Structure Ara Pacis

1 structure

1.1 altar
1.2 exterior wall decoration
1.3 east , west walls
1.4 figures

1.4.1 north wall
1.4.2 south wall

structure

plan of ara pacis. north @ left

the monument consists of traditional open-air altar @ center surrounded precinct walls pierced on eastern , western ends (so called today because of modern layout) openings , elaborately , finely sculpted entirely in luna marble.

the altar

within enclosing precinct walls, altar carved images illustrating lex aria, law governing ritual performed @ altar. sacrificial procession depicts animals being led sacrifice figures carved in republican style similar so-called altar of domitius ahenobarbus, in sharp contrast style on exterior of precinct walls. remains of altar otherwise fragmentary, appears have been largely functional less emphasis on art , decoration.

the interior of precinct walls carved bucrania, ox skulls, carved garlands hang. garlands bear fruits various types of plants, displayed on single garland allegorical representations of plenty , abundance. bucrania in turn evoke idea of sacrificial piety, appropriate motifs interior of altar precinct. lower register of interior walls imitate appearance of traditionally wooden altar precincts, meant bring mind other such altars in rome , tradition of constructing altars @ boundary of city s pomerium.

exterior wall decoration

ara pacis: detail of processional frieze showing members of senate (north face).



relief showing sacrifice performed aeneas or numa pompilius.

the exterior walls of ara pacis divided between allegorical , pseudo-historical relief panels on upper register while lower register compared of scenes of nature: harmonic, intertwined vines contain wildlife , connote nature under control. upper register of northern , southern walls depict scenes of emperor, family, , members of regime in act of processing or performing sacrifice. various togate figures shown heads covered (capite velato), signifying role both priests , sacrificiants. other figures wear laurel crowns, traditional roman symbols of victory. members of individual priestly colleges depicted in traditional garb appropriate office, while lictors can identified iconographic fasces. women , children included among procession; depiction of children in roman sculpture have been novel @ time of altar s construction, evoking themes of moral , familial piety, easing concerns on dynastic intentions while simultaneously introducing potential heirs public eye.

the western , eastern walls both pierced entryways altar, although interior have been accessed stairway on western side. entryways flanked panels depicting allegorical or mythological scenes evocative of peace, piety , tradition. on eastern wall, panels depicted seated figures of roma , pax, while western side depicts discovery of twins , she-wolf , sacrifice of figure traditionally identified aeneas, increasingly believed rome s second king, numa pompilius. identity of these various figures has been point of controversy on years, relying heavily on interpretation of fragmentary remains, discussed below.

the sculpture of ara pacis symbolic rather decorative, , iconography has several levels of significance. studies of ara pacis , similar public roman monuments traditionally address potent political symbolism of decorative programs, , emphasis , promulgation of dynastic , other imperial policies; studied form of imperial propaganda. ara pacis seen embody without conscious effort deep-rooted ideological connections among cosmic sovereignty, military force, , fertility first outlined georges dumézil, connections attested in roman culture , more broadly in substructure of indo-european culture @ large. peter holliday suggested altar s imagery of golden age, discussed mere poetic allusion, appealed significant component of roman populace. program of ara pacis addressed group s real fears of cyclical history, , promised rule of augustus avert cataclysmic destruction of world predicted contemporary models of historical thought.

the east , west walls

female warrior.



ara pacis: so-called tellus panel.

the east , west walls each contain 2 panels, 1 preserved , 1 represented in fragments.

the east wall contains badly preserved scene of female warrior (bellatrix), possibly roma, apparently sitting on pile of weapons confiscated enemy, forcing peace upon them rendering them unable make war. scene has been reconstructed, based on coins depict such seated roma. when monument being reconstructed @ present site, edmund buchner , other scholars sketched panel may have looked like. interpretation, although accepted, can not proved correct, little of original panel survives.

the other panel more controversial in subject, far better preserved. goddess sits amid scene of fertility , prosperity twins on lap. scholars have variously suggested goddess italia, tellus (earth), venus, , peace, although other views circulate. due widespread depiction around sculpture of scenes of peace, , because altar named peace , favoured conclusion goddess pax.

the west wall contains 2 panels. fragmentary lupercal panel apparently preserves moment when romulus , remus discovered faustulus shepherd, while mars looks on. again panel modern drawing without evidence. marble fragments of tree , head , shoulder of mars (if mars) , part of second individual (thought faustulus) survive, addition of she-wolf, romulus, , remus entirely speculative.

the better preserved scene depicts sacrifice of pig (the standard sacrifice when romans made peace treaty) old priest , 2 attendants. in 1907, scene identified johannes sieveking moment when aeneas, newly arrived in italy, sacrificed sow , 30 piglets juno, told virgil , others, though scene differs vergil s description. in 1960s, stephan weinstock challenged identification (and identity of entire monument), citing numerous discrepancies sieveking , followers had failed notice between vergil s version , panel. subsequently, suggestion made scene shows numa pompilius, roman king associated peace , gates of janus. paul rehak later published article proposal, confirmed in chapter of posthumous book. theory has won on many scholars, despite considerable initial resistance.

the figures

the long friezes of ara pacis (the north , south walls) contain figures advancing towards west, participate in state of thanksgiving celebrate peace created augustus. these figures fall 4 categories: lictors (men carrying fasces, bodyguards of magistrates); priests (three of 4 major collegia – pontifices, septemviri, , quindecimviri): women , children (generally imperial family, represented in portraiture); , attendants (a few anonymous figures necessary religious purposes).

in addition there 2 or 3 non-roman children, may guests (or hostages) in rome. identification non-roman costume , participation in ceremony advertises rome centre of world, , other nations send young rome learn roman ways, great rome s reputation. ceremony took place in summer of 13 bc, not on 4 july, when senate voted build ara pacis.

north wall

the north wall has 46 extant or partially extant figures. first 2 foreground figures lictors, carrying fasces (bundles of rods symbolizing roman authority). next set of figures consists of priests college of septemviri epulones, identified incense box carry special symbols. 1 member of college missing in gap.

after them follows collegium of quindecimviri sacris faciundis, identified incense box carried public slave among them. although name suggests college has fifteen members, size of college has grown 23, including augustus , agrippa, appear on south frieze. other twenty-one members present here. 2 badly damaged figures in middle split gap. photos, gap appears affect single figure, koeppel, conlin, , stern have proven, in-site examination reveals 1 foreground , other background figure.

the last portion of north frieze consists of members of imperial family. many scholars used identify veiled, leading figure julia, daughter of augustus, since julia appears on south frieze, more figure octavia minor. other figures in entourage might include marcella (a daughter of octavia), iullus antonius (a son of mark antony), , 2 boys , girl of imperial family.

in 1894, , again in 1902 , 1903, eugen petersen suggested lucius caesar appears agrippa, dressed in trojan costume troy game held in 13 bc (see below). many scholars, realizing 1935 lucius young boy beside agrippa, preferred identify him gaius. named smallest child on north frieze lucius, though mere toddler (lucius 4 in 13 bc). scholars assumed boy participant in troy games, although young (six or 7 minimum age). if toddler lucius, young , in wrong costume troy games. best guess is germanic tribal prince, not dressed trojan. charles brian rose has noted, variable value of eastern costume , uneasy interaction of trojan , parthian iconography can make difficult determine whether 1 viewing founders of romans or fiercest opponents.

the youth wearing hellenistic greek clothing suited hellenistic prince has been identified gaius in guise of camillus, adolescent attendant of flamen dialis. gaius identification best supported size, additional boy in roman dress has bulla (but has lost head!) right size, , therefore better guess. gaius appear in public without bulla invite evil eye. same figure in hellenistic dress has been interpreted ptolemy of mauretania representing africa, along german boy (europe) , parthian prince (asia). foreign prince not wear bulla.

south wall

ara pacis: processional frieze showing members of imperial household (south face).

the south wall has seen great deal of scholarship , greatest number of academic debates. unlike north wall, of heads new (not authentic ancient heads, modern creations), heads of figures on south wall original. half dozen figures recognizable looking @ other surviving statues of members of imperial family. nevertheless, debate has taken place on many of these figures, including augustus, agrippa, tiberius, julia, , antonia.

the figure of augustus not discovered until 1903 excavation, , head damaged cornerstone of renaissance palazzo built on top of original ara pacis site. although identified correctly in 1903, petersen, strong, , stuart-jones saw figure rex sacrorum. today augustus better recognized hair style face.

in absence of augustus panel, scholars debated whether figure augustus or agrippa or lepidus. in 1907, sieveking proposed figure lepidus, pontifex maximus @ time. sieveking later reversed position series of peculiar suggestions. in 1926, loewy compared louvre agrippa of agrippa in copenhagen (and elsewhere) ara pacis in order demonstrate iconographical similarity. aside small minority of scholars (most vehemently defensive of lepidus in rom. mitt in 1930s ludwig curtius), rest of academy concluded figure agrippa. ryberg s 1949 article gave further weight conclusion.

many scholars continue see julia figure livia, having reasoned livia has on ara pacis. indeed, livia appear somewhere (her exclusion unlikely), 13 bc julia had politically eclipsed livia, has been understood , explained many scholars. identification dates milani in 1891. furthermore, livia has no bond agrippa, whereas julia wife , expected unofficial empress of rome decades, during , beyond augustus lifetime. julia better personified augustus new pro-natalism program, having given birth 4 surviving children. nevertheless, majority of scholars in 2000 preferred see figure livia.

the tiberius figure identified such milani, identification questioned until 1940s. moretti, in making glass museum ara pacis @ mussolini s command, guessed 2 consuls (tiberius , varus) of 13 flank augustus, saw figure m. valerius messalla. v.h. von poulsen , toynbee proposed iullus antonius. has been established, augustus flanked priests, , figure tiberius. boschung , bonanno have both matched face period tiberius statuary.

in relation antonia, drusus, , germanicus, h. dütschke proposed in 1880 correct identity antonia , drusus, incorrectly saw toddler claudius. a. von domaszewski amended family identification , correctly saw child germanicus. suggested ara pacis arranged in family groups. correctly determined two-year-old child germancius, exact birth on 24 may 15 bc known. helps prove ceremony event in 13, although few scholars continued argue ceremony of 9 bc (until definitive proof in favor of 13 came out in 1939).

in relation domitii ahenobarbi, von domaszewski proposed in same 1903 article last family on south wall of father of emperor nero (born lucius domitius ahenobarbus). identification remains widespread today. pollini provides best summary of viewpoint in article, ahenobarbi, appuleii , others on ara pacis, points out writer suetonius mentions nero s father went east on staff of young gaius caesar . campaign known have begun in 2 bc, means gnaeus must have been of mature age time, therefore requiring birth year of @ least 17 bc, would, in turn, make him sufficiently old boy on ara pacis. pollini reasons delay in gnaeus career (only reaching consulship in 32 ad) resulted documented unpleasant character , points out careers of other members of family undesirable traits suffered similar delays, notably augustus youngest grandson, agrippa postumus, had no career, , germanicus brother, later emperor, claudius, career started late. however, there dissenters theory. stern claims these figures cannot possibly domitii ahenobarbi, on basis of belief gnaeus domitius ahenobarbus, whom von domaszewski saw boy of family, born after monument s completion. syme had argued gnaeus born after monument s completion, accepted identification of ahenobarbus family, preferring identify boy otherwise unknown elder brother , girl figure otherwise unknown elder sister of gnaeus—both of whom died young. syme proved unintentionally, based on inscription ils 6095 lucius domitius ahenobarbus governor of africa in 13 bc , not in rome ara pacis ceremony.

starting in 1894, eugen petersen suggested lucius caesar appears agrippa, dressed in trojan costume equestrian event called troy game, held in 13 bc dedication of theater of marcellus. theory won universal acceptance many decades, though evidence overwhelmingly against. challenge slight: several scholars, noting size , age of boy beside agrippa, preferred identify him gaius, opinion prevailed 1935. boy not roman, given clothing, lack of bulla, , hair. ingrained petersen s theory, however, when distinguished scholar erika simon (1968, 18) suggested boy barbarian, subjected intense criticism until retreated (e.g. mario torelli (1982, 60 n. 72), once called opinion perfect nonsense ). subsequently, led charles brian rose, scholars have realized petersen wrong: boy foreign prince. stern adds costume wrong trojan (no phrygian hat) , no bulla – worn roman boys protection evil eye. many others have contributed disprove petersen s theory.