The Arch of Septimius Severus: A Re-consideration

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ANCIENT HISTORY AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ANCIENT HISTORY Editor, New Series: T. Corey Brennan, Rutgers University Associate Editor: Christopher Mackay, University of Alberta Assistant Editors: Dobrinka Chiekova, Bryn Mawr College; Debra Nousek, University of Western Ontario Editorial Advisory Board: W. Robert Connor, President, The Teagle Foundation, New York; Erich S. Gruen, University of California, Berkeley; Sabine MacCormack, University of Notre Dame; Stephen V. Tracy, The Ohio State University and Director, American School of Classical Studies, Athens. Editorial assistant: Andrew G. Scott, Rutgers University For Contributors: From New Series volume 1 (2002) the editorial office of the Journal is at The Department of Classics, Ruth Adams Building 007, Rutgers University, 131 George Street, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1414, (USA), tel. 732.932.9493, fax 732.932.9246, email: [email protected]. For further information, please visit the journal website www.ajah.org. All editorial correspondence should be addressed to the Editor. Typescripts intended for publication should be at least double-spaced (text and notes), with the notes numbered consecutively and following the text. Journals should be abbreviated as in L’Année philologique; modifications customary in English will be accepted. No indication of the author’s identity should appear on the typescript: the name and address should be on a separate page. References to the author’s own work should be in the same style as references to the work of others. Personal acknowledgments should not be included: they may be added after the article has been accepted for publication. Authors who want rejected articles returned should enclose postage. For Subscriptions: From New Series volume 2.2 (2003) [2007] AJAH is published by Gorgias Press. All correspondence on business, subscription, advertising and permission matters should be addressed to Gorgias Press (AJAH), 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ 08854 (USA), tel: 732-885-8900, email: [email protected]. Subscriptions are $85/vol. for individuals and institutions, plus shipping, handling and sales tax when appropriate. All prices are in USD and payments can be made by credit cards or checks drawn on US banks. Prepayment is required for shipment. THE ROMAN EMPIRE DURING T H E S E V E R A N D Y N A S T Y: C A S E S T U D I E S I N H I S T O RY, A RT, A R C H I T E C T U R E , E C O N O M Y A N D L I T E R AT U R E Edited by Eric C. De Sena (American Research Center in Sofia and John Cabot University, Rome) This volume is dedicated to the tens of millions of brave people in North Africa and the Near East (the homelands of Septimius Severus and Julia Domna) who in 2011 and 2012 have risked and, even, lost their lives in order to improve the conditions of their countries and to achieve the unalienable rights of life, liberty, justice and the pursuit of happiness. Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2013 by Gorgias Press LLC All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2013 ‫ܘ‬ 9 ISBN 978-1-59333-838-1 Printed in the United States of America ISSN 0362-8914 TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S Εditor’s Νote ................................................................................... ix Ιntroduction ..................................................................................... xi SEVERAN HISTORY AND LITERATURE ...................................1 The Parthian Campaigns of Septimius Severus: Causes, and Roles in Dynastic Legitimation ...............................................................3 Mark K. Gradoni “Unitas ex Africa: Was Tertullian the Origo of Imperial Unificationς” ........................................................25 E.T. Walters URBAN TRANSFORMATIONS DURING THE SEVERAN PERIOD......................................67 La ύallia εosellana nell’età dei Severi: il caso del Vicus di Bliesbruck ................................................69 Jean-Paul Petit Sara Santoro Water Works and Monuments in Gaul in the Severan Age: Some Considerations...............................................................95 Alice Dazzi More Water for Rome: Nothing New in the Eternal City? Water-Related Monuments as Part of the Severan Building Program ..........................................117 Jens Koehler A Note on the Architectural Decoration of the Severan Period in Pamphylia and Cilicia ....................151 Müjde Türkmen-Peker v vi THE ROMAN EMPIRE DURING THE SEVERAN DYNASTY δ’χttività edilizia a destinazione pubblica fra i Severi e i Soldatenkaiser: continuità e trasformazioni .....................173 Simone Rambaldi Il tempio di Serapide sul Quirinale: note di archeologia e topografia tra Antichità e Medioevo. ..207 Ottavio Bucarelli Alcune osservazioni sulla Sicilia durante il periodo dei Severi ....227 Giancarlo Germanà Vestigia architettoniche del periodo di Settimio Severo in Tunisia ..............................................................................255 Paola Puppo ASPECTS OF SOCIETY AND ECONOMY DURING THE SEVERAN PERIOD....................................285 The Origo of the Thracian Praetorians in the Time of Severans ...287 Ivo Topalilov Un riempimento fognario di età Severiana dalle cosiddette “Terme di Elagabalo” a Roma ..............................................301 Edoardo Radaelli La ceramica ad ingobbiatura nera di Treviri – una merce costosa in Pannonia durante l’epoca Severiana ...341 Eszter Harsányi Baetican Oil and Septimius Severus .............................................361 Lúcia Afonso Economic Growth in the Early and Middle Imperial Periods, Pre-200 AD: an Economic Approach from a Peripheral Hispanic Province, Lusitania ...................377 José Carlos Quaresma Economy and Trade of Sicily During Severan Period: Highlights Between Archaeology and History......................415 Daniele Malfitana – Carmela Franco – Annarita Di Mauro Thematic Maps By G. Fragalà TABLE OF CONTENTS SEVERAN ART AND IDEOLOGY ............................................463 Between Tradition and Innovation – the Visual Representation of Severan Emperors ...................465 Florian Leitmeir Ideological Messages and Local Preferences: the Imagery of the Severan Arch at Lepcis Magna ...............493 Stephan Faust Elagabalo invictus sacerdosμ l’imperatore fanciullo e la centralizzazione del sacro attraverso lo specchio delle monete .......................................................515 Andrea Gariboldi The Arch of Septimius Severus in the Roman Forum: a Re-Consideration................................................................541 Maria Lloyd vii THE ARCH OF SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS IN THE ROMAN FORUM: A R E - C O N S I D E R AT I O N Maria Lloyd (University of Reading) BACKGROUND The Arch of Septimius Severus stands majestically in the north-west corner of the Roman Forum between the Curia and the Rostra (fig.1), with one side facing the Forum and the other side the Capitoline.1 On each long side there are two panels, one above each side arch, which each depict city scenes, designed to celebrate the Severan victories during the two Parthian wars.2 Over the years these four main panels have been the focus of much debate, since the identities of the cities in the panels remains questionable. So far, Richard Brilliant, in his excellent volume on the Severan Arch, has provided the most widely accepted interpretations 1 These sides will now be referred to as the Forum and Capitoline sides, respectivelyέ όor a brief introduction to this χrch of Severus see δTUR I, ‘χrcusμ Septimius Severus (όorum)’ pp. 103–105 (R. Brilliant). 2 όor background to the Parthian wars see εέ ύradoni’s chapter in this volume. 541 542 THE ROMAN EMPIRE DURING THE SEVERAN DYNASTY of the panels; following the seasons (Brilliant 1967, 115–120),3 he has suggested that the panels represent Nisibis, Edessa, Seleucia/ Babylon and Ctesiphon (fig.2: panel numbers follow ψrilliant’s chronological order and will be referred to throughout this paper). However, although meticulous in his descriptions of the panels, the key features of the panels do not match the description of the cities in the sources: Brilliant associated the river scene in panel three with Seleucia/Babylon, despite the fact that the sources emphasize the importance of the river in the capturing of Ctesiphon, which Brilliant assigned to panel four. One of the reasons why Brilliant chose to assign Ctesiphon to panel four was because he felt that the panels should follow a chronological order around the Arch,4 which would then match the order of the seasons. Rubin, however, felt that the river connection to Ctesiphon was too great to ignore (Rubin 1975, 427); in his interpretations he assigned panel three to Ctesiphon and panel four to Hatra, therefore remaining true to the chronological order suggested by Brilliant. The problem with these two interpretations is that the scholars appear to have restricted themselves by their loyalty to a chronological order, although Rubin, Picard and Koeppel do appear to have paid more attention to the key features on the panels. The aim of this paper is to provide a different approach to identifying the panels on the Severan Arch, by focusing upon the key features of the panels; for example, the presence of landmarks and objects, groupings of men, and characteristics unique to the cities within the panels. Any key features which I am able to identify will then be matched to descriptions in the sources; Cassius Dio, Herodian and the Historia Augusta (HA). Admittedly, the reliability of these sources, especially the HA, is questionable and there is very little archaeological evidence from the cities in question to support any information which we are able to extract from the 3 These will be discussed in more detail in the next section. For now, suffice it to say that there are four seasons located in the spandrels of the Arch; identified by their attributes, which will be discussed in more detail later: on the Forum side (from left to right), they can be identified as winter and spring, then on the Capitoline side (from left to right) they can be identified as summer and autumn. 4 According to Brilliant, although the siege of Nisibis took place after the siege of Edessa it was the ‘causa belli’ and therefore represented firstέ δogical as this suggestion is, I would argue that it does not quite work, since it is hard to see a Roman audience understanding such a complex idea. THE ARCH OF SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS 543 sources. Therefore, although there is no way to prove beyond a doubt the identifications which I am going to propose, I feel that the similarities between the sources and the panels will be comparable enough to establish that these identifications are the best possible solutions to the question of the panel identities, for now. It should also be noted that, although I have indicated above the importance of highlighting cities involved during the Parthian wars under Severus, which also played an important part in the Parthian wars of previous emperors of the second century AD, my panel interpretations are not going to be dictated by which events appear to be the most important, but which cities, significant or not, match the cities depicted upon the panels; this will circumvent the tendency of scholars to identify panels based upon their location on the Arch, therefore neglecting, to an extent, the main features upon the panels. This methodology will also help to prevent any ‘circular arguments’, since it is not only the presence of the key features that is important but whether they fit in with the narrative description/ sequence of events related to the city in question. Despite these disagreements with the selection and order of the panels, though, I do follow the majority view that each panel represents events linked to a single city, and that they follow a narrative style; they should be read from the bottom to the top. The reason for this is because each panel clearly represents standard, symbolic scenes, which indicate a separate narrative style for each panel; for example, a siege, followed by a submissio and/ or adlocutio scene. HOW DO WE INTERPRET THE PANELS? Before we attempt to interpret the four main panels upon the Arch, it is necessary to gain an understanding of their background, in the sense of the artistic tradition from which they emerged, and the influences upon the panels and how this affects our interpretation of them. Now, although the primary sources are unreliable in many ways, there is an important reference in ώerodian’s ‘ώistory of the Empire’ (contemporary with Severus), which provides us with a useful starting place for understanding the influences upon the panels: έέέκὕ π ηὮθ ὰ ΢ ίῆλκμ ίξῃ ηᾶζζκθ ἢ ΰθόηῃ, ῃ εα Ὤ Παλγυαέπθ θέεῆ ε εή ηβ κ 544 THE ROMAN EMPIRE DURING THE SEVERAN DYNASTY κί πθ…ἐπὯ δζ ῆ υΰεζά ῳ εαὲ ῶ άηῳ, Ὤμ πλὭι δμ η ΰαζβΰκλῶθ, Ὤμ ηὭξαμ εαὲ Ὤμ θέεαμ βηκμέαδμ ἀθὯγβε ΰλαφαδμέ (Herodian III.9.12) …in this way Severus with more luck than judgment was adorned with his victory against the Parthians…he sent a report to the senate and people, boasting of his deeds he set up the battles and victories in pictures and publicly exhibited (them). Despite the fact that Severus never celebrated a triumph for his victories in the east (HA Sev. XVI.6; contra Herodian III.10.1–2; no triumph mentioned in Dio), this description is reminiscent of the paintings which were carried in triumphal processions to provide a visual aid for the spectators, as Josephus describes (Josephus The Jewish War VII.5); his description of events that took place during the triumphal procession can even be supported by the one of the panels on the Arch of Titus, located on the Via Sacra, which shows the presence of tituli5 in the procession, as well as the Jewish menorah. Visual aids were the most important way to communicate messages to the public; this is supported by several ancient authors who identify that sight was the keenest of all the senses (Cicero De Oratore 2.357; Herodotus Histories 1.8.2; Seneca Epistolae ad Lucilium 6.5). Were the panels therefore based upon triumphal paintings?6 By the time of the Severans, triumphal paintings already had a long and distinguished history; the first reference to a triumphal painting was in 264 BC, when M. Valerius Maximus Messala displayed a painting of the battle in which he had defeated the Carthaginians and Hieron in Sicily (Pliny Nat. Hist. 35.22). Despite this long history, though, techniques used in the early paintings can clearly be seen influencing the panels upon the Severan Arch, more than 450 years later. The tradition of triumphal painting owed its artistic forms in part to the Hellenistic painting tradition, which, among other things, introduced chorography and topography to paintings 5 For more on tituli see Holliday 2002, 217; Holliday 1997, 146. Rodenwaldt first suggested that the panel reliefs were based upon triumphal paintings (Rodenwalt 1939, 546); cf. Brilliant 1967, 223, Holliday 2002, 110 and Lusnia (2006, 284) who support this theory. 6 THE ARCH OF SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS 545 (Josephus The Jewish War VII.5 «πήζ πθ πκζπαθγλόπκυμ π λδίήζκυμ εα ’ ῎αελαμέέέ»); important techniques in depicting various military victories (Holliday 1997, 137). The influence of topography is clear upon the Severan panels; for example, there is a river depicted in panel three. As Vitruvius indicated, though, topography was used not only in the drawing of maps but also the insertion of typical views (Vitruvius De Architectura 8.2.6); this includes the birds-eye view of various cities, seen in panels two-four. According to Holliday, various perspectives were often used in the same work in order to present the most information; for example, cities would be seen from a birds-eye view, while people would be seen from lower eye levels (Holliday 1997, 138; cf Blanckenhagen 1962, 54– 55, 58 and Felletti Maj 1977, 307–14). Apart from the river and the different views, there appears to be no significant difference in topography between the panels. Instead, the representation of a narrative style appears to take precedence: this account begins with the siege of a city or fighting, at the base of the panel; in the centre and top of the panels there is then a submissio scene and/or an adlocutio scene. This narrative style is important because it is a Roman characteristic, seen at its best in the Columns of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius, as well as on other imperial reliefs. This suggests that the panels upon the Arch of Severus are unique for their combination of Hellenistic and Roman characteristics. Despite what I perceive to be a strength of the panels in the combination of narrative style and topographic details, the panels upon this Severan Arch have been criticized by some scholars for their convoluted, or unsuccessful, style (Brilliant 1967, 219; Kleiner 1992, 331; PetralisDiomidis 2000, 258–261). This certainly appears to be the case today, especially due to the damage suffered by the panels on the Forum side of the Arch, which has hindered our attempts to identify the panels. The panels have also been hard to identify due to the lack of, and conflicting, information which we have been able to extract from the sources. In fact, there are only two points which scholars appear to have agreed upon so far: firstly, that the panels should be read from bottom to top, in a narrative style; secondly, that the panels record the four main events of Severus’ Parthian wars in chronological order, following the seasons, located in the spandrels, around the Arch. Despite the fact that a modern viewer would find it difficult to analyze the panels, though, the main question is how would an ancient viewer have fared with interpreting the panels? I would suggest that the panels 546 THE ROMAN EMPIRE DURING THE SEVERAN DYNASTY would not have been as hard for the ancient viewer to identify as we would have thought. After all, apart from the panels being in pristine condition they would have also been painted (Brilliant 1967, 223; Lusnia 2006, 291), which would obviously have emphasized certain sections and therefore facilitated the viewer with their identifications, the Roman viewer would also have been more familiar with the development of Severus’ Parthian wars in the East than we are todayέ The absence of any room on the Arch for labels should also not be a cause for concern, since the majority of the population would have been illiterate (Harris 1989, 327).7 Instead, I would argue that the key features within the panels- including distinguishing features of the cities and topographic featureswould have been the main way in which the viewers identified the panels; if we believe ώerodian’s reference (above) then the viewers would have already been familiar with these depictions from the end of the second Parthian war. For this reason, I also believe that the images are based upon specific, if idealized, events, rather than general images; the details are too specific to represent general battles. Admittedly, there are indications in the sources that the identification of images was not always clear, as can be inferred from τvid’s Ars Amatoria (1.221–228). However, I would argue that even discussion of the Emperor’s achievements would have provided him with the same Gloria; indeed, any similarities between the panels could be seen as intentional to encourage a debate of Severus’ achievementsέ Following in the steps of the ancient viewer, I have decided that the best way to interpret the panels is to focus upon the key features. Although, as indicated above, modern viewers are at a disadvantage when attempting to identify the panels upon the Arch, it is still more prudent to attempt an interpretation which will keep us as close to the ancient perspective as possible, in order to prevent any anachronistic view of the Arch. As a result of this new method, I am not going to follow a predetermined (chronological) order, since I feel that there is no evidence to 7 Vanderbroek suggests that written information was mainly directed at the shop keepers and artisans, who were probably a communication link to the people (Vanderbroek 1987, 112); Horsfall 1991, 70 suggests public notices helped to spread minimal reading ability; contra Corbier who suggests many people had a basic form of reading (1987) 60. THE ARCH OF SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS 547 strongly support this theory and it has therefore hindered interpretations to date. The seasons8 (located in the spandrels with the Victories), clearly identified by their attributes, have been the main reason for supporting this chronological order, so far; located on the Forum side is Winter (south-east)9 and Spring (north-east),10 while Summer (north-west)11 and Autumn (south-west)12 are located on the Capitoline side (fig.3). Contrary to the standard seasons which took the shape of a woman, these seasons follow those located on the Arch of Trajan at Beneventum and take the figures of young boys (putti) (Elsner 1996, 175). The representation of the seasons as boys appears to have no significance, in fact, there appears to be no precedent for the seasons representing anything other than ‘felicitas temporum’έ If we look at the χrch of Trajan at ψeneventum (where these seasons appear for the first time), the panels do not appear to follow a chronological order; they merely refer to the city side and the country side. The presence of the frieze beneath the panels also indicates that the panels should be treated as separate from each other: they all show a procession leading up to Roma who is being presented with barbarian cap8 For general background on the Seasons see Hanfmann (1951). This season is identifiable only by his fully-draped, heavy, garment. Unfortunately, the objects in his left hand, against his chest, and in his right hand, by his side, have been lost. However, suggestions for them include a bowl and water bird (Brilliant 1967, 115); Duck (Levi 1941, 256); on the Arch of Constantine, Winter holds a lamb. 10 Spring, contrary to winter, wears a very loose cloak and has a wreath around his headέ χgain, the objects in the season’s hands have been lost, although, Brilliant 1967, 116) suggested that he carried a small basket of flowers in his left hand. 11 Summer is also loosely dressed and wearing a wreath, however, to differentiate him he has a fold of drapery tied around his waist in the manner of laborers at harvest time (Brilliant 1967, 116), and also holds a basket of fruit and grains (symbolic of summer: Levi 1941, 262) in his left hand and sickle in his right hand. 12 Autumn also wear a loose cloak, although his is fastened over his right shoulder by a small round fibula. He holds a bunch of grapes in his lowered right hand and a vessel containing fruits or nuts in his left hand, against his chest (Brilliant 1967, 116). 9 548 THE ROMAN EMPIRE DURING THE SEVERAN DYNASTY tives (fig.4). Although the friezes can all read from left to right this should not be seen as significant enough to emphasize a chronological order of the panels; since Latin is read from left to right it would only be natural to look at images in the same way. Each frieze is also separate and complete, implying that each panel should be treated in the same way; if the sculptors wanted to convey a sense of continuity, therefore linking the panels, he would surely have wanted to emphasize this desire by depicting the frieze as one long continuous narrative, culminating in the presentation of barbarians to Roma underneath panel four. PANEL IDENTIFICATIONS PANEL ONE: SOUTH-EAST13 (FIG.5) Unfortunately, panel one is badly damaged. This is due not only to the erosion on the Forum side of the Arch, which is not protected by the Capitoline, but also the outbreak of a fire in this vicinity at some unknown medieval date, which has caused the surface to become calcined (Brilliant 1967, 185 n.9), therefore making it very difficult to discern what the key features are. Despite this, there is general consensus among scholars who have studied the Arch, that panel one represents the siege of Nisibis, which took place during Severus’ first Parthian war in χD 1ληέ ψrilliant appears to identify this panel as Nisibis for two main reasons. The first reason is that he associates the authority figure in the city gate with the knight whom Severus entrusted Nisibis to after the first Parthian war (Brilliant 1967, 178–179). The second reason is that Nisibis was the causa belli of the first Parthian war and should therefore be placed first upon the Arch (Brilliant 1967, 179). 13 Although I do not believe the answer to identifying the panels lies in a chronological approach, I have no reason to begin my identifications on any panel in particular. Therefore, I will be following the same panel order used by scholars including Brilliant and widely accepted today. By following an already accepted system I will also, hopefully, make my interpretations easier to follow (and accept). THE ARCH OF SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS 549 After a close analysis of the source descriptions I agree with Brilliant and other scholars (Picard 1962, 10; Franchi 1964, 27), who have suggested that the city (most likely) represents the city of Nisibis, due to the presence of the knight. Another reason for believing Nisibis merits a place on the Arch is that Nisibis has connections to previous Parthian wars. When under the control of Adiabene, it was captured by Trajan in AD 114, and again later under Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus in AD 165; Nisibis had therefore long been a key feature of the Parthian wars. However, identifying the event connected with Nisibis is another matter. There are three main features on this panel, which I have been able to identify: a building at the bottom of the panel with soldiers issuing from it; fierce fighting in the centre of the panel; a figure of authority in the gateway of the city at the top of the panel. Using these key features, I have identified three possible events connected to Nisibis in Cassius Dio’s Roman ώistory.14 The first option is that, according to Cassius Dio, Severus defeated the τsroёni and χdiabeni, who had laid siege to σisibis (Dio Sev LXXV (2) 1.2), therefore instigating the first Parthian war. In this interpretation the building at the bottom of the panel could be interpreted as a Roman camp; the fierce battle in the centre can be interpreted as fighting against the τsroёni and χdiabeni at σisibisν finally the city at the top and authority figure can be identified with Nisibis and its knight. The second option is when Severus sent out three of his generals; Lateranus, Candidus and Laetus, in various directions amongst the barbarians (probably into the lands of the Adiabeni) while he remained at Nisibis; this matches the three columns of men issuing from the building below. According to Dio: ...ἐπ λξήη θκδ κ κδ άθ πήζ δμ ἐζὭηίαθκθέ ξόλαθ πθ ίαλίὭλπθ ἐ ῃκυθ εαὲ Ὤμ (Dio Sev LXXV (2) 2.3) Out of all the accounts which describe Severus’ Parthian wars—Cassius Dio, Herodian and the Historia Augusta—Dio is the only source who describes the wars in any detail and, therefore, possible holds the key to identifying these panels, by providing details about the cities which may be seen in the panels. (Of course, other authors will be used when necessary.) 14 550 THE ROMAN EMPIRE DURING THE SEVERAN DYNASTY …these (generals) proceeded in this way and laid waste to the barbarians’ land and captured their citiesέ The actions of these generals in the surrounding barbarian territories could explain why this is the only panel where the fighting does not appear to be directly connected to the city represented above. The third option takes place towards the end of the first Parthian warif we are to believe Dio’s sequence of events, and involves the corrupt entry ’Αλξὰθμ according to Dio, Severus again made three divisions of his army, and giving one to Laetus, one to Anullinus, and one to Probus, sent them against ’Αλξὰθ (Dio Sev LXXV (2) 3.2). Unfortunately, there is no way of proving what the place initially referred to was, although there have been suggestions; including Adiabene (Rubin 1980, 207; Hasebroek 1921, 77). No other city in the sources matches the events within this panel as well as the city of Nisibis. Is it possible, though, to further connect the city of Nisibis to this panel through archaeological evidence, and identify which event is most likely to be depicted upon the panel? Unfortunately, the location of ancient Nisibis falls into no-man’s land, on the border between Turkey and Syria, which therefore prevents excavations (Lange 2006, 16); although Lightfoot has suggested, using visible evidence on the surface of the sight and eye witness reports from travelers to the area, that Nisibis had the appearance of a Roman town, possibly with a Forum and Circus (Lightfoot 1988, 110; cf. Olivier 1804, 248). However, this suggestion by Lightfoot does not assist with our identification of the town, since there are no key features; instead, we have to find other evidence to support our identifications. The best place to look for evidence is in the inscription, where the reasons for erecting the χrch and Severus’ most important achievements are recorded: IMP.CAES.LVCIO.SEPTIMIO.M.FIL.SEVERO.PIO.PERTINACI.AVG. PATRI.PATRIAE.PARTHICO.ARABICO.ET// PARTHICO.ADIABENICO.PONTIFIC.MAXIMO.TRIBVNIC.POTEST. XI.IMP.XI.COS.III.PROCOS.ET// IMP.CAES.M.AVRELIO.L.FIL.ANTONINO.AVG.PIO.FELICI.TRIBVNIC. POTEST.VI.COS.PROCOS.P.P.// OPTIMVS.FORTISSIMISQVE.PRINCIPIBVS// OB.REM.PVBLICAM.RESTITVTAM.IMPERIVMQVE.POPVLI.ROMANI. PROPAGATVM// THE ARCH OF SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS INSIGNIBVS.VIRTVTIBVS.EORVM.DOMI.FORTISQVE.S.P.Q.R (CIL VI 1033) 551 15 As the inscription indicates; the titles Parthicus Arabicus and Parthicus Adiabenicus, awarded to Severus at the start of the first Parthian war, appear to be an important aspect of the Arch. The circumstances under which they were awarded are, unfortunately, not clear; Birley suggests that the answer must be that the Adiabenes and the Arabs sought peace with Severus, which is supported by Cassius Dio (Birley 1988, 116; Dio LXXV(2) 1.2 and LXXV(2) 2.1(2)). Furthermore, these titles first appear on coins dating to AD194–195 IMP IIII16 before the first Parthian campaign even took place. This suggests that Birley is correct and there was some form of submission by the Arabians and the Adiabenes at the very start of the campaign: during the campaign itself the titles IMP V–VII were probably building upon this initial victory, and although we do not know exactly what they were awarded for Rubin has suggested that IMP VI and IMP VII were awarded for a campaign in the territory of Arabia Scenite and marauding expeditions against the Adiabenes (Rubin 1980, 206–7; see fig.6 – Table of Imperator titles). Our limited knowledge of the Parthian wars indicates that these two titles—Parthicus Arabicus and Parthicus Adiabenicus—represented Severus’ greatest achievements during the first Parthian warέ This, combined with the idea that two panels on the Arch are connected to the first Parthian war (and the other two to the second war), suggests that it would be appropriate for one panel to be used to emphasize Severus’ victories The last part of this inscription (from τψ REε) ‘τn account of the restored Republic and Empire of the Roman people having been extended with their marks and virtues at home and abroad’ is also very interestingέ In short, the inscription complements the panels because not only does it refer to the Parthian wars (FORIS), but also to the ending of the civil wars (DOMI) against Niger and Albinus, which are connected. As Dio records, it was the first civil war that contributed to the first Parthian war, since the τsroёni, χdiabeni and χrabians claimed that they had invaded the cities on Severus’ behalf, in order to destroy the soldiers who had favored σiger’s cause (Dio δXXV (β)έ 1έβ)έ 16 BMC Vol. V 86- Aureus: obverse: Head of Septimius Severus – L SEPT SEV PE RT AVG IMP IIII; Reverse: Trophy in centre, with two captive barbarians seated at L. and R. facing outwards, with hands tied behind their backsPART ARAB PART ADIAB COS II P P. 15 552 THE ROMAN EMPIRE DURING THE SEVERAN DYNASTY against the Arabians and one panel against the Adiabenes. This is particularly convincing if we believe that Severus was awarded his IMP VI and IMP VII titles for military actions against these peoples. However, the problem is that we are unfamiliar with the details of these wars, especially military actions against Arabia for which we have no evidence. Fortunately, as indicated above, there do appear to be some key features on this panel, which are similar to some of the conflicts involving the Adiabenes; it is therefore left to us to try and infer which event is most likely to be represented here. The first event involving σisibis was the siege by the τsroёni and χdiabenes, however, although the title ‘Adiabenicus’ is present upon the χrch an ‘τsroёne’ title is conspicuous only by its absenceέ It should be indicated that the absence of an ‘τsroёne’ title upon the Arch is not surprising, since, according to ψutcher, τsroёne was within the Roman sphere of influence at the time of Severus, whereas Adiabene is thought to have been within the Parthian sphere (Butcher 2003, 48)—no Roman ally would have been placed upon a Roman victory monument.17 This leads to the conclusion that if the τsroёni are not part of the χrch, then the first event involving Nisibis is unlikely to be mentioned. The second event involving Nisibis—when Severus’ generals laid waste to the barbarian lands and cities—is a much closer match. As mentioned before, the fact that the city in the panel appears to be connected to a separate event (when Nisibis was entrusted to a knight) and not directly connected to the fighting below, suggests that the fighting depicted was not centered on the city, but in connection to it: Severus remaining at Nisibis whilst he sent his generals out into the surrounding land could be an adequate explanation. όinally, the third event involving ’Αλξὰθ is closer chronologically to Severus’ act of placing σisibis under the protection of a knight, than the second event: they both appear to have taken place at the end of the first 17 Being an ally alone would not prevent a people/city from appearing upon a victory monument, though, if they were able to provide the Emperor with some success; for example, the Arch of Augustus in the opposite corner of the Roman όorum celebrated the ‘diplomatic’ victory of χugustus, when the Roman standards, captured by Parthia after the Battle of Carrhae in 54 BC, were returned in 1λ ψωέ In this case the absence of the τsroёne title should be emphasized, not the fact that the τsroёni were in Roman sphereέ THE ARCH OF SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS 553 Parthian war. This solution would also explain why there is no city directly connected to the fighting in the centre of the panel; Adiabene (if that is a suitable suggestion for ’Αλξὰθ) represented a region, not a cityέ Unfortunately, due to the lack of details which we have for Severus’ Parthian wars it is not possible to narrow down the identification of panel one to a single event, or events relating to one siege, since the two possibilities both involve three columns of men being sent out by Severus under different generals against the land of the Adiabenes, and both events are connected to the city of Nisibis, although indirectly. However, given the lack of information which we have the accuracy with which we have been able to identify the panel, largely due to the key features, cannot be seen as a failure: we have been able to establish that the city is more than likely that of Nisibis, and that the fighting scene is likely to be connected to conflicts between Severus and the Adiabenes, who not only asked for peace at the start of the first Parthian war, but then went on to cause more trouble, leading Severus to possibly taking another Imperator title against them. PANEL TWO: NORTH-EAST (FIG.7) As the other panel on the Forum side of the Arch this panel should, according to the chronological theory, also represent an event from the first Parthian war: Brilliant previously identified this panel as Edessa and linked it with the submission of Abgarus (Brilliant 1967, 179–180). The first reason for this is that the bottom scene appears to show a submission scene rather than a battle scene; the emperor appears to be at the front accepting the submission of the inhabitants of the city who rush to greet him. The second reason is that there appears to be a submission scene in the centre, showing the submission of the king to the Emperor. However, I do not agree with this interpretation. There are two reasons for this: firstly, Edessa was an ally of Rome and, as I mentioned above with regards to the τsroёne, I do not think that it would have been appropriate for an ally of Rome to be depicted upon a victory monument without a very good reason, which is lacking for the city of Edessa.18 This is particularly when taking into account the favor which Severus showed 18 See footnote 15, above. 554 THE ROMAN EMPIRE DURING THE SEVERAN DYNASTY towards Abgarus; not only did he allow Abgarus VIII to retain authority over Edessa, but after Severus’ second Parthian war he gave χbgarus the honorary title ‘king of kings, which was then celebrated in Rome.19 The second (and perhaps most important) reason, is that the key features in the panel do not match the city of Edessa as described in the sources. If we focus upon the key features of this panel it becomes apparent that there are two key features: firstly, the city is clearly depicted with double walls; secondly, there are two siege machines present in connection with the city—one siege machine can be seen at the bottom of the panel and the other, barely visible, at the top of the panel, also closely connected to the city. The double walls have to be an important feature, since this is the only city upon the panel which has them. The apparent emphasis upon siege machines is also interesting, especially the one in the top-right of the panel, since in panels three and four there is only one siege machine depicted in connection with the cities, and that is during the actual siege at the bottom of the panels. If we look at the sources there is only one city mentioned which has double walls,20 and where there is an emphasis placed upon siege machines: Hatra. ὁ ΰὬλ ἀπκγαθ πθ ῎Α ἐεαίγβ ΢ κυῆλκμ ὰθ Ὧξθβθ α κῦ ηαγὸθ ἐεόζυ θ α ὴθ ῖθ, εἀε κί κυ ἔμ ἄζζα δθὬ α ῳ ἐξλά α κ εαὲ ἐμ ὰθ λπθ πκζδκλεέαθ, εαὲ ηήθα ΰ Ὤ ἐε έθκυ ηβξαθάηα α κ ε πὴ ῶθ ίαλίὭλπθέ (Dio LXXV (1). 11.2) …for Severus, learning of his (Priscus’) skill, prevented his death, and from this time onwards consulted him in every matter, and he (Severus) besieged Hatra, where only his machines were not burnt by the barbarians. έέέ Ὤμ ῎Α λαμ ἐπκζδήλε δ ἠθ Ὦ πήζδμ ἐπ’ ἄελαμ οβζκ Ὥ βμ ῎κλκυμ έξ δ η ΰέ ῳ (Herodian III 9.4) χbgar’s visit to Rome is mentioned by Cassius Dio LXXX.16.2 Although the sources do not specifically mention double walls, the fact that Hatra had them can be easily corroborated by the archaeological evidenceUNESCO (1985) Plan of Hatra; cf. Van de Mieroop 1999, 235 for layout of Hatra. 19 20 THE ARCH OF SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS 555 (Severus) laid siege to Hatra, a city at the top of a very high hill with strong walls π σθ κμ Ϋ πῃ κῦ ἔιπγ θ π λδίσζκυ, εαὲ ῶθ λα δπ ῶθ πΪθ πθ πλκγυηκυηΫθπθ ἐμ ὴθ ζκδπὴθ ἐ ίδΪ α γαδ, ἐευζυ θ α κὶμ ὁ ΢ κυῆλκμ κῦ κ πλᾶιαδ, κλῶμ παθ αξσγ θ ὴ ἀθαεζβ δεὴθ βηαθγῆθαδ ε ζ τ αμ. (Dio LXXVI. 12.1) …with the encompassing external (wall) having fallen, all the soldiers were eager to force their way into the rest, Severus did not allow them to pass through this (gap), having ordered retreat to be indicated piercing on every side. Hatra was previously rejected as a candidate for any places upon the Arch by Brilliant who concluded that its presence was not appropriate, since Severus had made two unsuccessful attempts upon Hatra (Brilliant 1967, 1ιγ)ν a reminder of an emperor’s failure would not have been chosen for a victory monument. Indeed, Hatra appears to have had a long history of successfully withstanding sieges; Trajan had made an attempt upon Hatra in AD 116 and had also been unsuccessful (Dio LXVIII.31.1–32.1; Stark 1966, 213). However, despite the clear success of Hatra against the Romans, the two key features depicted upon the Arch—double walls and emphasis upon siege engines—clearly refer to Hatra and cannot be ignored. Could it be possible that Severus had a success at Hatra, which the sources fail to indicate? Following Picard (Picard 1962, 12), Rubin indicated that despite the failed siege attempts upon Hatra, it is possible that there may have been some form of agreement made between Severus and the Hatrians (Rubin 1975, 427–428, supported by Lusnia 2006, 283). Now, although the earliest evidence for an official alliance between Rome and Hatra is found in an inscription of AD 235 (Oates 1955), it is possible that there were amicable relations between Rome and Parthia from the time of Marcus Aurelius, it has also been suggested that these amicable relations led the king of Hatra, Barsemias, to support Niger in the first civil war against Severus, and sent him a corps of archers (Herodian III.1.2–3; Sartre 2007, 148). Another interesting point, made by Boyce, is that a possible twelfth acclamation was made to Severus at the end of the second Parthian war (not before late AD 198) (Boyce 1949, 341; Kennedy 1986, 406. n.16); the timing of this acclamation could indicate another perceived success 556 THE ROMAN EMPIRE DURING THE SEVERAN DYNASTY by the army, but one which Severus was not keen on emphasizing—Hatra could be the source of this acclamation, which Severus would obviously not want to emphasize due to the ‘military’ defeats there.21 Further evidence to support the presence of Hatra upon the Arch can also be seen upon the coins minted at Hatra, which show connections to Rome since at least the time of Hadrian; suggested by the presence of an eagle and inscription SC on the reverse of some coins (SNG Cop. 232). Finally, some scholars indicate that it would have been in ώatra’s best interests to make some form of agreement with Severus, since the position of major Roman forces around this area, at Singara and Dura-Europos, would have caused ώatra’s commerce to suffer (Kennedy 1λκθ, 4ί4ν Rubin 1λιη, 4β5); as an isolated settlement ώatra’s existence relied upon its role in commercial exchange between the east and west (Van de Mieroop 1999, 233). All these points indicate that the presence of Hatra upon the Arch would not be as inappropriate as Brilliant previously indicated. There is also one other detail on this panel which may be of special significance when trying to interpret this panel; the middle section which shows an apparent submissio scene. This scene appears to be of particular relevance because although there also appears to be a submissio scene present in panel three, this one is more prominent. Brilliant, as indicated above, suggested that this scene represented the submission of Abgarus, king of Edessa; however, although this scene may match the submission of Abgarus, the city does not tie in with the rest of the panel. Furthermore, I would suggest that a closer analysis of the city scene below may indicate that this submissio scene is possibly on equal terms: the dominant figure at the front of the Romans, more than likely depicting Severus, is holding a spear, which upon closer inspection appears to be pointing downwards, therefore indicating a lack of aggression; there is also an absence of kneeling on the part of the ‘enemy’ in the middle scene (compared to the submissio scene in panel three). The positioning of figures and their objects can be very important in Roman imagery, and should therefore be viewed with care. For these reasons, I would suggest that this scene de21 See Fig. 6 for a list of Severus’ Imperator titlesν ‘military’ defeats should be emphasized here- just because Severus may not want to emphasize Hatra in this way does not also suggest that he would be unwilling to celebrate a ‘diplomatic’ victory, like the Augustan Arch in the opposite corner of the Forum. THE ARCH OF SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS 557 scribes an event which is not mentioned in the sources; a celebration of some form of agreement made with Hatra. This interpretation would therefore allow not only the identification of the city which clearly has links to the city of Hatra, but also a clear explanation of why the city is depicted upon the Arch; since its explanation as a military victory would have been inappropriate. As indicated above, the presence of Hatra upon the Arch cannot simply be discounted if/when Hatra did become an ally of Rome, since this ‘diplomatic’ victory of Severus had the potential to provide him with great glory and even liken him to Augustus.22 It is also clear from the sources that a success here was not accepted and so may have provided even more reason to depict it upon the Arch. Despite the fact that there do appear to be many indications that this panel can be identified with some confidence as representing Hatra, the more astute reader will at this point have noticed a flaw with this suggestion; chronologically, it was the last event of the second Parthian war, which is why Rubin suggested it belonged on panel four. The presence of Hatra upon this panel would therefore suggest that (contrary to the general agreement of scholars to date) the panels do not follow the seasons in a chronological order. Before I suggest a solution to this problem, though, it is necessary to look at panel three. PANEL THREE: NORTH-WEST (FIG.8) Panels three and four are on the Capitoline side of the Arch and, due to the protection provided by the hill from the elements, are in a better state of preservation than the panels on the Forum side. Fortunately, the presence of the main key feature upon this panel—the river—makes this panel one of the easiest to identify. According to Brilliant, the panels located on the Capitoline side of the Arch were used to represent the second Parthian war; this position, combined with the chronological order, and river, suggested to Brilliant that this panel should be interpreted as celebrating victories at Seleucia and 22 The Augustan Arch stood opposite the Severan Arch and so, although their relative positions may have been a fortunate coincidence rather than intention, there would have been clear parallels between the twoν the fact that χugustus’ arch celebrated a diplomatic victory may have been significant. 558 THE ROMAN EMPIRE DURING THE SEVERAN DYNASTY Babylon (Brilliant 1967, 180–181). On the one hand, this would have appealed to Severus, who was trying to establish his position at this time and even had himself posthumously adopted by Marcus Aurelius: a connection to a city like Babylon, which had ties as far back as Alexander the Great must have been appealing. However, although Seleucia and Babylon are mentioned in the literary sources, they both appear to have been abandoned before Severus even arrived (Dio LXXVI.9.3); they would therefore not be likely to merit a place upon this victory monument, especially since the lack of spaces suggests that only the most important successes would have merited a place upon the Arch. Another suggestion, followed by Rubin, Picard and Koeppel, is that panel three represents the victory at Ctesiphon (Rubin 1975, 426; Picard 1962, 13; Koeppel 1990, 6). This event is certainly important enough to have been represented upon the χrchν it was when Severus’ army sacked the Parthian capital (Dio LXXVI 9.4; Herodian III.9.9–11; HA Sev XVI.1). Brilliant had previously placed this city on panel four of the Arch, as a climax to the second Parthian war, and therefore the Parthian wars as a whole. However, the presence of a river on panel three is significant, since that was how the Romans came to arrive at the city of Ctesiphon (Dio LXXVI. 9.3; Herodian III.9.9). I would therefore suggest that Rubin is correct in suggesting that this panel should be identified as Ctesiphon. The submissio scenes above the battle scene below emphasize the subjugation of Ctesiphon. Having identified this panel as Ctesiphon, what does this suggest about the identities and order of the panels so far? Not only do the panels appear not to be in chronological order, as indicated above, but they also do not appear to conform to the idea that one side represents the first Parthian war, while the other side represents the second Parthian war: panel one appears to be linked to Nisibis, a city connected to the first Parthian war; panel two possibly represents Hatra, connected to the second Parthian war; and panel three possibly represents Ctesiphon, connected to the second Parthian war. If we look at the location of these panels, then it would seem logical—if panels two and three are linked to the second Parthian war—then panels one and four are linked to the first Parthian war (fig.2). This suggestion would also have the advantage of making the Arch more accessible to the average viewer, which had to be an important consideration when designing these public monuments; they would only have to view one side of the Arch to be reminded of both Parthian wars. THE ARCH OF SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS 559 PANEL FOUR: SOUTH-WEST (FIG.9) We now come to our final and (arguably) most confusing panel: unlike the previous three panels, there do not appear to be any key features within this panel which are a close match to any of the literary sources. Brilliant originally identified this panel as Ctesiphon, as a climax to his chronological take on the Parthian wars (Brilliant 1967, 181–182). However, as previously indicated, the river was a very important key feature in connection to Ctesiphon and so the presence of this city in panel three is very likely. The other suggestion, followed by Rubin, Picard and Koeppel, is that this panel should be identified as Hatra (Rubin 1975, 427; Picard 1962, 12; Koeppel 1990, 7). As indicated above, contrary to what Brilliant initially indicated, Rubin suggested that Hatra deserved a place upon the panel- if we agree that there was some form of agreement made between Severus and the inhabitants of Hatra. However, the key features upon panel two would appear to be a closer match to the city of Hatra than panel four. Now, if we exclude the presence of cities such as Babylon and Seleucia from the Arch, which do not appear to match any key features upon the panels, then we are left with no other options from the second Parthian war for this panel. However, this is not totally unexpected, since our analysis of the order of the panels, above, indicated that this panel was possibly linked to the first Parthian war. Furthermore, the research for panel one indicated a possibility that this panel could have a link to conflicts between Severus and the Arabians; the title Parthicus Arabicus appears to have been one of Severus’ main achievements of the first Parthian war, and Rubin suggests that the title IMP VI was probably awarded to Severus for further successes against the Arabians. Therefore, the fact that there are no key features within this panel, which are familiar, is not surprising; the sources do not mention any campaigns which took place against the Arabians. Although it is not possible to identify the actual event, it is still prudent to give a rough outline as to what is happening in this panel: with further research it may be possible to identify these key features later. There appear to be four key features: the first feature appears to be some sort of cave or pipes coming from the city under siege, via which a few 560 THE ROMAN EMPIRE DURING THE SEVERAN DYNASTY inhabitants of the city appear to be escaping.23 Secondly, behind the siege engine there is some form of tent in the distance; possibly representing the presence of the Emperor upon this campaign. Thirdly, the city in the top scene contains a building with a distinct dome, among other features; Brilliant suggested that this identifies the city as being strongly oriental (Brilliant 1967, 215). However, I would suggest that- if this interpretation is correct- the dome top could also indicate an Arabian city,24 since they were allied to the Parthians; this is indicated by the Parthicus prefix to the Arabicus and Adiabenicus titles in the inscription. Finally, although care must be taken when interpreting the key features on panels and the size of scenes, and some features should not be taken too literally, it is hard to ignore the apparent prominence of the size of the adlocutio scene at the top of the fourth panel, which indicates that this is a very important scene. One possibility which I am currently in favor of is that this scene depicts the occasion when Severus was awarded the titles of Parthicus Arabicus and Parthicus Adiabenicus by the Senate (Herodian III.12); it was possibly not long after this occasion when Severus was involved in a campaign against the Arabs, which would explain the choice to depict these two scenes together. Hopefully, future research on the eastern cities will provide a better understanding of some of these features and, possibly, in time a candidate for this panel. For now, though, we have to infer- using other panel identities and evidence- that this scene is connected to a likely Severan campaign against the Arabians, during the first Parthian war: it would be unwise to try and infer more than this without any evidence. ONE FINAL LOOK AT THE PANELS AS A WHOLE Now that identifications have been assigned to all four panels, it is necessary to look at them as a whole before we draw some concluding remarks. 23 It has also been suggested to me by M. Nicholls, that this scene could show undermining work in a siege of a walled city. There is no evidence for any such procedure in the sources for Severus’ Parthian warsν however, this is an interesting idea, which I do not think it is possible to discount at this time. 24 Only by identifying the city would we be able to suggest what the building with the dome top could be. THE ARCH OF SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS 561 First of all, I would like to emphasize that I have tried my best to view the key features upon the Arch without prejudice, or agenda. I have also tried to avoid too close an analysis of landscape features and proportions, which style and space may have prevented from being accurate (and therefore identifiable) features; for example, in panel two (Hatra) the city in the bottom scene appears to be on a hill, above the Roman army, however, in the top scene it is hard to say if the city is located on a hill, above the soldiers beneath it, or, if it is merely representing a different scene. With reference to style, it is also necessary to indicate that there appear to have been two sculptors, who ψrilliant refers to as the ‘χntonine sculptor’ and the more ‘Severan’ sculptorμ the first sculptor is believed to be responsible for panels one and three, while the latter is thought to be responsible for panels two and four (Brilliant 1967, 31). Initially, I gave consideration to the possibility that the different sculptors may have had an influence upon the key features within the panels—such as the representations of the cities or types of scenes included in the panels—and therefore made any interpretation misleading. For example, if panels two and three had been made by one sculptor then this could indicate that the submissio scenes (absent in panels one and four) could be a result of style, and not reflect actual events. However, given that both sculptors appear to have represented sieges and submissio scenes, among other features, it would appear that the differences between the two sculptors are only reflected in the style of their figures. This also suggests that they were copying from paintings (possibly the same paintings which Herodian described), and were working systematically around the Arch, with one sculptor working upon the left panels and one sculptor the right panels on each side. On a different point, throughout this paper it has been clear that Cassius Dio’s account of Severus’ Parthian wars is the most reliable, with Herodian and the SHA being the least reliable. However, after my reinterpretation of the Severan panels, ώerodian’s account of the Parthian wars has started to look very familiarμ according to ώerodian’s account, Severus crossed Adiabene into Arabia, where he destroyed many towns and villages and laid waste to their land; he then made one unsuccessful attempt on Hatra before being swept down the river to Ctesiphon, which he captured in a great victory (Herodian III.9.3–9.11). Apart from some confused details—the Parthian wars were split into two, Severus did not campaign in Arabia Felix and the two sieges of Hatra took place after the capture of Ctesiphon—ώerodian’s account appears to be similar to the 562 THE ROMAN EMPIRE DURING THE SEVERAN DYNASTY interpretations which I suggested above. Is this just a coincidence or is it possible that Herodian was using the images publicly exhibited by Severus to write an account of his Parthian wars? This would explain why he failed to fully comprehend the split of the Parthian wars into two campaigns, and why the details he describes can correspond to the panels upon the Arch. Also, if Herodian was using the panels to write his account of Severus’ Parthian wars this would suggest that the Roman viewers were not always certain about the images and scenes depicted upon imperial monuments. As indicated above, though, the mere discussion of the campaigns, whether the details were accurate or not would have still provided the Emperor with gloria. CONCLUSION As well as providing new interpretations for the panels upon the Arch: panel one—Nisibis; panel two—Hatra; panel three—Ctesiphon; panel four—Arabian campaign, this paper also questions the chronological order of the panels, generally accepted to date. Instead, it appears that each panel contains a narrative related to one particular city, which is not to be identified in connection to any other panels upon the Arch; this is supported by the friezes beneath the panels, which consist of four different friezes and not one long frieze. Therefore, the main focus of the Arch appears to have been to transmit information about the Parthian wars to the average viewer in passing; this was done by exhibiting scenes from the first and second Parthian wars on each side, therefore avoiding the need to look at both sides of the Arch. However, given the confusion with which we are faced with today when trying to analyze the panels, how would the average Roman viewer have been able to understand them? Given the lack of space within the panels, there would not have been room for tituli to have been added to assist the viewers with identifying the cities and events; as such, the identity of the panels would have relied mainly upon the ability of the viewers to identify the key features within the panels. We need to remember, though, that the pristine condition of the Arch in its day, not to mention the painted scenes, would have assisted the viewer greatly with identifying the cities; the chances are that the people would have also been very familiar with the events of Severus’ Parthian warsέ I would also argue, despite the fact that some scholars today criticize the Severan Arch for being convoluted and unsuccessful, that the apparent lack of information THE ARCH OF SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS 563 upon the Arch infers that the viewers were familiar enough with the content to be able to identify the panels from their key features. Our ignorance about the events of this time, due to the sources and lack of other evidence, should not cause us to assume that everyone had problems with interpreting the Arch. Even if there was some confusion about the details of the campaigns, though—possibly demonstrated in ώerodian’s description of them—discussions about the identity of the panels would still have provided the emperor with gloria. Overall, it appears that we still do not have enough knowledge (if we ever will) about Severus’ Parthian wars to provide a complete interpretation of the Arch, although we are certainly closer to finding a solution. Until new evidence comes to light, though, it appears that even after 1800 years the Arch has managed to keep its secrets. REFERENCES Birley A.R., Septimius Severus: The African Emperor (1988). Blanckenhagen, P.H. von, The paintings from Boscotrecase (1962). Boyce, A.A., The Twelfth Imperial Acclamation of Septimius Severus, «AJA» 53 (1949) 337–344. Brilliant, R., The Arch of Septimius Severus in the Roman Forum (1967). Brilliant, R., Visual Narratives (1984). Brilliant, R. Arcus: Septimius Severus (Forum), LTUR I, 103–105. Butcher, K., Roman Syria and the Near East (2003). Clarke, J.R., Art in the lives of ordinary Romans: visual representation and non-elite viewers in Italy, 100 B.C.–A.D. 315 (2003). Corbier, M., L’urbs.ΝEspaceΝurbainΝetΝhistoire (1987). Elsner, J., Art and text in Roman culture (1996). Fellatti Maj, B.M., LaΝtradizioneΝItalicaΝnell’arteΝRomana (1977). Franchi, L., L’arcoΝdiΝSettimioΝSeveroΝalΝForoΝRomano, «Studi Miscellanei» (1964) 20–32. Hamberg, P.G., Roman Imperial Art (1945). Hanfmann, G.M.A., The Season Sarcophagus in Dumbarton Oaks. Vol. I–II (1951). Hasebroek, J., Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kaisers Septimius Severus (1921). Harris, W.V., Ancient Literacy (1989). Holliday, P.J., Roman Triumphal Painting: Its Function, Development, and Reception, «The Art Bulletin» (1997) 130–147. 564 THE ROMAN EMPIRE DURING THE SEVERAN DYNASTY Holliday P.J., The Origins of Roman Historical Commemoration in the Visual Arts (2002). Horsfall, N., Statistics or states of mind? in M. Beard et al. Literacy in the Roman world (1991) 59–76. Kennedy, D.L., European soldiers and the Severan siege of Hatra in P. Freeman and D. Kennedy (eds.) The Defence of the Roman and Byzantine East (1986) 397–409. Kleiner, D.E.E., Roman Sculpture (1992). Lange, C.M.W., The portrayal of Christ in the Syriac Commentary (2006). Levi, D., The Allegories of the Months in Classical Art, «The Art Bulletin» (1941) 251–291. Lightfoot, C.S., Facts and Fiction: The Third Siege of Nisibis (A.D. 350) «Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte» (1988) 105–125. Lusnia, S., Battle Imagery and Politics on the Severan Arch in the Roman Forum in S. Dillon and K.E. Welch (eds.) Representations of War in Ancient Rome (2006) 272–299. Oates, D., A note on three Latin inscriptions from Hatra, «Sumer» (1955) 39–43. Olivier, G.A., VoyagesΝdansΝl’EmpireΝOttomanΝ(1804). Petsalis-Diomidis, A., Landscape, transformation, and divine epiphany in S. Swain, S. Harrison, J. Elsner (eds.) Severan Culture (2007) 250– 289. Picard, M.G., LesΝreliefsΝdeΝ l’arcΝ deΝ SeptimeΝ SevereΝauΝ ForumΝRomain, «ωomptes Rendus de l’academie des inscriptions et belles-lettres» (1962) 7–15. Rodenwalt, G., The Transition to Late Classical Art, in S.A. Cook, F.E. Adcock et al (eds.) CAH XII (1939) 544–571. Rubin, Z., Dio,Ν HerodianΝ andΝ Severus’Ν secondΝ Parthian war, «Chiron» (1975) 419–441. Rubin, Z., Civil-War Propaganda and Historiography (1980). Sartre, M., The Middle East under Rome (2007). Stark, F., Rome on the Euphrates (1966). van de Mieroop, M., The Ancient Mesopotamian City (1999). Vanderbroek, P.J.J., Popular leadership and collective behavior in the Late Roman Republic (1987). THE ARCH OF SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS 565 WEB SOURCES UNESCO World Heritage Centre 1992–2011 (1985) http://whc.unesco.org/en/documents/100838 Accessed 15/11/11 FIGURES Fig.1: Arch of Septimius Severus in the north-west corner of the Roman Forum, between the Curia and the Rostra. The photo was taken from the tabularium on the Capitoline. Photo by author. 566 THE ROMAN EMPIRE DURING THE SEVERAN DYNASTY Capitoline Ctesiphon Side 4 SW Seleucia/ Babylon NW 3 SE Nisibis 1 Edessa NE 2 Forum Side Fig.2: ψrilliant’s panel interpretationsέ (R. Brilliant (1967) The Arch of Septimius Severus in the Roman Forum.) THE ARCH OF SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS Autumn SW Capitoline Side Summer SE Winter NE Spring Forum Side Fig. 3: Location of the seasons on the Arch of Severus. Fig. 4: Frieze directly beneath panel three. Photo by author. 567 568 THE ROMAN EMPIRE DURING THE SEVERAN DYNASTY Fig. 5: Panel one (South-East) on the Arch of Severus. Bartoli drawing. THE ARCH OF SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS 569 Fig.6: Collated with the help of Rubin (1980) Appendix 1 (p.201–214), BMC Vol. V and Boyce (1949). Title Date when title shown in official media Occasion Imp. I AD 193 When first hailed Emperor. Imp. II First Issue: AD 194 Civil war against Niger: First major battle; near Cyzicus. Imp. III Second Issue: AD 194 Civil war against Niger: Second major battle; Nicaea. Imp. IV Third Issue AD 194 – First Issue AD 195. Civil war against Niger: Battle of Issus; Niger defeated. Imp. V Second Issue AD 195 First Parthian war: Campaign against the τsroёni. Imp. VI Second Issue AD 195 First Parthian war: Campaign in the territory of Arabia Scenite. Imp. VII Third Issue AD 195– First Issue AD 196 First Parthian war: Campaign under three generals, possibly around ’Αλξὰθ (Adiabene). Imp. VIII Second Issue AD 196– First Issue AD 197 Fall of Byzantium. Imp. VIIII Second Issue AD 197 Civil war against Albinus: Battle at Lugdunum. Imp. X Third Issue AD 197– First Issue AD 198 Second Parthian war: Capture of Ctesiphon. Imp. XI AD 198 (late)– AD 199 ? Imp. XII Not before late AD 198 ‘Diplomatic’ victory at ώatra* * χcclamation appears to be ‘official’ from the point of view of the military and local authorities (ψoyce (1λ4λ) γ4ί) but epigraphers class it as ‘unofficial’ν suggesting the soldiers acclaimed Severus Imperator for the twelfth time, but he did not acknowledge the acclamation (Boyce (1949) 342). The earliest examples of the title ‘Impέ XII’ are found in χsia and εauretania Sitifensis in χD 1λκ (Boyce (1949) 341). 570 THE ROMAN EMPIRE DURING THE SEVERAN DYNASTY Fig.7: Panel two (north-east) on the Arch of Severus. Photo by author. Fig.8: Panel three (north-west) on the Arch of Severus. Photo by author. THE ARCH OF SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS 571 Fig. 9: Panel four (south-west) on the Arch of Severus. Photo by author.