DOI issue:
Artykuły/Articles
DOI article:Okoński, Mateusz: Images of Central European "externae gentes" in Trajan's Monetary Iconography and Their Role in the Propaganda of the Imperial Era
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.57341#0117
IMAGES OF CENTRAL EUROPEAN EXTERNAL GENTES...
Decebalus’ suicide), but the emperor was never depicted as a cavalryman. He is
the commander, who gives orders on the battlefield, but does not fight personally
on the column. On the surface of the plates decorating the monument in Adamclisi,
we see the moments of the triumph of Roman might over their barbarian adversary.
We can see particularly clearly the power of the Roman army on metopes
Nos. XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXXI, depicting the Dacians falling in clash with
the legionaries. The images of prisoners of war depicted on Trajan’s monetary issues
should be combined with the metopes Nos. XLV, XLVI or XLVII. The decorations
of the monument’s crenellation also refer to the subordination of Dacia and its
peoples, which consisted of twenty-six relief panels depicting Dacian, Germanic
and Sarmatian prisoners.115 All of the characters are presented in a similar way:
their hands are tied behind their backs, and the bonds are visible on their necks.
When it comes to the external appearance of the characters in question, it primarily
draws attention to a much more schematic style. The artist or artists who were
responsible for decorating the trophy were far less talented than those working
in the heart of the Empire. However, the features that distinguish the barbarians
from the Romans were clearly mapped in terms of their clothing, long hair and
thick beards. The decoration of the monument in Adamclisi therefore constitutes
a coherent whole in terms of the theme along with the monetary issues and the frieze
on Trajan’s column. The main motifs placed on these refer directly to the triumph
of Rome over the enemy. The emperor himself is credited here as the main father
of victory, depicted in direct battle with his opponents.
The Optimus Princeps was presented similarly on the plates forming the
so-called Trajan’s Great Frieze. Originally it probably decorated the portico in
the imperial forum, and it was eventually placed in a prominent location on the Arch
of Constantine.116 They depict scenes related to Trajan’s activities, including his
martial achievements. Particularly important is the depiction of the emperor, located
on the eastern side of the central span. It shows Trajan attacking a crowd of Dacian
enemies before him. What is interesting in this scene is the absence of Decebalus
or another Dacian commander who could be a match for Trajan. It is, therefore,
the scene of the emperor’s triumph over all hostile people, what T. Hölscher already
suggested.117 Similar combat scenes also appear on friezes located on the attic
of the Arch of Constantine. We see them as clashes between Roman legionaries
and Dacian barbarians. The whole composition is a symbolic representation of
115 Germans and Sarmatians supported the Dacians in the battles against Rome.
116 KLEINER 2011: 166168; SADURSKA 1980: 172. There, further literature on the monument of
Constantine.
117 HÖLSCHER 2011: 70. For the frieze itself, see BIANCHI BANDENELLI 2003; LEANDER TOUATI
1987. Older literature there.
.115
Decebalus’ suicide), but the emperor was never depicted as a cavalryman. He is
the commander, who gives orders on the battlefield, but does not fight personally
on the column. On the surface of the plates decorating the monument in Adamclisi,
we see the moments of the triumph of Roman might over their barbarian adversary.
We can see particularly clearly the power of the Roman army on metopes
Nos. XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXXI, depicting the Dacians falling in clash with
the legionaries. The images of prisoners of war depicted on Trajan’s monetary issues
should be combined with the metopes Nos. XLV, XLVI or XLVII. The decorations
of the monument’s crenellation also refer to the subordination of Dacia and its
peoples, which consisted of twenty-six relief panels depicting Dacian, Germanic
and Sarmatian prisoners.115 All of the characters are presented in a similar way:
their hands are tied behind their backs, and the bonds are visible on their necks.
When it comes to the external appearance of the characters in question, it primarily
draws attention to a much more schematic style. The artist or artists who were
responsible for decorating the trophy were far less talented than those working
in the heart of the Empire. However, the features that distinguish the barbarians
from the Romans were clearly mapped in terms of their clothing, long hair and
thick beards. The decoration of the monument in Adamclisi therefore constitutes
a coherent whole in terms of the theme along with the monetary issues and the frieze
on Trajan’s column. The main motifs placed on these refer directly to the triumph
of Rome over the enemy. The emperor himself is credited here as the main father
of victory, depicted in direct battle with his opponents.
The Optimus Princeps was presented similarly on the plates forming the
so-called Trajan’s Great Frieze. Originally it probably decorated the portico in
the imperial forum, and it was eventually placed in a prominent location on the Arch
of Constantine.116 They depict scenes related to Trajan’s activities, including his
martial achievements. Particularly important is the depiction of the emperor, located
on the eastern side of the central span. It shows Trajan attacking a crowd of Dacian
enemies before him. What is interesting in this scene is the absence of Decebalus
or another Dacian commander who could be a match for Trajan. It is, therefore,
the scene of the emperor’s triumph over all hostile people, what T. Hölscher already
suggested.117 Similar combat scenes also appear on friezes located on the attic
of the Arch of Constantine. We see them as clashes between Roman legionaries
and Dacian barbarians. The whole composition is a symbolic representation of
115 Germans and Sarmatians supported the Dacians in the battles against Rome.
116 KLEINER 2011: 166168; SADURSKA 1980: 172. There, further literature on the monument of
Constantine.
117 HÖLSCHER 2011: 70. For the frieze itself, see BIANCHI BANDENELLI 2003; LEANDER TOUATI
1987. Older literature there.
.115