The Japanese Society for Aesthetics

Aesthetics No.20 (2016): 26-37

Building Roman Civilisation: A Reinterpretation of Two
Sacrificial Scenes (86, 98–99) on the Column of Trajan
SAKATA Michio

Chiba University of Commerce, Chiba

Introduction
It is not possible for anyone visiting Rome to overlook the Forum of Trajan, built to celebrate
the victory in the Dacian wars in AD 113[1], especially when passing through Via dei Fori
Imperiali from the Colosseum to Vittoriano. Trajan’s column[2] is located in a court of the forum
and is one of those ancient Roman monuments that have been handed down to us without any
serious damages.
It is composed of mainly three parts, the statue on the pedestal, the base[3] and the column
proper about 29.6 m in height, which amounts to about 100 Roman feet[4]. The relief of thecolumn shows two Dacian wars fought during Trajan’s reign. We have a historical source
regarding the wars originally written by Cassius Dio[5] and abridged in the Middle Ages.
However, as most of the details of the wars are unknown to us, the relief of Trajan’s column is
important evidence. On the relief of the column, the first Dacian war starts at the bottom andscenes move spirally up to the top where the second Dacian war ends.
One of the first archaeologists to research the column, C. Cichorius[6], divided the fulllength of ca. 200 metres[7] into 155 scenes, which include not only battle scenes between the
Romans and the Dacians but also adlocuctio, submissio, armies on the march, road construction
and so on. It is academically noteworthy that we can find nine sacrificial iconographies[8]performed by Trajan during the wars. As only a few such sacrificial iconographies[9] have beenfound, they are important to understand religious ceremonies in the time of war. E. Ryberg[10]classifies them into three categories: three scenes as suovetaurilia, four scenes as honouring theemperor’s arrival and two scenes as the pledge for victory before battles. This study will focus onand examine the two sacrificial scenes interpreted as the pledge for victory by Ryberg.

1. Two Sacrificial Scenes (86, 98–99)
Although this paper aims to examine the characteristics of two sacrificial iconographies, thescenes before and after the two sacrificial images may help to understand them; therefore, let us
describe the two scenes including them.
Scene 85 represents sacrifices to celebrate Trajan’s arrival. The emperor does not appear inthis panel but emerges on the next panel to the left. Four lictors are represented at the left endof this panel. To their right, four laureate popae, in limus, and four bovine animals stand around
two garlanded rectangular altars. All popae hold sacrificial knives in sheaths on their belts. To
the right of the altar on the right appear two togati waiting for the emperor to come. A togatus,

27

Building Roman Civilisation

Fig.1. Scene 86,
113 A.D.,
Trajan’s Column

Fig.2. Scene 98-99,
113 A.D.,
Trajan’s Column

to the left of the popae in the background, lifts up his right hand to greet the emperor. In theright half, two armed soldiers are represented in the camp while 19 men greet the approachingemperor by lifting up their right hands. Scene 86 (fig.1) [11] represents the emperor’s sacrifice
in a harbour city. In the centre, the emperor, in tunic, pours a libation from a patera in his righthand over the flame of a garlanded rectangular altar; he holds a volume in his left hand. Behind
the altar, a tunicate minister, offering the emperor an acerra, is flanked by a soldier and a flautist.
Behind the minister appears a togatus. A victimarius, in the foreground, pushes the victim’s
head to the ground. Nine soldiers and three standards follow the emperor from the left, while 16
onlookers, including two girls and two boys, are represented on the left. In scene 87, Trajan and28

SAKATA Michio

his followers have just disembarked and begun their march. At the front of the line stands theemperor, in cloark and tunic. Behind him appear 11 Roman followers and 3 Roman standard
bearers.
In scene 97, Trajan on horseback marches with his soldiers to the left in the background,while Roman soldiers cut trees and reclaim the land in the foreground. Scene 98–99 (fig. 2) [12]represents a sacrifice on the Danube. On the left are represented six soldiers with their helmets
on their right shoulders, one of whom has a standard. Following them appear three soldiers
wearing animal-skin helmets. Three of them hold standards. A popa next to them leads a victim
and looks back at the emperor. The popa wears a limus and is armed with a knife in a sheath at
his waist. In the right half, the emperor pours a libation from a patera in his right hand over theflame of a rectangular garlanded altar. Behind the altar appear a flautist in toga and a togate
minister holding an open incense box. Around these three represented six soldiers with a horse.
In scene 100, the emperor has a talk with barbarian soldiers in front of a wooden amphitheatre.
Where are the two sacrificial scenes positioned in the total of 155 scenes? The second
expedition of the Roman army is thought to start from scene 79[13], which depicts Roman ships
leaving for Dacia at night. As marching scenes for the battlefield are represented from 79 to 99,
the two sacrificial scenes (86, 98–99) can also be interpreted as marching scenes.

2. The Aim of the Paper
There are two main studies that interpret the meanings of the two sacrificial images. F.
Coarelli believes that in scene 86, the sacrifice is executed to celebrate the completion of thebridge seen in the background, although he indicates it as merely one of his descriptions[14]. He
does not offer any interpretations of scene 98–99.
Ryberg[15] relates the two sacrificial scenes to the images represented before and after themand suggests that, by the sacrifices, the pledge for victory is represented before theirdeparture[16]. The author pays attention to two soldiers with their luggage on their shoulders,seen on the ship in scene 86, and suggests that the scene represents a sacrificial scene before thesoldiers’ departure for the battlefield. Ryberg regards the bridges in scene 101 (fig. 3) as the sameFig.3. Bridge, Scene 101, 113 A.D., Trajan’s
ColumnFig.4. Bridge, Scene 13-14, 113 A.D., Trajan’s
ColumnBuilding Roman Civilisation29

in scene 98–99 and thinks that the sacrificial image may represent the pledge for victory before
the soldiers’ advance as well.
However, as V. Huet suggests[17], it may be difficult to regard every scene on the relief as
having continuity and a relationship with the scenes before and after. As mentioned above,
Ryberg regards the bridge in scene 101 as the same as the one in scene 98–99, but you can finda representation of the bridge similar to that seen in 101 (fig. 3). For example, in scene 13-14(fig. 4), where it has nothing to do with later images including scene 101, the Romans walk acrossa bridge whose structure looks quite similar to that in scene 101. Thus, it may be important tokeep in mind the possibility that the juxtaposition of the two scenes is irrelevant.
In this paper, I examine the two sacrificial iconographies in terms of iconographicaltradition and Trajan’s propaganda and argue that, under the purpose of praising Trajan’sbuilding programmes, consecratio, a kind of sacrifice celebrating a building’s completion, may
be represented there.

3. Iconographical Tradition of Roman SacrificeSince the goodwill of the gods was necessary for success of any kind, it was important forthe community to win their support and favour. By practising set rituals including sacrifices, theRomans gained favour and established a permanent relationship between the community andthe selected god. We can find many sacrificial iconographies, in which an emperor performs
sacrifices, in some public monuments[18]. In this section, I would like to compare the twochosen images with sacrificial scenes thought to represent the pledge for victory made from thereign of Augustus to that of Trajan on public monuments for the purpose of confirming whether
they represent the pledge for victory or not. The Boscoreale cups (c. AD 10–20) comprise two
cups: a cup representing the rule of Augustus and another showing the sacrificial ceremony byTiberius. The latter will be referred to here as the Tiberius cup[19]. The Boscoreale cups were apart of a hoard, found in 1895, of 109 pieces of gold and silver plates and coins, all of which
belonged to the owner of a wine-producing villa rustica on the south-eastern slopes of Vesuvius
near the modern village of Boscoreale.
Let us first describe the sacrificial scene of the Tiberius cup. In the right (fig. 5), the popa
lifts an axe over his head to strike the victim, which is held by two kneeling victimarii on eachFig.5. Sacrifice, Tiberius cup, 1st century A.D., Silver, Louvre Museum

30

SAKATA Michio

side, one pulling his head down, the other waiting with a knife in his hand. A third victimarius,
behind the victim, turns his head to look backwards. To the right is the temple of Jupiter adorned
with a garland of laurel. Next, a scene around the altar is depicted in the central part (fig. 5). To
the left of a tripod altar a figure in a cuirass, probably Tiberius, appears, although the upper partof his body has been obliterated. Immediately after him follow an attendant, a flautist and a lictor.
Behind the altar appear two lictores with fasces and an attendant. All of these figures, except for
the lictor at the far left, are turning to Tiberius on the left of the altar. Finally, the sacrificial
victim is represented in the left (fig. 5). An attendant leads the bovine animal adorned with aband over its back and a triangular frame between its horns. Behind the victim appears a popawith an axe over his shoulder, followed by an attendant looking backwards. A. Kuttner suggeststhat this sacrificial scene represents nuncupatio votorum, the announcement to Jupiter of vows
to perform further sacrifice and give thanks to the gods at the successful completion of thecampaign[20].
There is another relief (fig. 6)[21], found in Trajan’s Forum, that depicts a sacrificial scene
performed by Trajan. In the scene on the left, a bovine animal on its back is surrounded by agroup consisting of a togatus, two victimarii and a popa. At the left end, the togatus looks at theliver and interprets it. Then come two
victimarii, one taking out the liver, theother, in the background, looking to
the left. Next to them, a popa, having
killed the victim, holds an axe over his
right shoulder. Victoria is depicted
flying over the group, which implies
that the result of this divination isgood. To the right of the divinationgroup, two lictores carry fasces on
their left shoulders and two togati,
whose faces are missing, are standing.
One of the two togati, in frontal pose,
Fig.6 Extispicium Relief, Reign of Trajan, Louvre
has been identified as the emperor. In
Museum, Louvre MA 978 and 1089
the right half of this panel, five togati
seem to be having a discussion. In the background of the central part, a flamen appears, dressedin a spiky helmet. The temple in the background originally had six Corinthian-style columns andthree doors, and it is thought to be the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus[22] on the
Capitoline[23]. Attention must be paid to Victoria, above the divination scene, who illustrates
the result of the divination for Trajan. The left half of the relief represents good fortune for Trajan,
who probably appears in the centre. D. Kleiner makes a suggestion that the sacrificial scene
describes a rite customarily occurred at the beginning of a military enterprise[24].
These two sacrificial scenes have one common trait: sacrifices are performed in front oftemple architecture. As P. Zanker suggests, ‘the temple façade represented nearby the ritualscene takes on a deeper symbolic meaning and is spotlighted by the accomplishment of thesacrifice’[25].

Building Roman Civilisation

31

On the other hand, it is typical Roman architecture, not a temple that is represented in the
background of the two chosen sacrificial images. In the background of scene 86, one can see the
façade of a huge theatre, which has three entrances in the lower register, eight windows in the
middle register and the seats for the audience as seen from immediately above. To the left of the
façade is a garden surrounded by columns and a gate whereas to the right are two buildings next
to a temple and a raised-floor-style architecture. Temple architecture is seen in the right corner,
but the façade of a huge theatre is focused on in the centre of this scene. In scene 98–99, Trajan
pours a libation from his patera over the flame of the altar in front of a bridge, allegedly built by
Trajan’s favourite architect, Apollodorus. It has five piers, four of which are described in thewater.
In the two images on Trajan’s column, it is a Roman theatre or a bridge, not a temple that is
focused on in the background of sacrificial iconographies. Although Ryberg regards them as thepledge for victory, it appears that another interpretation would fit better based on thearchitecture in the background.

4. Characteristics of the Architecture in the Two Scenes
The theatre complex (scene 86) and the bridge (scene 98–99) seem to have two distinctive
architectural characteristics: they are not only built of stone but also represented realistically[26].
The theatre architecture looks as though it is made of stone in scene 86, and, likewise, the bridge
has five piers composed of stone in scene 98–99. Against previous studies defining the relief on
Trajan’s column as recording historical events, E. Thill examines all the architecture represented
in the backgrounds and argues that they may be depicted based on the differences between the
Romans and the Dacians[27]. Thill, first, classifies more than 300 iconographies of architecture
seen in the background as ‘Roman’, ‘Dacian’ or ‘unclear’. In addition, as to the material of thearchitecture, she categorises them as ‘stone’, ‘wood’, ‘combination’ or ‘unclear’. After all, out of
225 architectural structures defined as ‘Roman’, 154 are built of stone only; 36 are made ofwood; 2 are a combination; and 33 are unclear. On the other hand, Thill categorises 88
architectural structures as ‘Dacian’: 22 are made of stone only; 49 are built of wood; 4 are a
combination; and 3 are unclear.
Especially, the author pays attention to ‘Roman’ military architectural aesthetic, such as theuse of stone, and suggests this depiction has something to do with the connotations of cut-stone
masonry in the Roman world. As cut-stone masonry requires considerable resources andtechnical skills, according to Thill, it would remind the Romans of the technical expertise andefficiency of the Roman Empire. Moreover, she suggests that the architectural depictions cannot
be merely topographic signposts or incidental backgrounds, but they have the important role ofmaking a thematic impact: architectural depictions on the Roman side emphasise the skills andpermanence of Roman military and culture, whereas Dacian culture is represented as primitive,
foreign and transient. It seems important to me that stone-made Roman architectureemphasises the sophistication of Roman culture and the superiority of the Roman military in thetwo sacrificial scenes.
Second, the architecture in both scenes is represented in a realistic way and, it seems,

32

SAKATA Michio

Fig.7. Bridge, Scene 58, 113 A.D.,
Trajan’s Column

Fig.8. Bridge, Scene 48, 113 A.D.,
Trajan’s Column

Fig.9. Bridge, Scene 131, 113 A.D., Trajan’s Column

created based on at least real structures. In scene 98–99, the bridge has a complex structure: it
is made of five stone piers with wooden arch; the handrails are represented as seen fromdiagonally upwards between which there is a pathway. It looks very different from otherrepresentations found on the frieze. We can find four kinds of representations: handrails andpiers of almost the same length depicted in profile (fig. 4)[28]; bridges with shorter handrails
and longer piers seen in profile (fig. 7)[29]; ramps from ships to ships or ships to land (fig.
8)[30]; and bridges without any handrails seen from diagonally upwards (fig. 9)[31]. They havesmaller and simpler structures than the bridge in scene 98–99. Cassius Dio, in the 68th chapterof his book[32], describes a bridge with 20 piers Trajan constructed to cross the Danube. Lepper
thinks this bridge may be the one represented in scene 98–99. In addition, Lepper suggests theplace of the bridge may be Drobeta-Turnu Severin on the Danube in Romania, as we still canfind remains of 20 piers there[33].
Also, the theatre in scene 86 is represented realistically. In the centre depicted the façade of
the theatre. In the lower part of the façade is an arched entrance between two doors adorned
with two columns, while in the upper part are eight windows and fences under the auditorium
seen from above. In the left of the façade, one can see colonnades up to the third floor, whichBuilding Roman Civilisation

33

probably show the intention of representing it three-dimensionally.
To the left of the theatre, there is an arched pathway and a garden surrounded by columns;
to the right is a building with two windows on the second floor, a building with a window on thesecond floor, and a temple and a building with two windows supported by columns on the firstfloor. I believe the theatre complex is intended not to show a generic theatre, but to provide a
realistic depiction of a specific architecture.
It is not unusual to depict a historical theatre in a realistic way, as you can find such a
representation in the tomb for the Hatii, now in the Vatican Museum, representing the
Colosseum, in which the capitals of the column are, as in reality, depicted in Ionian style on thesecond floor and Corinthian style on the third floor. One can see sculptures in the arches of the
Colosseum in this work[34], though nothing is left today. As coins minted in AD 80 show
sculptures in the arches[35], K. Welch guesses that they actually existed there[36].
Although it is suggested that the theatre in scene 86 may be in Salona[37], the Dalmatian
administrative centre, on a route to Dacia, it is not possible to identify the building, as there are
no remains of a theatre there. However, as we can see the intention of representing it realisticallyfrom its depictions, it seems that the theatre was represented based on a prototype that actuallyexisted somewhere.

5. Interpreting the Two Sacrificial Scenes
In chapter 3 and 4, the traditions of sacrificial iconographies and characteristics of the twoscenes were discussed. But what do the two sacrificial scenes mean? In scene 98–99, as
mentioned above, the theatre seen in the background is emphasised. In addition, the grouprepresented to the right of Trajan includes not only grown-ups but also two boys and two girls in
togas. Even if they have been represented here as onlookers, children have nothing to do withwars. There are also some public iconographies representing children in other works madebefore the reign of Trajan, but there is no example of a representation of children related withwar[38]. Therefore, it may be difficult to interpret this sacrificial scene as the pledge for victory.
Then, how can it be interpreted? In ancient Rome, consecrations of human constructions
such as gymnasia and theatres were celebrated[39] because they were devoted to a divinity or
they needed his or her protection or both[40]. In the consecratio, sacrifice was an importantelement and it could be a blood sacrifice[41]. Suetonius describes a sacrificial scene inconsecratio as follows:
He (Claudius) opened the games at the dedication of Pompey’s Theatre, which he has
restored when it was damaged by a fire, from a raised seat in the orchestra, after first offeringsacrifice at the temples in the upper part of the auditorium and coming down through thetiers of seats while all sat in silence (V, 21.1)[42].
Taking not only art historical evidence but also Suetonius’ description of consecratio in thereopening of the theatre, it is likely that the iconography represents consecratio.
As for scene 86, the bridge is thought to be one of the most important constructions made

34

SAKATA Michio

during the Dacian wars, which appears in Cassius Dio. Furthermore, W. Gauer believes that theperson just to the right of Trajan could be Appollodorus, Trajan’s engineer who allegedly
designed the bridge[43]. As we see Trajan pouring libations with Appollodorus in front of thebridge, it appears that the scene also represents consecratio.

6. The Two Sacrificial Scenes and the Frieze of Trajan’s Column
How can we relate the two scenes to Trajan’s
propaganda in the frieze? Only some views regarding the meanings of the frieze have been
proposed, probably due to the frieze’s length anddetails. Traditionally, it is thought that the scenes ofthe frieze document the process of the Dacian wars
from the beginning to the end. Based on this idea,
some inaccurate depictions of the scenes[44] or the
relationships between iconographical and textual
evidence[45] have been suggested.
In contrast, some recent scholars haveregarded the relief as propaganda: they proposedthat the scenes in the relief are intended to praise
Trajan or promote the ongoing war[46]. Zanker
suggests that the relief does not show actual events
but scenes documented by the senate as theachievements of Trajan and his army[47]. I agreewith Zanker’s view and believe that Trajan and hisarmy’s successes are juxtaposed in the relief.
The two scenes (86, 98–99) discussed above
also contribute to the idea that the frieze praises
Trajan and his army: the sacrificial rites performedby the emperor, in front of Roman architecture,
may indicate Trajan’s achievements of constructing
Roman architecture even during the Dacian wars. In
other words, the two consecratio scenes not only
celebrate the completion of the buildings but also
show the building infrastructures of the Romansociety in Dacia with their brilliant techniques.
There are many construction scenes in the 155
scenes of the frieze: 6 scenes show the building ofroads[48]; 14 scenes show the construction of
military camps (fig. 10)[49]; 2 scenes depict theconstruction of bridges (fig. 11)[50]; and 2 scenes
display the cutting of barley[51]. In a broader sense,

Fig.10. Building Camp, Scene 39, Trajan’scolumn, 113 A.D.

Fig.11. Building bridge, Scene 19, Trajan’scolumn, 113 A.D.

Building Roman Civilisation

35

construction scenes are represented in one sixth of the entire frieze. According to my research,
there are no works of public art showing as many construction scenes as this work. It can be said
that some parts of the frieze are intended to show Trajan’s achievement of constructing
infrastructures with high techniques. As a part of this, the two sacrificial scenes showing
consecratio are also represented.
In addition, the inscription on the column may also show praise for Trajan’s building
programmes. On the base, it is written that the column is constructed ‘in order to show how higha mountain－and the site for such great works was nothing less－had been cleared away’[52].
As the excavation in 1906 by Boni shows, even if a natural hill occupied the site where the column
stands, the escarpment there is estimated to be about half the height of the column[53]. Now
that the inscription cannot be understood literally, it is interpreted as praise for Trajan’s building
achievements[54]. Thus, given that Trajan’s constructions are also shown in the inscription, it is
not surprising that the emperor’s construction is also praised in the frieze.

Conclusion
In the previous studies, the two sacrificial scenes were understood as a process of the Dacianwars, and as such, they were interpreted as the pledge for victory. However, if we see them fromthe tradition of sacrificial iconographies, it is more likely that they show consecratio. In addition,
both scenes were probably created with the purpose of praising Trajan for his building
programmes, as were other scenes of the frieze or the inscription.
In the frieze, the Dacian wars are represented, whereas in the inscription, it is written thatpraising Trajan’s constructions is the purpose of building the column. These have been regarded
as irrelevant and examined separately. However, if my discussion here is worthy of consideration,
they share the common characteristic of praising Trajan’s building activities.

Notes
[1]
[2]

[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]

Lepper, F., and Frere, S., Trajan’s Column, Alan Sutton, 1988, 15-16.
Cichorius, K., Die Reliefs der Trajanssäule, vol.2-3, Georg Reimer, 1896-1900; Claridge, A.,
Hadrian’s Column of Trajan, JRA 6, 1993, pp. 5-22; Coarelli, F., The Column of Trajan, translatedby Rockwell, C., Editore Colombo, 2000; Davies, P.J.E., Death and Emperor, University of Texas
Press, 2004;Galinier, M, La Colonne Trajane et les Forums Impériaux, École française de Rome,
2007; Gauer, W., Untersuchungen zur Trajanssäule, vol.1, Mann, 1977; Lehmann-Hartleben, K.,
Die Traianssäule, De Gruyter, 1926; Lepper, F., and Frere, S., op.cit. ; Packer, J.E., The Forum ofTrajan in Rome, University of California Press, 2001; Settis, S., La Regina, A., Agosti, G., andFarinella, V., La colonna Traiana, Giulio Einaudi editore, 1988.
6.18 m.×6.18 m.×5.37 m. Coarelli, op. cit., 21-28; Lepper, op. cit., 13-15; Settis, et al., op. cit., 4956.
Lepper, op.cit., 14.
Cass. Dio, IXVIII, 6-15.
Cichorius, op. cit.
Packer, op.cit., 75.

36

[8]
[9]

[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]

[17]
[18]
[19]

[20]
[21]

[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]

[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]

SAKATA Michio

scene 8, 53, 80, 84-85, 86, 91, 98-99, 102, 103．
For example, a relief made in the reign of Hadrian and now stored in the national museum of
Scotland. See Balty, J.C., and Boardman, J. et al. (eds.), Thesaurus cultus et rituum antiquorum,
vol. 1, Getty Publications, 2004, 210, fig.Rom.100.
Ryberg, I.S., Rites of the State Religion in Roman Art, American Academy in Rome, 1955, 120127.
Lepper, op. cit., 135-137; Coarelli, op. cit., 144-145.
Lepper, op. cit., 48-151; Coarelli, op. cit., 162.
Lepper, op. cit., 125-126.
Coarelli, op. cit., 162.
Ryberg, op. cit., 125-127.
Winkler also regards the two scenes as the pledge for victory on the way to the final battle. see
Winkler, L., Die Operszenen der Trajansäule, in: Bumer, L.E., Hölscher, T., Winkler, L., Narrative
Systematik und Politishces Konzept in den Reliefs der Trajansäule, JDI 106, 1991, 267-277.
Huet, V., Stories One Might Tell of Roman Art, in: Elsner, J. (ed.), Art and Text in Roman Culture,
Cambridge University Press, 1996, 9-24.
For details about sacrificial iconographies, see Ryberg, op. cit.
Tiberius cup, 1st century A.D., height 10cm., diameter, 12cm. Kuttner, A.L., Dynasty and Empire
in the Age of Augustus, University of California Press, 1995; Vermeule, C.C., Julio-Claudian Court
Silver, AntK 6, 1963, 35-36.
Kuttner, op. cit., 137.
Koeppel, G. M., Die historischen Reliefs der römischen Kaiserzeit 3, Bjd, 185, 1985, 154-157, 204212; Kleiner, D.E.E., Roman Sculpture, Yale University Press,1992, 223-224; Leadnder Touati,
A.M., The Great Trajanic Frieze, Svenska institutet i Rom, 1987, 110.
About the plan of the temple, see Wohlmayr, W., Die römische Kunst, Philipp von Zabern, 2011,
53.
Kuttner, op. cit., 137.
Kleiner, op. cit., 223.
Zanker, P., The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus, translated by Shapiro, A., University ofMichigan Press, 1988, 114-115.
About depictions of architectures on the frieze of Trajan’s column, see Coulston, J.C.N., The
Architecture and Construction Scenes on Trajan’s Column, in: Henig, M.(ed.), Arcitecture andArchitectural Sculpture in the Roman Empire, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology,
1990, 39-50; Richmond, I., Trajan’s Army on Trajan’s Column, The British School at Rome, 1982.
Thill, E.W., Civilization under Construction, AJA 114, vol.1, 2010, pp. 27-43.
Scene 13-14, 101.
Scene 21, 58.
Scene 4-5, 33, 48.
Scene 131.
Cass. Dio, IXVIII, 13.
Lepper, op. cit., 149.
Welch, K.E., The Roman Amphitheatre, Cambridge University Press, 2007, 137.
Ibid. Fig. 88.
Ibid. 138.
About the identification of the theatre, see Lepper, op. cit., 136.
For example, children are represented in the south side of Ara Pacis Augustae or Alimenta relief in
Benevento, but neither has something to do with war.
Balty, J.C., and Boardman, J. et al. (eds.), Thesaurus cultus et rituum antiquorum, vol. 3, Getty
Publications, 2004, 343.

Building Roman Civilisation

[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]
[53]
[54]

37

Ibid., 337-342.
Ibid.
Suet. Aug. V, 21.1. translation is cited from, Suetonius, De vita caesarum, translated by Rolfe, J.C.,
The Loeb Classical Library, Harvard, 1914.
Gauer, op.cit., 61, n. 302.
For example, Lepper, op.cit.
For example, Speidel, M.P., Trajan’s Column and the Arch at Benevento, MdI, Römische Abteilung
112, 2005/2006, 189-206.
Davies, op. cit., 131-132
Zanker, P., Roman Art, translated by Heitmann-Gordon, H., The Paul Getty Museum, 2010, 99101.
Scene13, 23, 56, 69, 92, 97.
Scene 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 39, 52, 60, 65, 67, 68, 129.
Scene 15, 19.
Scene 109, 110.
The translation is cited from Lepper, op.cit., 20.
Boni, G., Leggende, Nuova Antologia, s.5.126, 1906, 3-39.
Lepper, op.cit., 207; Davies, op. cit., 129-130.

Illustration Sources
Figure 1. London, Victoria and Albert Museum, Photo M. Sakata.
Figure 2. Rome, The Museum of Roman Culture, Photo M. Sakata.
Figure 3. Rome, The Museum of Roman Culture, Photo Y. Fukuyama.
Figure 4. Rome, The Museum of Roman Culture, Photo M. Sakata.
Figure 5. Paris, Louvre Museum, Photo (C) RMN-Grand Palais (musée du Louvre) / Christian Jean /distributed by AMF
Figure 6. Fondation Eugène Piot, Monuments et Mémoires, V, Paris, 1899, plate XXX1.
Figure 7. Rome, The Museum of Roman Culture, Photo Y. Fukuyama.
Figure 8. Rome, The Museum of Roman Culture, Photo M. Sakata.
Figure 9. Rome, The Museum of Roman Culture, Photo Y. Fukuyama.
Figure 10. Rome, The Museum of Roman Culture, Photo Y. Fukuyama.
Figure 11. Rome, The Museum of Roman Culture, Photo M. Sakata.
* This paper is based upon the Japanese version printed in Bigaku (Aesthetics), No. 244 (Vol. 65, No. 1),
2014, 37-48, published by the Japanese Society for Aesthetics.