrian and the Cities of the Roman Empire, Princeton.10.1515/9780691187211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boschung, D. 2002: Gens Augusta: Untersuchungen zu Aufstellung, Wirkung und Bedeutung der Statuengruppen des julisch-claudischen Kaiserhauses, Mainz.Google Scholar
Bridges, E. 2015: Imagining Xerxes: Ancient Perspectives on a Persian King, London.Google Scholar
Bruno, M. and Vitti, M. 2018: ‘Sectilia pavimenta in Athens. From the imperial age to late antiquity’, in Napoli, V. Di, Camia, F., Evangelidis, V., Grigoropoulos, D., Rogers, D. and Vlizos, S. (eds), What's New in Roman Greece? Recent Work on the Greek Mainland and the Islands in the Roman Period. Proceedings of a Conference Held in Athens, 8–10 October 2015, Athens, 281–301.Google Scholar
Burrell, B. 2004. Neokoroi. Greek Cities and Roman Emperors, Leiden.10.1163/9789047401506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caló Levi, A. 1952: Barbarians on Roman Imperial Coins and Sculpture, New York.Google Scholar
Camia, F. 2011: Theoi Sebastoi: Il culto degli imperatori Romani in Grecia (provincia Achaia) nel secondo secolo d.C., Athens.Google Scholar
Camp, J. M. 1980: Gods and Heroes in the Athenian Agora, Agora Picture Book 19, Princeton.Google Scholar
Camp, J. M. 1990: The Athenian Agora: A Guide to the Excavation and Museum, 4th rev. edn, Athens.Google Scholar
Camp, J. M. 1992: The Athenian Agora: Excavations in the Heart of Classical Athens, updated edn, London.Google Scholar
Camp, J. M. 2001: The Archaeology of Athens, New Haven.Google Scholar
Camp, J. M. 2010: The Athenian Agora: Site Guide, 5th edn, Princeton.10.2972/j.ctv13nb7c4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carducci, C. 1933: ‘Ritratto dell'imperatore Traiano conservato nel Museo del Pireo’, Bollettino del Museo dell'impero romano 4, 37–43.Google Scholar
Choremi-Spetsieri, A. and Tigginaga, I. 2008: ‘Η Βιβλιοθήκη του Αδριανού στην Αθήνα. Τα ανασκαφικά δεδομένα’, in Vlizos, S. (ed.), Η Αθήνα κατά τη ρωμαϊκή εποχή: Πρόσφατες ανακαλύψεις, νέες έρευνες/Athens During the Roman Period: Recent Discoveries, New Evidence, Athens, 115–31.Google Scholar
Claridge, A., 1993: ‘Hadrian's column of Trajan’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 5, 5–22.10.1017/S1047759400011442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claridge, A., 2007: ‘Hadrian's lost temple of Trajan’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 20.1, 54–94.10.1017/S1047759400005316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claridge, A., and Siwicki, C. 2019: ‘Notes from Rome 2018–19’, Papers of the British School at Rome 87, 309–16.10.1017/S0068246219000369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohon, R. 1990: ‘Pavonazzetto sculptures of eastern barbarians’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 3, 264–70.10.1017/S1047759400011089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corcoran, S., and DeLaine, J. 1994: ‘The unit of measurement of marble in Diocletian's Prices Edict’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 7, 263–73.10.1017/S1047759400012617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalla Rosa, A. 2016: ‘From exploitation to integration. Imperial quarries, estates and freedmen, and the integration of rural Phrygia’, Studi ellenistici 30, 305–30.Google Scholar
Daltrop, G., Hausmann, U. and Wegner, M. 1966: Die Flavier: Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, Nerva, Julia Titi, Domitilla, Domitia, Berlin.Google Scholar
Datsouli-Stavridi, A. 1985: Ρωμαϊκά Πορτραίτα στο Εθνικό Αρχαιολογικό Μουσείο της Αθήνας, Athens.Google Scholar
De Lachenal, L. 1987: Fortuna dei prigionieri Daci a Roma: Documentazione per la storia del tipo dal XVI al XIX secolo, Xenia Quaderni 7, Rome.Google Scholar
De Nuccio, M. 2002: ‘Storia e restauri dei barbari inginocchiati’, in De Nuccio and Ungaro 2002, 425–9.Google Scholar
De Nuccio, M. and Ungaro, L. (eds) 2002: I marmi colorati della Roma imperiale, Venice.Google Scholar
Despinis, G. I. 2003: Hochrelieffriese des 2. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. aus Athen, Munich.Google Scholar
Dillon, S. 2021: ‘Portrait statues in the Athenian Agora in the Roman period: the archaeological evidence’, in Dickenson, C. P. (ed.), Public Statues Across Time and Cultures, New York, 56–80.10.4324/9780367815462-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillon, S. 2022: ‘An armored portrait statue of the emperor Trajan from the Athenian Agora’, in Damaskos, D., Karanastasi, P. and Stefanidou-Tiveriou, T. (eds), Πλαστική στη ρωμαϊκή Ελλάδα: Νέα ευρήματα και νέες έρευνες. Διεθνές Αρχαιολογικό Συνέδριο, Αθήνα, 12-14 Δεκεμβρίου 2019, Thessaloniki, 73–84.Google Scholar
Fant, J. C. 1989: Cavum Antrum Phrygiae: The Organization and Operations of the Roman Imperial Marble Quarries in Phrygia, Oxford.10.30861/9780860546191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fant, J. C. 1993: ‘Ideology, gift, and trade: A distribution model for the Roman imperial marbles’, in Harris, W. V. (ed.), The Inscribed Economy: Production and Distribution in the Roman Empire in the Light of instrumentum domesticum, Ann Arbor, 145–70.Google Scholar
Ferris, I. M. 2000. Enemies of Rome: Barbarians through Roman Eyes, Phoenix Mill.Google Scholar
Fittschen, K. 2010. ‘The portraits of Roman emperors and their families’, in Ewald, B. C. and Noreña, C. F. (eds),The Emperor and Rome: Space, Representation, and Ritual, Cambridge, 221–46.Google Scholar
Follet, S. 1976. Athènes au IIe et au IIIe siècle: Études chronologiques et prosopographiques, Paris.Google Scholar
Frantz, A. 1988: The Athenian Agora XXIV: Late Antiquity: A.D. 267–700, Princeton.Google Scholar
Freyberger, K. S., Ertel, C., Lipps, J. and Bitterer, T. 2007: ‘Neue Forschungen zur Basilica Aemilia auf dem Forum Romanum’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaeologischen Instituts, Roemische Abteilung 113, 493–552.Google Scholar
Freyer-Schauenburg, B. and Goette, H. R. 2020: ‘Nochmals zur Statue des Trajan auf Samos – ein Beitrag zu umgearbeiteten Kaiserbildnissen mit Kränzen’, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 135, 163–236.Google Scholar
Gasparri, C. (ed.) 2010: Le sculture Farnese III: Le sculture delle Terme di Caracalla. Rilievi e varia, Milan.Google Scholar
Gawlinski, L. 2014: The Athenian Agora: Museum Guide, 5th edn, Princeton.Google Scholar
Geagan, D. J. 1979: ‘Roman Athens: some aspects of life and culture, I. 86 B.C.–A.D. 267’, Aufsteig und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.7.1, 371–437.Google Scholar
Geagan, D. J. 1983: ‘Greek inscriptions from the Athenian Agora’, Hesperia 52.2, 155–72.10.2307/147787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geagan, D. J. 1984: ‘Imperial visits to Athens: the epigraphical evidence’, in Πρακτικά του Η’ Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Ελληνικής και Λατινικής Επιγραφικής. Αθήνα, 3–9 Οκτωβρίου 1982, vol. 1, Athens, 69–78.Google Scholar
Geagan, D. J. 2011. The Athenian Agora XVIII: Inscriptions: The Dedicatory Monuments, Princeton.Google Scholar
Giacchero, M. 1974: Edictum Diocletiani et Collegarum de pretiis rerum venalium in integrum fere restitutum e Latinis Graecisque fragmentis, 2 vols, Genoa.Google Scholar
Graindor, P. 1931: Athènes de Tibère à Trajan, Cairo.Google Scholar
Gregarek, H. 1999: ‘Untersuchungen zur kaiserzeitlichen Idealplastik aus Buntmarmor’, Kölner Jahrbuch 32, 33–284.Google Scholar
Grigoropoulos, D. 2016: ‘The Piraeus from 86 BC to Late Antiquity: continuity and change in the landscape, function and economy of the port of Roman Athens’, Annual of the British School at Athens 111, 239–68.10.1017/S0068245415000106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, W. H. 1940: Bildnisse Traians, Berlin.Google Scholar
Habicht, C. 1985: Pausanias’ Guide to Ancient Greece, Berkeley.10.1525/9780520342200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafner, G. 1954: Späthellenistische Bildnisplastik: Versuch einer landschaftlichen Gliederung, Berlin.Google Scholar
Hanfmann, M. A. G., Vermeule, C. C., Young, W. J. and Jucker, H. 1957: ‘A new Trajan’, American Journal of Archaeology 61.3, 223–53.10.2307/500727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardie, P. 2007: ‘Images of the Persian Wars in Rome’, in Bridges, E., Hall, E. and Rhodes, P. J. (eds), Cultural Responses to the Persian Wars: Antiquity to the Third Millenium, Oxford, 127–44.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199279678.003.0007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, E. B. 1953: The Athenian Agora I: Portrait Sculpture, Princeton.Google Scholar
Harrison, E. B. 1960: Ancient Portraits from the Athenian Agora, Agora Picture Book 5, Princeton.Google Scholar
Heberdey, R. 1919: Altattische Porosskulptur: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der archaischen griechischen Kunst, Vienna.Google Scholar
Hirt, A. M. 2010: Imperial Mines and Quarries in the Roman World: Organizational Aspects 27 BC–AD 235, Oxford.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199572878.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirt, A. M. 2017: ‘The marble hall of Furius Aptus: Phrygian marble in Rome and Ephesus’, Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz 28, 231–48.Google Scholar
Hoff, M. C. 1989: ‘The early history of the Roman Agora at Athens’, in Walker, S. and Cameron, A. (eds), The Greek Renaissance in the Roman Empire, London, 1–8.Google Scholar
Hoff, M. C. 1996: ‘The politics and architecture of the Athenian imperial cult’, in Small, A. (ed.), Subject and Ruler: The Cult of the Ruling Power in Classical Antiquity, Ann Arbor, 185–200.Google Scholar
Højte, J. M. 2005: Roman Imperial Statue Bases, Aarhus.Google Scholar
Johnson, F. P. 1931: Corinth IX.1: Sculpture, 1896–1923, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Jones, W. H. S. 1918: Pausanias. Description of Greece, Books 1–2, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Jones, W. H. S. and Ormerod, H. A. 1926: Pausanias. Description of Greece, Books 3–5, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Kajava, M. 2000: ‘Livia and Nemesis’, Arctos 34, 39–61.Google Scholar
Kaltsas, N. 2002: Sculpture in the National Archaeological Museum, Athens, trans. Hardy, D., Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Kanellopoulos, C. 2020: ‘The lost skin of the Library of Hadrian in Athens. ‘…κίονες φρυγίου λίθου … ὀρόφῳ τε ἐπιχρύσῳ καὶ ἀλαβάστρῳ λίθῳ’, Athens University Review of Archaeology 3, 121–49.Google Scholar
Karanastasi, P. 2012–2013: ‘Hadrian im Panzer: Kaiserstatuen zwischen Realpolitik und Philhellenismus’, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 127/128, 323–91.Google Scholar
Karo, G. 1933: ‘Archäologische Funde von Mai 1932 bis Juli 1933, Griechenland und Dodekanes’, Archäologischer Anzeiger, 191–261.Google Scholar
Katakis, S. 2002: Tα Γλυπτά των Ρωμαïκών Χρονών από το Ιερό τού Απόλλωνος Μαλεάτα και του Ασκληπιού, Athens.Google Scholar
King, D. 1998: ‘Figured supports: Vitruvius’ caryatids and atlantes’, Numismatica e antichità classica 27, 275–305.Google Scholar
Klatt, U. 1995: ‘Römische Klapptische: Drei- und vierbeinige Stützgestelle aus Bronze und Silber’, Kölner Jahrbuch 28, 349–573.Google Scholar
Kleiner, D. E. E. 1992: Roman Sculpture, New Haven.Google Scholar
Knell, H. 2008: Des Kaisers neue Bauten: Hadrians Architektur in Rom, Athen und Tivoli, Mainz.Google Scholar
Kühnen, A. 2008: Die imitatio Alexandri in der römischen Politik (1. Jh. v.Chr.–3. Jh. n.Chr.), Münster.Google Scholar
Lagogianni-Georgakarakos, M. and Papi, E. (eds) 2018: Hadrianus – Αδριανός. Ο Αδριανός, η Αθήνα και τα Γυμνάσια – Adriano, Atene e i Ginnasi – Hadrian, Athens and the Gymnasia, Athens.Google Scholar
Landskron, A. 2005: Parther und Sasaniden: Das Bild der Orientalen in der römischen Kaiserzeit, Vienna.Google Scholar
Landwehr, C. 2000: Die römischen Skulpturen von Caesarea Mauretaniae II: Idealplastik, männliche Figuren, Mainz.Google Scholar
Lawton, C. L. 2006: Marbleworkers in the Athenian Agora, Agora Picture Book 27, Athens.Google Scholar
Leone, S. 2020: Polis, Platz und Porträt: Die Bildnisstatuen auf der Agora von Athen im Späthellenismus und in der Kaiserzeit (86 v. Chr.–267 n. Chr.), Berlin.10.1515/9783110617405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lepper, F. A. [1948] 1993: Trajan's Parthian War, with a translation of Arrian's Parthika by DeVoto, J. G., Chicago.Google Scholar
Lerouge, C. 2007: L'image des Parthes dans le monde gréco-romain: Du début du Ier siècle av. J.-C. jusqu’à la fin du Haut-Empire romain, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, C. S. 1990: ‘Trajan's Parthian War and the fourth-century perspective’, Journal of Roman Studies 80, 115–26.10.2307/300283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipps, J. 2011: Die Basilica Aemilia am Forum Romanum: Der kaiserzeitliche Bau und seine Ornamentik, Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Lipps, J. 2016: ‘Statuen kniefälliger Orientalen aus Rom und ein Dreifuß im Olympieion von Athen’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Römische Abteilung 122, 203–52.Google Scholar
Lozano Gómez, F. 2002: ‘Santuarios tradicionales para nuevas divinidades: el templo de Livia en Ramnunte’, ARYS. Antigüedad: religiones y sociedades 5, 47–64.Google Scholar
Makhlaiuk, A. V. 2015: ‘Memory and images of Achaemenid Persia in the Roman empire’, in Silverman, J. M. and Waerzeggers, C. (eds), Political Memory in and after the Persian Empire, Atlanta, 299–324.Google Scholar
Martens, B. 2021: ‘A Phrygian sculptor at work in Roman Athens’, Hesperia 90.2, 359–410.10.2972/hesperia.90.2.0359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinez, J.-L. 2021: ‘La colonne d'acanthe omphalophore dite «Colonne des Danseuses»’, in Martinez, J.-L. (ed.), Un âge d'or du marbre: La sculpture en pierre à Delphes dans l'Antiquité, Athens, 521–82.Google Scholar
Meritt, B. D. 1934: ‘The inscriptions’, Hesperia 3.1, 1–114.10.2307/146660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milella, M. 2002: ‘Uso del marmo colorato nel foro di Traiano’, in De Nuccio and Ungaro 2002, 125–7.Google Scholar
Miller, M. C. 1997: Athens and Persia in the Fifth Century BC: A Study in Cultural Receptivity, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Moltesen, M. 2002: Imperial Rome II: Statues, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Morales, F. 2017: ‘The monument of Roma and Augustus on the Athenian Acropolis: Imperial identities and local traditions’, in Vanacker, W. and Zuiderhoek, A. (eds), Imperial Identities in the Roman World, London, 141–61.Google Scholar
Mylonas, M. 2019. Φέρουσες μορφές, ενταγμένες σε αρχιτεκτονήματα, στην αρχαία ελληνική και ρωμαϊκή γλυπτική, PhD dissertation, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens.Google Scholar
Niewöhner, P. 2013: ‘Phrygian marble and stonemasonry as markers of regional distinctiveness in late antiquity’, in Thonemann, P. (ed.), Roman Phrygia: Culture and Society, Cambridge, 215–48.10.1017/CBO9781139381574.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Sullivan, L. 2016: ‘Augustus and Alexander the Great at Athens’, Phoenix 70.3/4, 339–60.10.1353/phx.2016.0002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, J. H. 1941: ‘Greek and Latin inscriptions’, Hesperia 10.3, 237–61.10.2307/146562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Packer, J. E. 2001: The Forum of Trajan in Rome: A Study of the Monuments in Brief, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Paton, W. R. 1916: The Greek Anthology, Books 1–6, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Pensabene, P. 2010: ‘Cave di marmo bianco e pavonazzetto in Frigia: sulla produzione e sui dati epigrafici’, Marmora 6, 71–134.Google Scholar
Pensabene, P. 2013: I marmi nella Roma antica, Rome.Google Scholar
Perrin-Saminadayar, E. 2007: ‘Visites impériales et visites royales à Athènes au 1er siècle de notre ère: histoire et raisons d'un rendez-vous manqué’, in Perrin, Y. (ed.), Neronia VII. Rome, l'Italie et la Grèce: Hellénisme et philhellénisme au premier siècle après J.-C. Actes du VIIe Colloque international de la SIEN (Athènes, 21–23 octobre 2004), Brussels, 126–44.Google Scholar
Perrin-Saminadayar, E. 2010: ‘Bibliothèques publiques et bibliothèques privées athéniennes (1er siècle av. J.-C.–IIe siècle ap. J.-C.): le statut de la bibliothèque de Pantainos’, in Perrin, Y. (ed.), Neronia VIII. Bibliothèques, livres et culture écrite dans l'empire romain de César a Hadrien. Actes du VIIIe Colloque international de la SIEN (Paris, 2–4 octobre 2008), Brussels, 227–38.Google Scholar
Pinkerneil, J. 1983: Studien zu den trajanischen Dakerdarstellungen, PhD dissertation, University of Freiburg .Google Scholar
Popkin, M. L. 2022: Souvenirs and the Experience of Empire in Ancient Rome, Cambridge.10.1017/9781009042628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poulsen, V. 1962: Les portraits romains: Volume 1, république et dynastie julienne, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Pretzler, M. 2007: Pausanias: Travel Writing in Ancient Greece, London.Google Scholar
Price, S. R. F. 1984: Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Raubitschek, A. E. 1945: ‘Hadrian as the son of Zeus Eleutherios’, American Journal of Archaeology 49.2, 128–33.10.2307/499696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riccardi, L. A. 2000: ‘Uncanonical imperial portraits in the eastern Roman provinces: the case of the Kanellopoulos emperor’, Hesperia 69.1, 105–32.10.2307/148367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riccardi, L. A. 2009: ‘Roman portraits from the Athenian Agora: recent finds’, in Camp, J. M. and Mauzy, C. A. (eds), The Athenian Agora: New Perspectives on an Ancient Site, Mainz, 55–62.Google Scholar
Ridgway, B. S. 1981: ‘Sculpture from Corinth’, Hesperia 50.4, 422–48.10.2307/147882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romanelli, P. 1933: ‘Notiziario: Atene’, Bollettino del Museo dell'impero romano 4, 100–5.Google Scholar
Romiopoulou, K. 1997: Ελληνορωμαϊκά Γλυπτά του Εθνικού Αρχαιολογικού Μουσείου, Athens.Google Scholar
Rose, C. B. 1997: Dynastic Commemoration and Imperial Portraiture in the Julio-Claudian Period, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Rose, C. B. 2005: ‘The Parthians in Augustan Rome’, American Journal of Archaeology 109.1, 21–75.10.3764/aja.109.1.21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, B. 2013: The Economics of the Roman Stone Trade, Oxford.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199656394.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, G. D. R., Palinkas, J., Tzonou-Herbst, I. and Herbst, J. 2018: Ancient Corinth: Site Guide, 7th edn, Princeton.Google Scholar
Schäfer, T. 1998: Spolia et signa: Baupolitik und Reichskultur nach dem Parthererfolg des Augustus, Göttingen.Google Scholar
Schmalz, G. C. R. 2009: Augustan and Julio-Claudian Athens: A New Epigraphy and Prosopography, Leiden.10.1163/ej.9789004170094.i-376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, T.-M. 2002: ‘Die verzweifelte Zweiflerin Salome auf dem Sarkophag in Boville Ernica: ein Beitrag zur Geste der verschränkten Hände’, in Koch, G. (ed.), Akten des Symposiums ‘Frühchristliche Sarkophage’, Marburg, 30.6.–4.7.1999, Sarkophag-Studien 2, Mainz, 207–29.Google Scholar
Schneider, R. M. 1986: Bunte Barbaren: Orientalenstatuen aus farbigem Marmor in der römischen Repräsentationskunst, Worms.Google Scholar
Schneider, R. M. 1998: ‘Die Faszination des Feindes. Bilder der Parther und des Orients in Rom’, in Wiesehöfer, J. (ed.), Das Partherreich und seine Zeugnisse. Beiträge des internationalen Colloquiums, Eutin (27.–30. Juni 1996), Stuttgart, 95–127.Google Scholar
Schneider, R. M. 2002: ‘Nuovo immagini del potere romano. Sculture in marmo colorato nell'impero romano’, in De Nuccio and Ungaro 2002, 83–105.Google Scholar
Schneider, R. M. 2007: ‘Friend and foe: The orient in Rome’, in Curtis, V. Sarkhosh and Stewart, S. (eds), The Age of the Parthians, London, 50–86.Google Scholar
Schneider, R. M. 2016: ‘Context matters: Pliny's Phryges and the Basilica Paulli in Rome’, in Bintliff, J. and Rutter, N. K. (eds), The Archaeology of Greece and Rome: Studies in Honour of Anthony Snodgrass, Edinburgh, 402–33.10.1515/9781474417105-020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schörner, G. 2003: Votive im römischen Griechenland: Untersuchungen zur späthellenistischen und kaiserzeitlichen Kunst- und Religionsgeschichte, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Schowalter, D. N. 1998. ‘The Zeus Philios and Trajan Temple: a context for imperial honors’, in Koester, H. (ed.), Pergamon: Citadel of the Gods. Archaeological Record, Literary Description, and Religious Development, Harrisburg, 233–49.Google Scholar
Schröder, S. F. 2004: Katalog der antiken Skulpturen des Museo del Prado in Madrid II: Idealplastik, Mainz.Google Scholar
Schweitzer, B. 1942: ‘Der grosse Kameo des grünen Gewölbes in Dresden’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaeologischen Instituts, Roemische Abteilung 57, 92–115.Google Scholar
Shear, T. L. 1933a: ‘The current excavations in the Athenian Agora’, American Journal of Archaeology 37.2, 305–12.10.2307/498448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shear, T. L. 1933b: ‘The sculpture’, Hesperia 2.1, 170–83.10.2307/146507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shear, T. L. 1935: ‘The sculpture found in 1933’, Hesperia 4.3, 371–420.10.2307/146458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shear, T. L. Jr 1973a: ‘The Athenian Agora: Excavations of 1971’, Hesperia 42.2, 121–79.Google Scholar
Shear, T. L. Jr 1973b: ‘The Athenian Agora: Excavations of 1972’, Hesperia 42.4, 359–407.Google Scholar
Shear, T. L. Jr 1981: ‘Athens: From city-state to provincial town’, Hesperia 50.4, 356–77.Google Scholar
Sinn, F. 2010: ‘Die Bildhauerkunst während der Regierungszeit des Nerva und des Traian (96–117 n. Chr.)’, in Bol, P. C. (ed.), Die Geschichte der antiken Bildhauerkunst IV. Plastik der römischen Kaiserzeit bis zum Tode Kaiser Hadrians, Mainz, 149–213.Google Scholar
Sourlas, D. 2021: ‘The emperor's Nike. The Nike statues in Hadrian's Library as a means of promoting power and imperial ideology’, in Lagogianni-Georgakarakos, M. (ed.), Known and Unknown Nikai in History, Art and Life, Athens, 220–35.Google Scholar
Spawforth, A. J. S. 1994: ‘Symbol of unity? The Persian-Wars tradition in the Roman empire’, in Hornblower, S. (ed.), Greek Historiography, Oxford, 233–47.10.1093/oso/9780198149316.003.0009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spawforth, A. J. S. 2012: Greece and the Augustan Cultural Revolution, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Spetsieri-Choremi, A. 1995: ‘Library of Hadrian at Athens: Recent finds’, Ostraka 4, 137–47.Google Scholar
Stafford, E. 2013. ‘The people to the goddess Livia: Attic Nemesis and the Roman imperial cult’, Kernos 26, 205–38.10.4000/kernos.2214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stefanidou-Tiveriou, T. 2007. ‘The caryatid column of Nicopolis: a new Hadrianic find’, in Zachos, K. L. (ed.), Νικόπολις Β΄: Πρακτικά του δευτέρου διεθνούς συμποσίου για τη Νικόπολη (11–15 Σεπτεμβρίου 2002), Preveza.Google Scholar
Stefanidou-Tiveriou, T. and Kaltsas, N. (eds). 2020: Κατάλογος Γλυπτών IV.1. Γλυπτά των ρωμαϊκών αυτοκρατορικών χρόνων: Πορτρέτα αυτοκρατορικά (ανδρικά, γυναικεία, παιδικά), Athens.Google Scholar
Steinhauer, G. 2001: The Archaeological Museum of Piraeus, Athens.Google Scholar
Stemmer, K. 1978: Untersuchungen zur Typologie, Chronologie und Ikonographie der Panzerstatuen, Berlin.Google Scholar
Stephenson, P. 2016: The Serpent Column: A Cultural Biography, New York.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190209063.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, G. P. 1949: ‘A doorsill from the Library of Pantainos’, Hesperia 18.3, 269–74.10.2307/146757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, A. F. 1993: Faces of Power: Alexander's Image and Hellenistic Politics, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Stewart, A. F. 2004: Attalos, Athens, and the Akropolis: The Pergamene ‘Little Barbarians’ and their Roman and Renaissance Legacy, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Stewart, A. F. 2013: ‘Sculptors’ sketches, trial pieces, figure studies, and models in poros limestone from the Athenian Agora’, Hesperia 82.4, 615–50.10.2972/hesperia.82.4.0615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stillwell, R., Scranton, R. L. and Freeman, S. E. 1941: Corinth I.2: Architecture, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Strocka, V. M. 2010: Die Gefangenenfassade an der Agora von Korinth. Ihr Ort in der römischen Kunstgeschichte, Regensburg.Google Scholar
Strocka, V. M. 2017: ‘Trajan in Ephesos’, Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 86, 397–456.Google Scholar
Stuart, M. 1938: The Portraiture of Claudius: Preliminary Studies, PhD dissertation, Columbia University .Google Scholar
Sturgeon, M. C. 2003: ‘Sculpture at Corinth, 1896–1996’, in Williams, C. K. and Bookidis, N. (eds), Corinth, the Centenary 1896–1996, Princeton, 351–68.Google Scholar
Themelis, P. 1996: ‘Damophon’, in Palagia, O. and Pollitt, J. J. (eds), Personal Styles in Greek Sculpture, Cambridge, 154–85.Google Scholar
Thompson, H. A. 1950: ‘The odeion in the Athenian Agora’, Hesperia 19.2, 31–141.10.2307/146791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, H. A. 1962: The Athenian Agora: A Guide to the Excavation and Museum, 2nd rev. edn, Athens.Google Scholar
Thompson, H. A. 1966: ‘The annex to the Stoa of Zeus in the Athenian Agora’, Hesperia 35.2, 171–87.10.2307/147306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, H. A. 1976: The Athenian Agora: A Guide to the Excavation and Museum, 3rd rev. edn, Princeton.Google Scholar
Thompson, H. A. and Wycherley, R. E. 1972: The Athenian Agora XIV: The History, Shape and Uses of an Ancient City Center, Princeton.Google Scholar
Tölle-Kastenbein, R. 1994: Das Olympieion in Athen, Cologne.Google Scholar
Toynbee, J. M. C. 1958: ‘Four Roman portraits in the Piraeus Museum’, Annual of the British School at Athens 53/54, 285–91.Google Scholar
Travlos, J. 1971: Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens, New York.Google Scholar
Ungaro, L. 2002a: ‘I Daci dal foro di Traiano’, in De Nuccio and Ungaro 2002, 129–33.Google Scholar
Ungaro, L. 2002b: ‘Il foro di Augusto’, in De Nuccio and Ungaro 2002, 109–121.Google Scholar
Van Voorhis, J. 2018: Aphrodisias X: The Sculptor's Workshop, Wiesbaden.10.29091/9783954907465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verdélis, N. M. 1947–1948: ‘Inscriptions de l'Agora romaine d'Athènes’, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 71/72: 39–46.10.3406/bch.1947.2534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeule, C. 1959: ‘Hellenistic and Roman cuirassed statues: the evidence of paintings and reliefs in the chronological development of cuirass types’, Berytus 13, 1–82.Google Scholar
Vermeule, C. 1968: Roman Imperial Art in Greece and Asia Minor, Cambridge, MA.10.4159/harvard.9780674436770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeule, C. 1974: ‘Cuirassed statues – 1974 supplement’, Berytus 23, 5–26.Google Scholar
Waelkens, M. 1985: ‘From a Phrygian quarry: the provenance of the statues of the Dacian prisoners in Trajan's Forum at Rome’, American Journal of Archaeology 89.4, 641–53.10.2307/504205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walters, E. J. 1988: Attic Grave Reliefs that Represent Women in the Dress of Isis, Princeton.10.2307/1353990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, D. 2000: Hypereides: The Forensic Speeches. Introduction, Translation and Commentary, Oxford.10.1093/oso/9780198152187.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitmarsh, T. 2013: ‘Resistance is futile? Greek literary tactics in the face of Rome’, in Schubert, P. (ed.), Les Grecs héritiers des Romains, Entretiens sur l'antiquité classique 59, Geneva, 57–78.Google Scholar
Whitmarsh, T. 2015: ‘The mnemology of empire and resistance: memory, oblivion, and periegesis in imperial Greek culture’, in Galinsky, K. and Lapatin, K. (eds), Cultural Memories in the Roman Empire, Los Angeles, 49–64.Google Scholar
Willers, D. 1990: Hadrians panhellenisches Programm: Archäologische Beiträge zur Neugestaltung Athens durch Hadrian, Basel.Google Scholar
Williams, D. 2013: The East Pediment of the Parthenon: From Perikles to Nero, London.Google Scholar
Wycherley, R. E. 1963: ‘Pausanias at Athens, II: A commentary on book I, chapters 18–19’, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 4.3, 157–75.Google Scholar
Wycherley, R. E. 1978: The Stones of Athens, Princeton.Google Scholar
Zanker, P. 1970: ‘Das Trajansforum in Rom’, Archäologischer Anzeiger, 499–544.Google Scholar
Figure 0

FIG. 1. Over-life-size pavonazzetto statue of a kneeling male figure in eastern attire. The hands and head are early modern restorations. Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli 6117. (Photo: © Vanni Archive/Art Resource, NY)

Figure 1

FIG. 2. Map of the Mediterranean basin showing the approximate extent of the Roman Empire in a.d. 117 and locations discussed in the text. (Drawing: T. Ross)

Figure 2

FIG. 3. Plan of the Athenian Agora, with the findspot of the sculptor's sketch indicated by the red arrow in grid square Q 14. (Plan: ASCSA, Agora Excavations)

Figure 3

FIG. 4. Limestone sculptor's sketch from the Athenian Agora, four views. (Photos: C. Mauzy. Ephorate of Antiquities of Athens City, Ancient Agora, ASCSA: Agora Excavations. © Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports/Hellenic Organization of Cultural Resources Development (H.O.C.RE.D.))

Figure 4

FIG. 5. Detail of the figure on the sculptor's sketch from the Athenian Agora. (Photo: C. Mauzy. Ephorate of Antiquities of Athens City, Ancient Agora, ASCSA: Agora Excavations. © Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports/Hellenic Organization of Cultural Resources Development (H.O.C.RE.D.))

Figure 5

FIG. 6. Proposed reconstruction of the tripod monument. (Drawing: T. Ross)

Figure 6

FIG. 7. Triton of the north façade of the renovated Odeion of Agrippa in the Athenian Agora. (Photo: C. Mauzy. Ephorate of Antiquities of Athens City, Ancient Agora, ASCSA: Agora Excavations. © Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports/Hellenic Organization of Cultural Resources Development (H.O.C.RE.D.))

Figure 7

FIG. 8. Colossal pavonazzetto statues of captive Dacian men from the Forum of Trajan, re-used in the attic of the Arch of Constantine. (Photo: D. Castor, public domain)

Figure 8

FIG. 9. Silver denarius of Trajan, representing, on the reverse, a Dacian captive with hands crossed in front. New York, American Numismatic Society 1882.13.2. (Photos: American Numismatic Society, public domain)

Figure 9

FIG. 10. Aureus of Trajan representing, on the reverse, Parthian captives seated beneath a trophy. London, British Museum R.7740. (Photos: © The Trustees of the British Museum)

Figure 10

FIG. 11. Reconstructed statue of Trajan with a kneeling captive, probably from an imperial shrine located between the Agora and the Roman market, Athens; position of the left arm unknown. (Drawing: B. Martens and T. Ross. Photos: C. Mauzy. Agora Excavations; Ephorate of Antiquities of Athens City, Ancient Agora, ASCSA: Agora Excavations © Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports/Hellenic Organization of Cultural Resources Development (H.O.C.RE.D.))

Figure 11

FIG. 12. Right arm and hand holding an orb, from the statue of Trajan. (Photo: C. Mauzy. Ephorate of Antiquities of Athens City, Ancient Agora, ASCSA: Agora Excavations © Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports/Hellenic Organization of Cultural Resources Development (H.O.C.RE.D.))

Figure 12

FIG. 13. Plan of the Library of Pantainos and the south street stoa, showing the find-spots of sculpture and epigraphy discussed in the text; green = sculptor's workshop; yellow = probable imperial shrine. (Plan: W. B. Dinsmoor, Jr, ASCSA Agora Excavations, with additions by author)

Figure 13

FIG. 14. Façade of room 3 of the south street stoa, probably used as an imperial shine; lower drawing shows footprints of statue bases on the stylobate. (Drawing: W. B. Dinsmoor, Jr, ASCSA, Agora Excavations)

Figure 14

FIG. 15. Details of the kneeling captive from the statue of Trajan. (Photos: C. Mauzy. Ephorate of Antiquities of Athens City, Ancient Agora, ASCSA: Agora Excavations, © Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports/Hellenic Organization of Cultural Resources Development (H.O.C.RE.D.))

Figure 15

FIG. 16. Colossal male figure from the Captives’ Façade, Corinth. (Photo: Petros Dellatolas. ASCSA, Corinth Excavations)