The Ceremonial Sculptures of the Roman Gods

Monumenta Graeca
et Romana

Editor-in-Chief
John M. Fossey FRSC
(McGill University & Montreal Museum of Fine Arts)

Associate Editor
Angelo Geissen (University of Cologne)

VOLUME 20

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/mgr

The Ceremonial Sculptures
of the Roman Gods

By
Brian Madigan Ph.D.
Wayne State University

Leiden • boston
2013
Cover illustrations: details of Arch of Galerius, Thessaloniki, pier B, Northeast side. Photos (front and
back) Brian Madigan. See also pages 27–28, and figs. 10–11, this volume.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Madigan, Brian Christopher.

 The ceremonial sculptures of the Roman gods / by Brian Madigan.
  pages cm.—(Monumenta Graeca et Romana ; 20)
 Includes bibliographical references and index.
 ISBN 978-90-04-22723-1 (hardback : alk. paper)—ISBN 978-90-04-24226-5 (e-book) 1. Sculpture,
Roman. 2. Gods, Roman, in art. 3. Idols and images—Rome. 4. Rome—Religious life and customs.
I. Title.
 NB115.M25 2012
 733’.5—dc23
2012035671

This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters
covering Latin, IPA, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the
humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface.

ISSN 0169-8850
ISBN 978-90-04-22723-1 (hardback)
ISBN 978-90-04-24226-5 (e-book)

Copyright 2013 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing,
IDC Publishers and Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV
provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,
222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

for Cressida
figlia mai fu
 Contents

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................ ix

List of Illustrations .............................................................................................................................................. xi

Bibliography of Ancient Sources .................................................................................................................... xiii

Bibliography of Modern Works ...................................................................................................................... xvii

Preface .................................................................................................................................................................... xxvii

Chapter 1 Processional Statuettes .............................................................................................................. 1

Chapter 2 Litter Statues ................................................................................................................................ 39

Chapter 3 Capita Deorum ............................................................................................................................. 67

Chapter 4 Exuviae ........................................................................................................................................... 83

Epilogue ................................................................................................................................................................. 103

Appendix Inscriptional and Papyrological Texts .................................................................................. 107

Indices
A.  Ancient Texts ........................................................................................................................................... 111
B.  Place Names .............................................................................................................................................. 113
C. Personal Names ........................................................................................................................................ 114
D. Greek & Latin Words ............................................................................................................................. 117
E.  General Subjects ...................................................................................................................................... 119
 Acknowledgements

This book began somewhat by chance on a seminar funded by the National Endowment for the
Humanities and sponsored by the American Academy in Rome. Both institutions, as well as the
directors of the seminar, Bettina Bergmann and Christine Kondoleon therefore were instrumental at
its beginning and in its progress. I also owe a substantial debt of gratitude to the members of that
seminar. And I am pleased to be able to acknowledge the support of a Faculty Fellowship from the
Humanities Center at Wayne State University along the way. I also wish to thank those who have
graciously allowed me access to objects for examination during the research process: Mette Mol-
tesen, Carlsberg Glyptotek; Claudio Parisi Presicce, Musei Capitolini; and Cecile Giroire, Museé du
Louvre. John Fossey (Editor-in-chief of the MGR series) and Caroline van Erp (Brill) have significantly
improved the text with their judicious editing. A number of individuals have lent their support to this
project at various points, and it is a pleasure to have the chance to acknowledge their contributions:
Barbara Barletta (University of Florida), Ada Cohen (Dartmouth College), Agnes Scherer (Louvre),
Elena di Acciate (Uffizi) and Daria Lanzuolo (DAI Rome).
The completion of the text coincided with the decision of Cressida, the dedicatee of this book, and
Frank to set off on their expedition together. Those not inclined to supernatural explanations of such
alignments will admire the portentous symmetry of this; all good luck to them. Above all else, the
finishing of this project allows me the opportunity to thank, for all affection, intellectual challenge
and resource, ocular critiques, expeditions to visual spectacles (human wrought and natural), and
music, Sarah Bassett.
 List of Illustrations

 1. Altar of the Vicomagistri, detail, Vatican Museums. Photo: author ........................................... 4

 2. Procession relief, Villa Medici, Rome. Photo: DAI Rome .............................................................. 5
 3. Belvedere altar, Vatican Museums. Photo: DAI Rome .................................................................... 7
 4. Procession relief with Lares, Vatican Museums. Photo: author ................................................... 9
 5. Altar of the collegium fabrum tignariorum, Museo Capitolino. Photo: Ryberg 1955 ............. 11
 6. Altar of the collegium fabrum tignariorum, Museo Capitolino. Photo: author ....................... 13
 7. Minerva workshop relief, Museo Capitolino. Photo: author ........................................................ 14
 8. Volta Dorata, Domus Aurea. Photo: Weege 1913 .............................................................................. 17
 9. Circus relief, Palazzo Trinci, Foligno. Photo: DAI Rome ............................................................... 25
10. Arch of Galerius, Thessaloniki. Photo: author ................................................................................... 27
11. Arch of Galerius, Thessaloniki. Photo: author ................................................................................... 28
12. Barberini diptych, Musée du Louvre. Photo: author ....................................................................... 30
13. Domus Faustae, Museo Nazionale delle Terme. Photo: author ................................................... 31
14. Domus Faustae detail, Museo Nazionale delle Terme. Photo: author ....................................... 32
15. Emperor Gallus, Calendar of 354. Photo: Stern 1953 ....................................................................... 34
16. Iphigeneia and Orestes, Museo Capitolino 4948. Photo: author ................................................. 37
17. Arch of Titus, detail. Photo: author ...................................................................................................... 41
18. Sarcophagus lid from Puteoli, Museo Nazionale, Napoli. Photo: DAI Rome ........................... 43
19. Sarcophagus lid from Puteoli, Museo Nazionale, Napoli. Photo: DAI Rome ........................... 44
20. Terracotta relief, Musée du Louvre. Photo: Réunion des Musées Nationaux/
Art Resource, NY ......................................................................................................................................... 46
21. Sarcophagus lid, San Lorenzo, Rome. Photo: author ...................................................................... 48
22. Sarcophagus lid, detail, San Lorenzo, Rome. Photo: author ......................................................... 48
23. Sarcophagus lid, detail, San Lorenzo, Rome. Photo: author ......................................................... 48
24. Sarcophagus lid, Museo Archeologico di Aquileia. Photo: DAI Rome ...................................... 51
25. Funeral relief from Amiternum. Museo Nazionale di Chieti. Photo: DAI Rome ................... 52
26. Gladiatorial relief, Museo Nazionale, Napoli. Photo: Ryberg 1955 .............................................. 54
27. Procession, Bottega del Profumiere, Pompeii, Museo Nazionali, Napoli.
Photo: Caratelli 1990–95 ........................................................................................................................... 55
28. Procession, Via del Abbondanza, Pompeii. Photo: AA 1913 ........................................................... 56
29. Fortunae statuette, Museo Archeologico Prenestino, Palestrina. Photo: author .................... 68
30. Fortunae coin, American Numismatic Society, NY. Photo: Brendel 1960 ................................. 68
31. Coin of Caldus, British Museum. Photo: Grueber 1970 ................................................................... 69
32. Lamp with banquet. Photo: DarSag, fig. 4381 .................................................................................... 70
33. Lamp with banquet. Photo: DarSag, fig. 4382 .................................................................................... 70
34. Money box, once Antiken Kleinkunst, München. Photo: Lederer 1936 .................................... 72
35. Money box, once Antiquarium, Berlin. Photo: Lederer 1936 ........................................................ 72
36. Money box, Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest. Photo: Lederer 1936 ............................................ 73
37. Money box, once Lederer Collection, Berlin/Lugano. Photo: Lederer 1936 ............................. 73
38. Banquet relief, once Lederer Collection, Berlin/Lugano. Photo: Lederer 1936 ....................... 74
xii list of illustrations

39. Banquet relief, Egyptian Archaeological Museum, Cairo. Photo: Dunand 1979 ..................... 74

40. Lamp with banquet couch, British Museum Q2044. Photo: Bailey 1988 .................................. 77
41. Lamp with banquet couch, British Museum Q2046. Photo: Bailey 1988 .................................. 77
42. Cup from Caesarea Maritima, Musée du Louvre. Photo: Réunion des Musées
Nationaux/Art Resource, NY ................................................................................................................... 80
43. Sarcophagus lid, Museo Capitolino. Photo: DAI Rome .................................................................. 85
44. Coin with chair of Jupiter. Photo: Mattingly 1923–50 ..................................................................... 87
45. Coin with chair of Minerva. Photo: Mattingly 1923–50 .................................................................. 87
46. Throne of Jupiter, Palazzo Ducale, Mantova. Photo: author ........................................................ 89
47. Throne of Minerva, Casa dei Cervi. Herculaneum. Photo: DAI Rome ...................................... 91
48. Throne of Minerva, Casa dei Cervi. Herculaneum. Photo: Tran tam Tinh 1988 ..................... 92
49. Throne of Venus, Casa dei Cervi, Museo Archeologico, Napoli.
Photo: Tran tam Tinh 1988 ...................................................................................................................... 93
50. Throne of Mars, Casa dei Cervi, Museo Archeologico, Napoli.
Photo: Roux Ainé 1839 .............................................................................................................................. 93
51. Throne of Neptunus, San Vitale, Ravenna. Photo: author ............................................................. 95
52. Throne of Neptunus, San Vitale, Ravenna. Photo: author ............................................................. 95
53. Throne of Saturnus, Musée du Louvre. Photo: Réunion des Musées Nationaux/
Art Resource, NY ......................................................................................................................................... 96
54. Throne of Saturnus, Museo Archeologico, Venezia. Photo: author ............................................ 96
55. Throne of Saturnus, Museo Archeologico, Venezia. Photo: author ............................................ 97
56. Circus relief, Vatican Museums. Photo: author ................................................................................. 97
57. After painting of procession, Casa di Nozze di Hercules, Pompeii.
Photo: Caratelli 1990–95 ........................................................................................................................... 98
58. Altar of Cybele, Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge. Photo: Tillyard 1917 ................................... 100
 Bibliography of ancient Sources

Ammianus Marcellinus:
Ammianus Marcellinus, ed. J.C. Rolfe (Harvard University; Cambridge, MA, 1963–72)

Appianus, historia Romana:

Appianus, Historia romana, ed. Ludovicus Mendelssohn (Teubner; Leipzig, 1878)

Apuleius, metamorphoses:
Apuleius, Metamorphoseon, ed. J. van der Vliet (Teubner; Leipzig, 1897)

Athenaios, deipnosophistai:
Athenaeus, Dipnosophistarum, ed. G. Kaibel (Teubner; Leigzig, 1887)

Augustinus, de civitate Dei:

Augustine, De civitate Dei, ed. G.E. McCracken (Harvard University; Cambridge, MA, 1957)

Cicero, de officiis:
Cicero, De Officiis, ed. W. Miller (Harvard University; Cambridge, MA, 1913)

Cicero, de haruspicum responso:

Cicero, De Haruspicum Responso, ed. N.H. Watts (Harvard University; Cambridge, MA, 1923)

CIL:
Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum (Reimer; Berlin, 1862–)

Claudianus, panegyricus de quatro consulatu Honorii Augusti

Claudianus vol. I, ed. M. Platnauer (Heinemann; London, 1922)

Clemens Alexandrinus, protrepticus

Clementis Alexandrini Opera vol. I, ed. W. Dindorf (Clarendon; Oxford, 1869)

codex Theodosianus:
Codex Theodosianus Libri XVI, edd. T. Mommsen & P.M. Meyer (Weidmann; Berlin, 1905)

Dio Cassius:
Dio Cassius, Historia Romana, ed. E. Cary (Harvard University; Cambridge MA, 1914–27)

Diodoros Sikeliotes
Diodori, Bibliotheca historica vol. II, ed. F. Vogel (Teubner; Leipzig, 1890)

Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Romaîke arkhaiologia:

Dionysios Halikarnassensis, Antiquitates Romanae, ed. E. Cary (Harvard University; Cambridge, MA,
1947–62)
xiv bibliography of ancient sources

Euripides, Iphigeneia he en Taurois:

Euripides vol. II, ed. A.S. Day (Heinemann; London, 1912)

Eusebius, de martyribus Palastinae:

Eusebii Caesariensis, Opera, vol. IV, ed. W. Dindorf (Teubner; Leipzig)

Festus:
Sexti Pompei Festi, de verborum significatu quae supersunt cum Pauli epitome, ed. W.M. Lindsay
(Teubner; Leipzig, 1913)

Florus:
Florus, Epitome rerum Romanarum, ed. E.S. Forster (Harvard University; Cambridge, MA, 1984)

Herodianus:
Heriodian, ed. C.R. Wittaker (Harvard University; Cambridge, MA, 1969–70)

I.G. II2:
http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptions/

ILS:
Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae vol. II.i, ed. H. Dessau (Weidmann; Berln, 1902)

Josephus, historia Ioudaïkou polemou pros Romaious:

Josephus vols. II–III, ed. H.St.J. Thackeray (Heinemann; London, 1926)

Livius:
Livy, edd. B.O. Foster, et al. (Harvard University; Cambridge, MA, 1961–94)

Lucretius:
Lucretius, De rerum natura, ed. W.H.D. Rouse (Harvard University; Cambridge, MA, 1937)

Macrobius, Saturnalia:
Macrobius, Saturnalia, ed. R.A. Kaster (Harvard University; Cambridge, MA, 2011)

Martialis, epigrammata:
Martial, Epigrams, ed. C.A. Ker, (Harvard University; Cambridge, MA, 1968)

Nonnos, Dionysiaka:
Nonnos, Dionysiaca, ed. W.H.D. Rouse (Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 1963–85)

Obsequens, Julius. de prodigiis:

T. Livi, Periochae omnium librorum; Fragmenta oxyrhynchi reperta; Iulii Obsequentis, Prodigiorum liber,
ed. O. Rossbach (Leipzig, 1910)
 bibliography of ancient sources xv

Ovidius, Amores:
Ovid, Heroides and Amores, ed. G. Showerman. (Harvard University; Cambridge, MA, 1977)

Ovidius, Fasti:
Ovid, Fasti, 2nd ed., ed. J.G. Frazer (Harvard University; Cambridge, MA, 1989)

Papyrus Oslo:
Papyri osloenses, ed. S. Eitrem. (Det norske videnskaps-akademi; Oslo, 1925–36)

Papyrus Oxyrhynchus:
The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, eds. B. Grenfell & A. Hunt, vol. 10 (Egypt Explorations fund; London, 1914) &
vol. 12 (Egypt Exploration Fund; London, 1916)

Pausanias:
Pausanias, Guide to Greece, 2 Vols., ed. P. Levi. (Penguin; Harmonsworth, 1979).

Philo Judaeus, in Flaccum:

Philonis alexandrini opera quae supersunt, Vol. VI, 2nd ed., edd. L. Cohen and S. Reiter (Reimer; Berlin,
1915)

Philostratos, bioi sophiston:

Philostratus and Eunapius, The Lives of the Sophists, ed. W.C. Wright (Harvard University; Cambridge,
MA, 1968)

Plinius, naturalis historia:

Pliny, Natural History, vols. III–VII, ed. H. Rackham, (Harvard University; Cambridge, MA, 1942)
Pliny, Natural History, vols. XXXIII–XXXV, ed. H. Rackham, (Harvard University; Cambridge, MA,
1952)

Ploutarkhos, peri mousikes:

Plutarchi, De musica, ed. R. Volkmann (Teubner; Leipzig, 1856)

Ploutarkhos, Nomas:
Plutarch’s Lives vol. I, ed. B. Perrin (Harvard University; Cambridge, MA, 1914)

Ploutarkhos, Fabios Maximos:

Plutarch’s Lives vol. III, ed. B. Perrin (Harvard University; Cambridge, MA, 1916)

Ploutarkhos, aitia Romaika:

Plutarch, Moralia vol. IV, ed. F.C. Babbitt (Harvard University; Cambridge, MA, 1936)

Ploutarkhos, Titos:
Plutarch’s Lives vol. X, ed, B. Perrin (Harvard University; Cambridge, MA, 1921)

Polybios, historion:
Polybius, The Histories vol. III, ed. W.R. Paton (Harvard; Cambridge, MA, 1966)
xvi bibliography of ancient sources

Prudentius, peri stephanon:

Aurelii Prudentii Clementis Opera vol. I, 2nd ed., ed. V. Lanfranchi (Officiana Salesiana; Torino, 1904)

scriptores historiae augustae:

Scriptores Historiae Augustae vol. I, ed. D. Magie (Harvard University; Cambridge, MA, 1921)
Scriptores Historiae Augustae vol. II, ed. D. Magie (Harvard University; Cambridge, MA, 1924)

Seneca, de beneficiis:
L. Annaeus Seneca, Moral Essays vol. III, ed. J.W. Basore (Heinemann; New York, 1935)

Seneca, Hercules Oetaeus:

Seneca vol. IX, ed., F.J. Miller, (Harvard University; Cambridge, MA, 1917)

Statius, Thebais:
Statius 2 vols., ed,, J.H. Mozley (Heinemann; London, 1928)

Strabon:
The Geography of Strabo, 8 vols., edd., H.L. Jones & J.R.S. Sterrett (Harvard University; Cambridge,
MA, 1917–1949)

Suetonius:
Suetonius vol. II, ed. J.C. Rolfe (Harvard University; Cambridge, MA, 1959)
Suetonius vol. I, ed. J.C. Rolfe (Harvard University; Cambridge, MA, 1979)

Tacitus, annales:
Tacitus, 5 vols., edd. C.H. Moore & J. Jackson (Harvard University; London, 1968–80)

Tertullianus, de spectaculis; ad nationes:

The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. III, edd. A. Roberts & J. Donaldson (Scribner’s; New York, 1918)

Valerius Maximus:
Valeri Maximi factorum et dictorum memorabilium libri novem, ed. C. Halm (Teubner; Leipzig, 1865)
 Bibliography of modern Works

AA. Archäologischer Anzeiger. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. (Berlin).

ActaArchHung. Acta antiqua Academiae scientiarum hungaricae. (Budapest).
AJA. American Journal of Archaeology. (Boston).
AJAH. American Journal of Ancient History. (Cambridge, MA).
ANRW. H. Temporini, ed. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. (Berlin 1972–).
BABesch. Bulletin antieke beschaving. (Leiden).
BCH. Bulletin de correspondence hellénique. (Athens and Paris).
BdA. Bollettino d’arte. (Roma).
BIHBelg. Bulletin de l’Institut historique belge de Rome. (Turhout).
BJb. Bonner Jahrbücher des Rheinischen Landesmuseums in Bonn und des Rheinischen Amtes für Boden-
denkmalpflege im Landschaftsverband Rheinland und des Vereins von Altertumsfreunden im Rhein-
lande. (Köln).
BMusHongr. Bulletin du Musée hongrois des beaux-arts. (Budapest).
BullCom. Bullettino della Commissione archeologica comunale di Roma. (Roma).
CahArch. Cahiers archéologiques. (Paris).
CIL. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. (Berlin).
CJ. The Classical Journal. (Ashland, VA).
ClAnt. Classical Antiquity. (Berkeley).
CP. Classical Philology. (Chicago).
CRAI. Comptes rendus. Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres. (Paris).
DarSag. C. Daremberg and E. Saglio. Dictionnaire d’antiquités grecques et romaines. (Paris 1875).
Ergon. Ἔργον τῆς ἐν Ἀθήναις Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείς. (Athenai).
ÉtCl. Les études classique. (Namur).
FelRav. Felix Ravenna. (Faenza).
GrazBeitr. Grazer Beiträge. (Horn).
GRBS. Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies. (Durham, NC).
HSPh. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology. (Cambridge, MA).
HTR. Harvard Theological Review. (New York).
JdI. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. (Berlin).
JEA. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. (London).
JHS. The Journal of Hellenic Studies. (London).
JRS. Journal of Roman Studies. (London).
LÄ. W. Helck and E. Otto. Lexikon der Ägyptologie. (Wiesbaden 1972).
LIMC. Lexicon iconographicum mythologiae classicae. (Zurich 1981–2009).
Méfra. Mélanges de l’École française de Rome. Antiquité. (Rome).
MonPiot. Monuments et mémoires publiés par l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, Fondation
Eugéne Piot. (Paris).
NC. Numismatic Chronicle. (London).
NSc. Notizie degli scavi di antichità. (Milano).
ÖJhBeibl. Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien. Beiblatt. (Wien).
xviii bibliography of modern works

OpFin. Opuscula Instituti Romani Finlandiae. (Roma).

PP. La Parola del Passato. (Napoli).
Rbibl. Revue biblique. (Paris).
RÉA. Revue des études anciennes. (Pessac).
RendIstLomb. Rendiconti. Istituto Lombardo, Accademia di Scienze e Lettere, Classe di Lettere, Scienze
morali e storiche. (Milano).
RendPontAcc. Atti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia. Serie III. Rendiconti. (Roma).
RevHist. Revue historique. (Paris).
RHR. Revue de l’histoire des religions. (Paris).
RivStorAnt. Rivista storica dell’antichità. (Bologna).
RM. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Römische Abteilung. (Mainz).
RPhil. Revue de philology, de littérature et d’histoire anciennes. (Paris).
ScA. Scienze dell’antichità. (Roma).
SEG. Supplementum epigraphicum graecum. (Leiden).
SNR. Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau. (Bern).
StMisc. Studi miscellanei. (Roma).
SymbOslo. Symbolae osloenses. (Oslo).
TAPA. Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association. (Cleveland).
ThesCRA. Thesaurus cultus et rituum antiquorum. (Los Angeles 2004–2006).
RE. Pauly-Wissowa. Real-Encyclopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenshaft. (Stuttgart).
UPMB. University Museum Bulletin. (Philadelphia).
ZPE. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik. (Bonn).

Abaecherli, A.L., 1935: “Imperial Symbols on certain Flavian Coins,” CP 30: 131–40.
——, 1935–36: “Fercula, Carpenta, and Tensae in the Roman Procession.” Bollettino dell’associazione
internazionale studi mediterranei 6: 1–20.
Agnoli, N. 2000: Le sculture del Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Palestrina. (Roma).
Alfano, C. 1989–1990: “Le offete alle divinità egizie a roma in età imperiale,” ScA 3–4: 785–791.
Allison, P. 1985: “The Chronology of the Casa della Caccia Antica,” Trasus 3: 19–29.
Amici, A. 2000: “Divus Constantinus: Le testimonianze epigrafiche,” RivStorAnt 30: 187–216.
Anderson, M.L. 1984: “A Proposal for a new Reconstruction of the Altar of the Vicomagistri,” Bollet-
tino dei musei e gallerie pontificie 5: 33–54.
Andreae, B., H. Cancik, G. Cavallo, & F. de Martino, 1991: Princeps Urbium: cultura e vita sociale
dell’Italia romana. (Milano).
——, K. Anger, & M. Stadler, 1995: Bildkatalog des Skulpturen des Vatikanischen Museums. I. Museo
Chiaramonti. (Berlin).
Bailey, D.M., 1988: A Catalogue of the Lamps in the British Museum. III. Roman Provincial Lamps
(London).
Bammer, A., 1988: “Neue Grabungen an der Zentralbasis des Artemisions von Ephesos,” ÖJhBeibl 58:
1–31.
——, 1993: “Die Geschichte des Sekos im Artemision von Ephesos,” ÖJhBeibl 62: 137–68.
Basanoff, V., 1947: Evocatio. Étude d’un rituel militaire romain. (Paris).
Beard, M., 2007: The Roman Triumph. (Cambridge, Mass).
Bell, H.I., 1924: Jews and Christians in Egypt. (Westport, Conn. rpt 1972).
 bibliography of modern works xix

Berti, N., 1990: “Scipione Emiliano. Caio Graeco e l’“evocatio” di ‘Giunone’ da Cartagine,” Aevum 64:
69–75.
Beschi, L., 1985: “I rilievi ravennati dei ‘troni’,” FelRav 127–130: 37–80.
Bevilacqua, G. 1978–79 “Il mito di Oreste e Ifigenia in un mosaico dell’Antiquarium Comunale,”
BullCom 86: 39–46.
Bieber, M., 1968: The Statue of Cybele in the J. Paul Getty Museum. (Malibu).
——, 1969: “The Images of Cybele in Roman Coins and Sculpture,” in J. Bibauw (ed.) Hommages à
Marcel Renard. (Bruxelles) 29–40.
Bielefeld, E., 1972: “Eine Patene aus französischen Krönungsschatz. Ein Versuch zur Kleinkunst,”
Gymnasium 79: 395–445.
Bielfelt, R., 2005: Orestes auf römischen Sarkophagen. (Reimer).
Birley, A., 1976: Lives of the Later Caesars. (Harmondsworth).
Bober, P.P. & Rubinstein, R., 1986: Renaissance Artists and Antique Sculpture: A Handbook of Sources.
(London).
Bonanno, A., 1976: Portraits and Other Heads on Roman Historical Relief up to the Age of Septimius
Severus. (Oxford).
Bonfante Warren, L., 1970: “Roman Triumphs and Etruscan Kings: The changing Face of the
Triumph,” JRS 60: 49–66.
Bosch, C., 1950: “Die Festspiele von Nikaia,” Jarhrbuch für kleinasiastische Forschung 1: 80–99.
Bouchè-Leclercq, A., 1877–1919: “Lectisternium,” DarSag: 1006–1012.
Brendel, O., 1960: “Two Fortunae, Antium and Praeneste,” AJA 64: 41–47.
Bricault, L., ed. 2004: Isis en Occident. (Leiden).
Brunel, J., 1953: “A propos des transferts de cultes: Un sens méconnu du mot ΑΦΙΔΡΥΜΑ,” RPhil 27:
21–33.
Bruun, P.M., 1966: Roman Imperial Coinage. VII. Constantine and Licinius. (London).
Budde, L. & Nicholls, R., 1964: A Catalogue of the Greek and Roman Sculptures in the Fitzwilliam
Museum. (Cambridge).
Calabi, I., 1954: “Sugli onori postumi a Germanico. Due note alla Tabula Hebana,” PP 9: 212–214.
Caldelli, M.L., 1993: L’Agon Capitolinus. (Roma).
Carratelli, G., et al., 1990–95: Pompei, Pitture e mosaici. 10 vols. (Roma).
Castiglione, L., 1961: “Zur Frage der Serapis-Kline,” ActaArchHung 9: 287–303.
de Cenival, F., 1972: Les associations religieuses en Égypte d’après les documents démotiques. Biblio-
thèque d’Étude 46 (Le Caire).
Champeaux, J., 1982: Fortuna: Recherches sur le culte de la Fortune à Rome et dans le monde romain
des origins à la mort de César I (Rome).
Charneux, P., 1992: “Sur un décret des forgerons d’Argos,” BCH 116: 335–43.
Clarke, J.R., 2003: Art in the Lives of Ordinary Romans. (Berkeley).
Clinton, K., 1989: “The Eleusinian Mysteries: Roman Initiates and Benefactors, second Century B.C.
to A.D. 267,” ANRW II.18.2: 1499–1539.
Coarelli, F., 1992: Il Foro Boario. 2nd ed. (Roma).
Colini, A.M., 1947: “Officina di fabri tignarii nei frammenti di un ara monumentale rinvenute fra il
Campidoglio e il Trevere,” Capitolium 22: 21–28.
Compostello, C., 1992: “Banchetti publici e banchetti private nell’iconografia funeraria romana,”
Méfra 104: 659–689.
xx bibliography of modern works

Concitello, B. & Andreae, B., 1974. Die Skulpturen von Sperlonga. (Berlin).
Cumont, F., 1933: “Le grande inscription bachique du Metropolitan Museum,” AJA 37: 232–70.
Damsky, B., 1995: “The Throne and Curule Chair Types of Titus and Domitian,” SNR 74: 59–74.
D’arms, J., 1998: “Between public and private: The epulum publicum and Caesar’s horti trans Tiberim,”
in M. Cima and E. La Rocca (edd.), Horti romani: atti del convegno internazionale: Roma, 4–6 mag-
gio 1995 (Roma) 33–43.
Dattari, G., 1901: Monete imperiale greci. Numi Augg. Alexandrini catalogo della collezione G. Dattari.
(Cairo, rpt. Bologna 1969).
Delbrueck, R., 1913: “Archäologische Funde im Jahre 1912: Italien,” AA: 162–64.
Della Corte, M., 1921: “Venus Pompeiana,” Ausonia 10: 68–87.
Della Corte, M., 1924: Iuventus. (Arpino).
Deubner, L., 1956: Attische Feste. (Berlin).
Diebner, S., 1988: “I rilievi galdiatori in rapporto di giochi anfiteatrali,” in M.L. Conforto (ed.), Anfite-
atro Flavio: immagine, testimonianze, spettacoli, (Roma) 131–45.
Dittenberg, W., 1960: Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum. 4th ed. (Hildesheim).
Donohue, A.A., 1988: Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture. (Atlanta).
Dunand, F., 1979: Religion populaire en Egypte romaine. (Leiden).
——, 1990: Catalogue des terres cuites gréco-romaines d’Egypte. (Paris).
Dunbabin, K., 1978: The Mosaics of Roman North Africa. (Oxford).
——, 1982: “The victorious Charioteer on Mosaics and related Monuments,” AJA 86: 65–89.
——, 2003. The Roman Banquet. (Cambridge).
Duncan-Jones, R., 1982: The Economy of the Roman Empire. (Cambridge).
Eitrem, S., 1932: “Zur Apotheose,” SymbOslo 10: 31–56.
Felletti Maj, B.M., 1977: La tradizione italica nell’arte romana I (Roma).
Finkielsztejn, G., 1986: “Asklepios Leontoukhos et le mythe de la coupe de Césarée Maritime,” Rbibl
93: 419–428.
Fisher, H.G., 1956: “Prostrate Figures of Egyptian Kings,” UPMB 20: 27–42.
——, 1957: “Further Remarks on the Prostrate Kings,” UPMB 21: 35–40.
Fishwick, D., 1966: “The Cannophoroi and the March Festival of Magna Mater,” TAPA 97: 193–202.
——, 1967: “Hastiferi,” JRS 57: 142–60.
——, 1981: “A Gold Bust of Titus at Emerita,” AJAH 6: 89–96.
——, 1989: “Statues Taxes in Roman Egypt,” Historia 38: 335–47.
——, 1991: The Imperial Cult in the Latin West. (Leiden).
Flambard, J.-M., 1982: “Observations sur la nature des magistri italiens de Délos,” OpFin 2: 67–77.
Fröhlich, T., 1991: Lararien- und Fassadenbilder in den Vesuvstädten. (Mainz am Rhein).
Frothingham, A., 1914: “A lost Section of the Frieze of the Arch of Titus?” AJA 18: 479–83.
Furtwängler, A., 1896: Beschreibung der geschnittenen Steine im Antiquarium. (Berlin).
Gabba, E., 1984: “The Collegia of Numa: Problems of Method and Political Ideas,” JRS 74: 81–86.
Gebhard, E.R., 1996: “The Theater and the City,” in W.J. Slater (ed.), Roman Theater and Society:
E. Togo Salmon Papers I (Ann Arbor) 113–127.
Gersht, R., 1996: “Representations of Deities and the Cults of Caesarea,” in A. Raban and K.G. Holum
(edd.), Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective after two Millenia. (Leiden) 305–324.
Gladigow, B., 1985–86: “Präsenz der Bilder—Präsenz der Götter,” Visible Religion 4–5: 114–133.
Goette, H., 1998: Studien zu römischen Togadarstellungen. (Mainz am Rhein).
Göll, H., 1859: “Über den Processus consularis der Kaiserzeit,” Philologus 14: 586–612.
 bibliography of modern works xxi

Graeven, H., 1901: “Die thönere Sparbüchse im Altertum,” JdI 16: 160–189.
Graillot, H., 1912: Le culte de Cybèle, Mère des dieux, à Rome et dans l’empire romain. (Paris).
Grant, M., 1950: Roman Anniversary Issues. (Cambridge).
Gras, M., 1987: “Le temple de Diane sur l’Avetin,” RÉA 89: 47–61.
Grenfell, B. & A. Hunt, eds., 1914: The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. X. (London).
Grueber, H.A., 1970: Coins of the Roman Republic in the British Museum. 3 vols. (London).
——, 1874: Roman Medallions in the British Museum, R.S. Poole (ed), (London).
Gruen, E.S., 1990: “The Advent of Magna Mater,” in E.S. Gruen (ed.), Studies in Greek Culture and
Roman Policy, (Leiden) 5–33.
Gustafsson, G., 2000: Evocatio Deorum: Historical and Mythological Interpretations of Ritualized
Conquests in the Expansion of Ancient Rome. (Uppsala).
Hano, M. A., 1986: “L’origine du culte impérial: les cultes des Lares Augusti. Recherches sur les thèmes
iconographiques et leur signification,” ANRW II.16.3: 2333–2381.
Hanson, J., 1959: Roman Theater-Temples. (Princeton).
Helbig, W., 1868: Wandgemälde der vom Vesuv verschütteten Städte Campaniens. (Leipzig).
Helck, W., 1980: “Kultstatue,” Lexikon der Ägyptologie, W. Helck & W. Westendorf (edd.). III. (Wies-
baden) 859–863.
Henrichs, A., 1978: “Greek Maenadism from Olympias to Messalina,” HSCP 82: 121–60.
Hepding, H. 1903. Attis, seine Mythen und sein Kult. (Gieszen).
Herington, C.J., 1955: Athena Parthenos and Athena Polias. (Manchester).
Hill, P.V., 1962: “The Temples and Statues of Apollo in Rome,” NC 2: 125–42.
Himmelmann, N., 1973: Typologische Untersuchungen an römischen Sarkophagreliefs des 3. und 4.
J.n.C. (Mainz am Rhein).
Hölscher, F., 2007: “Götterstatuen bei Lectisternium und Theoxenien?” in F. & T. Hölscher (edd.)
Römische Bilderwelten. (Heidelberg) 27–40.
Hölscher, T. 1967. Victoria Romana. (Mainz am Rhein).
Hugoniot, C., 2006: “Le puluinar du Grand Cirque, le prince et les jeux,” in A. Vigourt (ed.), Pouvoir
et religion dans le monde romain. (Paris) 213–230.
Humphrey, J., 1986: Roman Circuses. (London).
Johnson, J., 1933: Excavations at Minturnae. II. Inscriptions. Part I. Republican Magistri. (Rome).
Jullian, C., 1883: “Processus consularis,” RPhil 7:145–63.
Junkelmann, M., 2000: Das Spiel mit dem Tod. (Mainz am Rhein).
Kadman, L., 1957: The Coins of Caesarea Maritima. (Jerusalem).
Kalinka, E. & R. Heberdey, R., 1920: Tituli Asiae Minoris. III. (Vienna).
Koenen, L., 1969: “Eine Einladung zur Kline der Sarapis,” ZPE 1: 121–126.
Koeppel, G.M., 1983: “Die historischen Reliefs der römischen Kaiserzeit, 1,” BJb 183: 61–144.
Köhne, E. & Ewigleben, C., 2000: Caesaren und Gladiatoren. (Mainz am Rhein).
Kolb, F., 1973: “Römische Mäntel, paenula, lacerna, μανδύη,” RM 80: 69–167.
Κουγέα, Σ., 1928: “ Ἐπιγραφικαὶ ἐκ Γυθείου Συμβολαί,” Ἑλληνικά 1: 16–38.
Köves-Zulauf, T., 1972: Reden und Schweigen. (München).
——, 1993: “Minerva Capta—eine gefangene Göttin,” GrazBeitr 5: 159–76.
Kraus, T., 1979: “Sarapis auf der Kline,” JdI 94: 566–577.
Kübler, B.: s.v. “consul”, RE 4: 1112–1138.
La Regina, A., 1966: “Monumento funebre di un triumviro augustale al Museo di Chieti,” StMisc 10:
39–56.
xxii bibliography of modern works

——, 2001: Sangue e Arena. (Roma).

La Rocca, E., 2007: “I troni dei nuovi dei,” in T. Nogales & J. González (edd.), Culto imperial: política y
poder : actas del congreso internacional. . . Mérida, Museo Nacional de Arte Romano, 18–20 de mayo,
2006. (Roma) 76–104.
Lambrechts, P., 1952: “Les fêtes ‘phrygiennes’ de Cybèle et d’Attis,” BIHBelge 27: 141–70.
Latham, J., 2007: The Ritual Construction of Rome: Processions, Subjectivities, and the City from the Late
Republic to Late Antiquity. (diss. University of California, Santa Barbara).
Laubscher, H.P., 1975: Der Reliefschmuck des Galeriusbogen in Thessaloniki. (Berlin).
Lawrence, M., 1965: “The Circus Relief at Foligno,” in Richerche sull’Umbria tardo-antica e prero-
manica: Atti del II Cenvegno. (Gubbio) 119–35.
Le Bonniec, H., 1958: Le culte de Cérès à Rome. (Paris).
Le Gall, J., 1976: “Evocatio,” in L’Italie préromaine et la Rome républicaine. Mélanges offerts à Jacques
Heurgon. (Paris) 519–524.
Lederer, P., 1936: “Aegyptisches Theoxenion des Jahres 167,” Deutsche Münzblätter 56: 201–211.
——, 1938: “Two unpublished Greek Coins,” NC 18: 65–79.
Lembke, R., 1994: Das Iseum Campense in Rom. (Heidelberg).
Levi, A., 1929: “I symboli dell’impero in un rilievo del Palazzo Ducale di Mantova.” Historia 3: 270–276.
——, 1935: La patera di Parabigo. (Roma).
Lindsay, H., 1998: “Eating with the Dead: The Roman funerary Banquet,” in I. Nielsen & H.S. Nielsen
(edd.), Meals in a social Context: Aspects of the communal Meal in the Hellenistic and Roman World.
(Aarhus) 67–80.
Ling, R., 1991: Roman Painting. (Cambridge).
Liou-Gille, B., 1992: “Une tentative de reconstitution historique: Les cultes fédéraux Latins de Diane
Aventine et de Diane Nemorensis,” PP 47: 411–38.
Liverani, P., 1993: “Note di topografia lateranense: Le strutture di via Amba Aradam. A proposito di
una recente pubblicazione,” BullCom 95: 143–52.
Loeschcke, S., 1909: “Antike Laternen und Lichthäusen,” BJb 118: 370–430.
Lorton, D., 1999: “The Theology of Cult Statues in ancient Egypt,” in M.B. Dick (ed.), Born in Heaven,
made on Earth. The Making of the cult Image in the ancient Near East. (Winona Lake) 123–210.
Malavolta, M., 1985: “Exuviae,” in F. della Corte, et al. (edd.), Enciclopedia Virgiliana. II. (Roma)
449–450.
Malkin, I., 1991: “What is an Aphidruma?” ClAnt 10: 77–96.
Malten, L., 1912: “Hephaistos,” JdI 27: 232–64.
Mattingly, H., 1923–50: Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum. (London).
McCracken, G., 1939: A History of Ancient Tusculum. (diss. Princeton University).
Merten, E., 1968: Zwei Herrscherfeste in der Historia Augusta. (Bonn).
Meyboom, P., 1995: The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina. (Leiden).
Mielsch, H., 1978: “Zur stadtrömischen Malerei des 4. Jahrhunderts n. Chr.,” RM 85: 151–207.
Milani, C., 1976: “Osservazioni su lat. Lectisternium,” RendIstLomb 110: 231–42.
Milne, J., 1925: “The Kline of Serapis,” JEA 11: 6–9.
Mingazzini, P., 1934: “Due interessanti relieve puteolani,” BullCom 62: 29–32.
Mitchell, S., 1990: “Festivals, Games, and Civic Life in Roman Asia Minor,” JRS 80: 183–93.
Monserrat, D., 1992: “The Kline of Anubis,” JEA 78: 301–307.
Morey, C.R., 1959: The Gold-Glass Collection of the Vatican Library, G. Ferrari (ed.). (Rome).
Mulhouse, G., 2006: s.v. “ludi”, Brill’s New Pauly: 866–75.
 bibliography of modern works xxiii

Münzen, F., 1935: “Auf den Magistri von Minturnae,” RM 50: 327–30.
Naumann, F., 1983: Die Ikonographie der Kybele in der phrygischen und griechischen Kunst. (Tübingen).
Nick, G., 2002: Die Athena Parthenos: Studien zur griechischen Kultbild und seiner Rezeption. (Mainz).
Niebling, K., 1956: “Laribus Augustis Magistri Primi. Der Beginn des Kompitalkultes des Lares und
des Genius Augusti,” Historia 5: 303–31.
van Nijf, O., 1997: The Civic World of Professional Associations in the Roman East. (Amsterdam).
Nouilhan, M., 1989: “Les lectisterne r­épublicains,” in A.-F. Laurens (ed.), Entre hommes et dieux: le
convive, le héros, le prophète. (Paris) 27–41.
Oliver, J.H., 1964: The Sacred Gerousia. Hesperia Supp. VI.
——, 1970: Marcus Aurelius: Aspects of civic and cultural Policy in the East, Hesperia Supp. XIII.
Otto, W., 1905: Priester und Tempel in hellenistischen Ägypten. (Leipzig).
Pape, M., 1975: Griechische Kunstwerke aus Kriegsbeute und ihre öffentliche Aufstellung in Rom. (diss.
Hamburg).
Pearse, L., 1975: “A Forgotten Altar of the Collegium Fabrum Tignariorum,” Epigraphica 37: 100–23.
Pesce, G., 1941: I rilievi dell’amfiteatro Campano. (Roma).
Pekáry, T., 1985: Das römische Kaiserbildnis in Staat, Kult und Gesellschaft. (Berlin).
Petrie, W.M.F., 1905: Roman Ehnasya (Herakleopolis Magna). (London).
Pfanner, M., 1983: Der Titusbogen. (Mainz am Rhein).
Picard, C., 1959: “Un monument rhodien du culte princier des Lagides, au Musée National de Naples,”
CRAI: 151–158.
——, 1954: “Le trône vide d’Alexandre dans le cérémonie de Cyinda et le culte du trône vide à travers
le monde gréco-romain,” CahArch 7: 1–17.
Porter, B. and R.L.B. Moss 1972. Tophographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts,
Reliefs, and Paintings. II. Theben Temples, 2nd ed. (Oxford).
Price, S.R.F., 1984: Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. (Cambridge).
Quirke, S., 1997: “Gods in the Temple of the King: Anubis at Lahun,” in S. Quirke (ed.), The Temple
in Ancient Egypt. (London).
Ricci, C., 1910: “Marmi Ravennati erratici,” Ausonia 4: 247–289.
Rice, E.E., 1983: The Grand Procession of Ptolemy Phildadelphus. (London).
Richard, J.-C., 1978: “Sur les prétendues corporations numaïques: À propos de Plutarque, Num. 17,3,”
Klio 60: 423–28.
Richardson, L., 1992: A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome. (Baltimore).
Richter, G. 1930: Handbook of the Classical Collection. (New York).
——, 1966: The Furniture of the Greeks, Etruscans and Romans. (London).
Ridgway, B.S., 1977: The Archaic Style in Greek Sculpture. (Princeton).
Robert, C., Skeat, T. & Nock, A., 1936: “The Gild [sic] of Zeus Hypsistos,” HTR 29: 39–88.
Robert, L., 1928: “Isis Eleuthera,” RHR 98: 56–59.
——, 1960: “Recherches épigraphiques, VI: Inscriptions d’Athènes,” R­ÉA 62: 316–24.
——, 1965: “D’Aphrodisias à la Lycaonie. Compte rendu du volume VIII des Monumenta Asiae mino-
ris Antiqua,” Hellenica 13: 119–25.
Robertson, A.S., 1982: Roman Imperial Coinage in the Hunter Coin Cabinet. (Oxford).
Robertson, N., 2004: “The Praxiergidae Decree (IG I3 7) and the Dressing of Athena’s Statue with the
Peplos,” GRBS 44: 111–161.
Rogers, G.M., 1991: The Sacred Identity of Ephesos. (London).
Romanelli, P., 1967: Palestrina. (Roma).
xxiv bibliography of modern works

Romano, I.B., 1980: Early Greek Cult Images. (diss. University of Pennsylvania).
Ronke, J., 1987: Magistratische Repräsentation im römischen Relief. (Oxford).
Rostovtzeff, M., 1930: “L’Empereur Tibère et le culte imperial,” RevHist 163: 1–26.
Rotili, M., 1972: L’Arco di Traiano a Benvento. (Roma).
Roux Ainé, H. 1839: Herculaneum et Pompéi. II. Paris.
Royden, H.L., 1988: The Magistrates of the Roman Professional Collegia in Italy from the First to the
Third Century A.D. (Pisa).
Rüpke, J., 2001: Die Religion der Römer. (München).
Ryberg, I.S., 1955: Rites of State Religion in Roman Art. (Rome).
Salomonson, J., 1955: “A Roman Relief in Copenhagen with Chair, Sceptre and Wreath and its histori-
cal Associations,” BABesch 30: 1–21.
San Nicolo, M., 1913–15: Ägyptisches Vereinwesen zur Zeit der Ptolemäer und Römer. 2 vols. (München).
Santa Maria Scrinari, V., 1965: “Per la storia e la topografia del Laterano,” BdA: 38–44.
——, 1970–71: “Nuove testimonianze per la ‘Domus Faustae’,” RendPontAcc 43: 207–22.
Schäfer, T., 1989: Imperii insignia: Sella curulis und fasces. (Mainz am Rhein).
——, 1990: “Der Honor bisellii,” RM 97: 307–346.
——, 2002: “Römisches Relief mit Tensa,” BMusHongr 96: 31–50.
Schefold, K., 1962: Vergessenes Pompeji. (Bern).
Scheid, J., 1986: “Le flamine de Jupiter, les Vestales et le général triomphant: variations romaines sur
le thème de la figuration des dieu,.” Le temps de la réflexion 7: 213–30.
Schürmann, W., 1985: Typologie und Bedeutung der Stadtrömischen Minerva-Kultbilder. (Rom).
——, 1989: Katalog der antiken Terrakotten im badischen Landesmuseum Karlsruhe. (Götenburg).
Scullard, H.H., 1974: The Elephant in the Greek and Roman World. (London).
Sebesta, J.L., 1994: “Symbolism in the Costume of the Roman Woman,” in J. L. Sebesta & L. Bonfante
(edd.), The World of Roman Costume (Madison) 46–53.
Seltman, C., 1947: “Two Athenian Marble Thrones,” JHS 67: 22–30.
Shear, J., 1936: “Imperial Athenian Coinage,” Hesperia 5: 285–332.
Sheid, J., 1985: “Sacrifice et banquet à Rome. Quleques problèmes,” Méfra 97: 193–206.
Sherk, R., ed. & trans., 1988: The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian (Cambridge).
Showerman, G., 1906: “Canna intrat and the Cannophoroi,” CJ 2: 28–31.
Small, J., 1991: “The Tarquins and Servius Tullius at Banquet,” Méfra 103: 247–264.
Smallwood, E.M., 1967: Documents illustrating the Principates of Gaius, Claudius and Nero.
(Cambridge).
Spannagel, M., 1979: “Fragment eines Ferculumreliefs im Museo Chiaramonti,” AA: 360–75.
Spano, G., 1912: “Reg. IX, ins. X, lato settentrionale,” NSc: 104–111.
Spinazzola, V., 1953, Pompei alla luce degli scavi della Via dell’Abbondanza. I. (Roma).
Stern, H., 1953: Le calendrier de 354. (Paris).
Stewart, P., 2000: “Cult Images on Roman Lamps,” Hephaistos 18: 7–28.
Stone, S., 1994: “The Toga: From national to ceremonial Costume,” in J.L. Sebasta & L. Bonfante
(edd.), The World of Roman Costume. (Madison) 13–45.
Stuart Jones, H.S., 1912: The Sculptures of the Museo Capitolino. (Oxford).
Summers, K., 1996: “Lucretius’ Roman Cybele,” in E. Lane (ed), Cybele, Attis and Related Cults: Essays
in Memory of M.J. Vermasseren, (Leiden) 337–365.
Swindler, M., 1923: “Venus Pompeiana and the new Pompeian Frescoes,” AJA 27: 302–13.
Takacs, S., 1995: Isis and Sarapis in the Roman World. (Leiden).
 bibliography of modern works xxv

Taylor, L.R., 1931: “Aniconic Worship among the Early Romans,” in G.D. Hadzsits (ed.), Classical Stud-
ies in Honor of John C. Rolfe. (Philadelphia) 305–314.
——, 1935: “The Sellisternium and the Theatrical Pompa,” CP 30: 122–130.
——, 1937: “A Sellisternium on the Parthenon Frieze?” in R.P. Casey, S. Lake, & A.K. Lake (edd.)
Quantulacumque: Studies presented to K. Lake (London) 253–264.
Themelis, P., 1962: Ergon: 119–32.
Themelis, P., 1994: “Artemis Ortheia at Messene: The Epigraphical and Archaeological Evidence,” in
R. Hägg (ed.), Ancient Greek Cult Practice from the Epigraphical Evidence. (Stockholm) 101–122.
Tillyard, E., 1917: “A Cybele Altar in London,” JRS 7:284–288.
Torelli, M., 1982: Typology and Structure of Roman Historical Reliefs. (Ann Arbor).
Tortorella, S., 1981: “Le lastre Campana. Problemi di produzione e di iconografia,” in L’art décoratif
à Rome, à la fin de la République et au début du Principat: table ronde, organiseé par l’Ecole française
de Rome, Rome, 10–11 mai 1979. (Roma) 61–100.
Toynbee, J.M.C., 1944: Roman Medallions. (rpt. N.Y. 1986).
Tran Tam Tinh, V., 1964: Essai sur le culte d’Isis a Pompéi. (Paris).
——, 1972: Le culte des divinités orientales en Campanie. (Leiden).
——, 1988: La Casa dei Cervi a Herculanum. (Roma).
——, 1996: “Les empereurs romains versus Isis, Sérapis,” in A. Small (ed.), Subject and Ruler: The Cult
of the Ruling Power in Classical Antiquity. (Ann Arbor) 215–230.
Trillmich, W., 1989–90: “Un sacrarium del Culto Imperial en el Teatro de Merida,” Anas 2/3:
87–102.
Turcan, R., 1996: The Cults of the Roman Empire. (Oxford).
Turner, V., 1986: “The Anthropology of Performance,” in The Anthropology of Performance. (New
York) 72–98.
Vallois, R., 1922: “L’’Agalma’ des Dionysies de Délos,” BCH 46: 94–122.
Van Doren, M., 1954: “Peregrina sacra,” Historia 3: 488–97.
Van Ooteghem, J., 1964: “Lectisterne et supplication,” ÉtCl 32: 390–395.
Vandier, J., 1964: Manuel d’archéologique égyptienne. IV. Bas-reliefs et peintures. (Paris).
Vermaseren, M.J., 1977–89: Corpus cultus Cybelae Attidisque. (Leiden).
——, 1977: Cybele and Attis: The Myth and the Cult. (London).
Vernus, P., 1980: “Kultgenossenschaft,” LÄ 3: 484–450.
Vogt, J., 1924: Veröffentlichungen der Ernst von Sieglin Expedition in Āgypten. II. 2. Terrakotten.
(Leipzig).
Von Rohden, H. & Winnefeld, H., 1911: Architektonische römische Tonreliefs der Kaiserzeit. (Berlin).
Walker, S., 1990: Roman Sarcophagi in the British Museum. (London).
Waltzing, J.-P., 1895: Étude historique sur les corporations profesionelles chez les Romains depuis les
origines jusqu’à la chute de l’empire d’Occident. (Louvain).
Wankel, H., 1979: Die Inschriften von Ephesos. Ia. (Bonn).
Warren, L.B., 1970: “Roman Triumphs and Etruscan Kings: The Changing Face of the Triumph,” JRS
60: 49–66.
Weber, W., 1911: Drei Untersuchungen zur ägyptisch-griechischen Religion. (Heidelberg).
——, 1914: Die ägyptisch-griechischen Terrakotten. (Berlin).
Weege, F., 1913: “Das Goldene Haus des Nero,” JdI 28: 127–244.
Weinstock, S., 1957: “The Image and Chair of Germanicus,” JRS 47: 144–154.
Weitzmann, K., 1970: Illustrations in Roll and Codex. (Princeton).
xxvi bibliography of modern works

Wilcken, U., 1885: “Arsinoitische Tempelrechnungen aus dem J. 215 n. Chr.,” Hermes 20: 430–76.
Will, E., 1983: “La coupe de Césarée de Palestine au Musée du Louvre,” MonPiot 65: 1–24.
Wissowa, G., 1912: Religion und Kultus der Römer. (München).
——, 1923: “Lectisternia,” RE 12.1: 1108–1115.
Woodward, A., et al., eds., 1954: SEG 11 (Leiden).
Wörrle, M., 1988: Stadt und Fest im kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien. (München).
Wrede, H., 1991: “Matronen im Kult des Dionysos,” RM 98: 163–88.
Youtie, H., 1948: “The Kline of Serapis,” HTR 41: 9–29.
Zanker, P., 1969: “Der Larenalter im Belvedere des Vatikans,” RM 76: 205–18.
 Preface
Statuary stays put. Despite its general conformity
with much of a later Western tradition in sculp-
ture, this simple assertion rapidly falls apart from
the perspective of sculpture in antiquity. Liter-
ary texts occasionally report of statues moving
of their own volition: rotating or spitting blood.
But more common, yet distinct from such exer-
cises in religious imagination, are statues of gods,
which genuinely move, although requiring human
agency to do so, in fulfillment of their ceremonial
function. Divine sculptures were transported in
processions large or small, either carried by hand
or carted in vehicles, and presented for view or
temporarily installed in special venues where the
presence of the gods was ceremonially required.
Such sculptures designed for ceremonial purpose,
how they were handled and by whom constitute
the subject matter of this study.
These ceremonial statues are distinct from
the more familiar images of gods which function
in Roman religion. The cult statues of Roman
temples, like those of Greek, are a familiar genre
in art history. But as Roman religious practice is
external, in a sanctuary focused on the temple’s
altar, the temple interior is not primarily con-
figured to accommodate the principal religious
practice. A temple’s cult statue, therefore, could
only function to present the god in visual form
to fairly small groups, under specific conditions
of the temple interior and when the temple was
open to the public, or from the doorway for
somewhat larger groups. However, neither the
sanctuary with its altar, nor the sacrifice which
took place there encompasses the full range of
ceremony where the Romans could expect to
encounter their gods. All sorts of processions, as
well as banquets and throne ceremonies required
the presence of the gods, or their visual stand-
ins. A complete understanding of the practices
of Roman religion entails the divine apparatus
which is an essential element of those practices.
It cannot be assumed that all the statuary used
for ceremonial functions was designed for these
purposes exclusively, although much of it prob-
ably was, in order to address the peculiar needs
of the individual ceremony. The requirement to
be mobile, either for the images to be brought to
one locale or another, or for the manner of the
transportation itself, imposed special conditions.
The choices of size, weight and materials all
would have turned on the demands and nature of
the ceremony for which the statue was intended.
And the very act of being handled, with the inevi-
table wear and accidental damage, resulted in a
body of material which could not achieve the
same levels of permanency as was normal and
indeed carefully nurtured in cult statues.
A necessary condition for ceremonial statuary
is the human agency. This statuary does not func-
tion in a distinct space defined as sacred, as in
a temple precinct, and sanctity must be defined
instead by rules of decorum accorded the divine
images as they are handled. The moving of the
statuary in processions, but also their instal-
lation or presentation at the appointed venue
involved at each step the handling by mortals.
And a correlative element in this performance is
the spectators, who had their own part to play.
Either by regulation, or by tradition, all the play-
ers, those handling the images and those viewing
them, would have an expectation of behaviour,
and of course there would be the reality of how
they actually behaved, the two not at all times
coinciding.
Several distinct types of Roman divine statu-
ary are attested in textual sources (literature or
inscriptions) for use in ceremonies. It is possible,
then, to refine the focus of the study to these
specific types, as distinct from simply any repre-
sentation of a divinity which might appear in the
context of some ceremony (i.e., textiles, jewellery,
standards, etc.). The textual evidence identifies
xxviii preface
statuettes to be carried, large statues on litters,
capita deorum (heads of gods), and exuviae (sym-
bols). However, by themselves the texts provide
only a very fragmentary and limited view of these
statuary types; a more complete understanding
requires the correlation with the visual evidence,
consisting of a broad range of representations
which correspond to the types described in the
textual sources. As each of these types is distinct
in form and ceremonial application, each needs
to be considered independently and will there-
fore be the subject of an individual chapter.
While the texts and the religious practices they
correspond to have had a substantial presence in
scholarship, the first protracted attempt to bring
the visual evidence to bear was that by Lily Ross
Taylor in collaboration with A.L. Abaecherli in
the 1930’s, followed by I.B. Ryberg’s work in the
1950’s on images of religious practice in Roman
art. Each of these broadened the body of visual
evidence to be considered, but neither effort was
intended to address thoroughly the phenomenon
of the ceremonial sculptures themselves, and the
potential evidence to be considered has since
expanded greatly.
A second element in the historiography of cer-
emonial sculpture is the imperial cult, which has
attracted a great deal of attention in the scholar-
ship. D. Fishwick and T. Pekáry in particular have
addressed the mobile, imperial images employed
for ceremonies. The results of their work are
important evidence for the practice and conven-
tions of images of this type and, not surprisingly,
images of gods were also employed in the opera-
tion of the imperial cult. However, the evidence
for each of the types of ceremonial images of
gods pre-dates the establishment of the imperial
cult. It is inevitable, then, that an understanding
of these divine images should be a prerequisite
for a better understanding of how imperial cult
images functioned.
One additional contribution to the historiog-
raphy of this topic requires acknowledgement,
although confined to the specific subject of the
divine banquet. Two essays (Lederer, 1936 and
Castiglione, 1961) drew attention to the impor-
tance of a body of material from Egypt, terracotta
moneyboxes, reliefs and lamps, modest in work-
manship but important in understanding the
iconography of the divine banquet. These essays
dealt with material then in private collections
which no longer exist, one, the Lederer Collec-
tion, apparently being destroyed in the Second
World War. These contributions and the objects
they feature have dropped below the scholarly
radar, but deserve greater attention. Accordingly,
although the quality of the photographs accom-
panying these essays is not of the best, some are
reproduced here from the original publications.
No certain example of any of the types of cer-
emonial sculpture discussed here survives. It is
possible that among the large number of pre-
served statuettes there lurk examples which were
in fact carried in processions, but identification is
now beyond proof. The requirement of handling
and moving inevitably would limit the expected
lifetime of all sculptures with a ceremonial func-
tion. Additionally, the choice of materials for the
construction of such sculptures would not have
promoted survival. Without running ahead of
the presentation of evidence, one might assume
that the priority in construction was on consid-
erations of weight and visual spectacle rather
than durability. Finally, there is the constraint of
evidence for the ceremonial occasions in which
these divine images appeared. The ceremonies,
including processions, discussed here are lim-
ited to those for which there is evidence of the
employment of these types of statuary. While it
is possible that other ceremonies also employed
them, this remains in the arena of speculation
and cannot add to a knowledge of what these for-
mats of sculpture were and how they were used.
But despite these caveats, the understanding of
ceremonial sculptures constitutes an essential
element in a more complete picture of Roman
visual culture.
 Chapter One
Processional Statuettes
Romans used no specialized vocabulary to
describe statues meant to meet the mobility
requirements of processions. In the absence of a
formal terminology, the visual depictions of such
statuary, in conjunction with the evidence from
texts and inscriptions, are critical for identifying
the characteristics of the statues themselves and
how they were handled. For the sake of this dis-
cussion, a statue light and small enough, which is
borne along by a single person in any procession
where such objects are used will be described
as a hand-held statue. On the basis of inscrip-
tional evidence discussed below involving funds
to pay for silver used to construct such statues it
has been estimated that such hand-held statues
would be under a meter in height. In addition
to the precious metal in this instance, plaster is
also attested, but there is no reason to assume
the exclusion of any material as long as the limit
on weight was observed. The visual evidence
indicates that they also could be substantially
smaller than that, although such visual evidence
is inherently susceptible to distortion. The term
is intended to define them and examine them by
their ceremonial function; a statuette could well
fit the function, but might in other cases or on
other occasions be used fixed in place. Among
surviving statuettes, therefore, hand-held stat-
ues constructed for processional use cannot be
securely distinguished from those which func-
tioned for private devotion.
The evidence, both textual and visual, will be
discussed chronologically. Within such a frame-
work the evidence falls broadly into three groups.
The early imperial evidence is entirely visual rep-
resentations of hand-held statues. The second
and third centuries are represented by textual
evidence, but no visual comparanda survive. And
finally during the Late Empire the evidence is
again exclusively in the form of visual representa-
tions. The pattern of survival of visual and textual
evidence seems fortuitous, but it does allow for
groups of each type of evidence to be evaluated
against each other. Moreover, as the early visual
evidence is all from the city of Roma, it estab-
lishes a pattern for Roman practice against which
the later evidence can be assessed with respect
to foreign influence. An addendum provides a
consideration of Roman depictions of myths in
which a protagonist carries a small, divine image
as part of the story line. As fictional accounts
these should be kept distinct from depictions
of Roman ceremony, even fictive ones, but the
mythological depictions provide some perspec-
tive on how a Roman audience would have
imaged a small, divine image to be transported
and treated.
Precedents for hand-held statues are attested
from Greek sites. In particular, statues of high
antiquity, small or of lighter material might be
removable from their temples to serve in proces-
sions. Perhaps the best-known case is unfortu-
nately a false one: the famous olivewood statue
of Athena Polias at Athenai, the clothing of
which was removed, taken in procession to the
sea and there washed in the ritual of the Plyn-
teria. It has sometimes been assumed that the
statue itself was carried in this procession to the
sea, but more recent scholarship has re-asserted
that only the clothing made the trip (Deubner,
1956: 17–32; Herington, 1955: 29–30; Romano,
1980: 42–52; Robertson, 2004: 136–137). But also
attested for Athenai and more certainly with the
processional function is the statue of Dionysos of
Eleutherai, carried to the Akademeia at Athenai
(Pausanias i.29.2; Philostratos, bioi sophiston 2.1).
2 chapter one
Other, less well-known examples existed, as the
wood Dionysos (agalma [ἄγαλμα]) at Delos (Val-
lois, 1922). Archaeology occasionally confirms
such accounts, as for Ephesos where the evi-
dence for the early architecture in Artemis’ sanc-
tuary suggests that the early statue of the goddess
was small and configured to be removed from its
base, presumably to be carried in processions
or to appear at different places in the sanctuary
(Bammer, 1988; Bammer, 1993). There is even the
case from mythic history of the Palladium, the
statuette of Athena that was believed saved from
the sack of Troia and carried to a new home at
Roma, though there is nothing in the story to
connect the statue before or after its arrival at
Roma with processional use. But in general, and
in contrast to the Greek evidence, the Romans,
despite their belief in the antiquity of some of
their state rituals, record no traditions of temple
statues being carried about.
The sanctuary of Diana on the Aventine
according to legend was modeled after the sanc-
tuary at Ephesos, and its statue after the Ephe-
sian Artemis by way of the Artemis temple at
Massilia (Strabon iv.1.4–5). The transference of
the cult was achieved through the vehicle of a
transported statue, described as an aphidruma
(ἀφίδρυμα), a term whose meaning has been the
subject of debate, but which recent analysis has
established as referring to an object not necessar-
ily of sculptural format, but with the ritual func-
tion of transferring a cult (Brunel, 1953; Robert,
1965; Gras, 1987: 55–56; Charneux, 1992: 340–341;
Malkin, 1991; Nick, 2002: 24–25). In any case, no
evidence survives to indicate if the processional
function of the Ephesian statue was duplicated
in its Roman counterpart (Gros, 1987; Liou-Gille,
1992). Moreover, there are important distinctions
which suggest that Roman hand-held statues are
not directly connected with these Greek ante-
cedents. The Greek statues do not exist only, nor
perhaps even primarily, to be carried in proces-
sion; rather, the procession is but a part of the
statue’s religious operation. In the case of the
Athena Polias, the procession to wash its clothing
in the sea was an annual ritual, but only a limited
part of the statue’s ritual life. As the architectural
frame for protecting and displaying the statue at
Ephesos suggests, the processional use there was
but one specialized presentation of the divine
image to the public. At both Athenai and Ephe-
sos the display of the statue in a shrine or temple
was a prominent part of its religious history. The
procession may have been an early and critical
element in these specific images’ functions, but
it is not known to have been an element for all
cults; and it runs counter to the general devel-
opment of increasingly larger temple statues in
heavier materials, culminating in the colossal
chryselephantine statues of the fifth century BCE.
Moreover, Roman hand-held statues seem never
to have been temple or cult statues, but statues
configured specifically and exclusively for pro-
cessional use.
The absence of visual or textual evidence for
the early existence of hand-held statues in Roman
ceremonies leaves open the question of their first
appearance, but there is negative evidence in
the tradition espoused by some Roman sources
(Ploutarkhos, Nomas 8.8; Varro in Augustinus, de
civitate Dei iv.31) that early Roman religious prac-
tice did not employ anthropomorphic images
(Taylor, 1931). This tradition suggests an entirely
different context than the Greek, where an early
statue could function as the image in a shrine or
temple, while also being small and light enough
to be carried in procession.
The earliest evidence for a Roman, hand-held
statue is provided by Dio Cassius (xlvii.40.8) in
his descriptions of the events following on the
assassination of Caesar. Among the evil portents
that precede the confrontations between the
armies of Antonius, Octavianus, Cassius and Bru-
tus is that in the purification ceremony for Cas-
sius’ camp in Makedonia, when a boy carrying
an image of Victoria falls down (42 BCE). That
the setting here is Makedonia, would appear to
be simply coincidence, as Dio’s comment that
the Victoria in procession is one “such as sol-
diers hold” indicates that such a statuette was a
 processional statuettes 3
familiar feature of ceremonies in a military camp.
Dio gives no details as to why a boy has the task
of carrier in this case, and what his qualifications
were. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume
that the carrying of the Victoria was a job of some
prestige, but performed by someone of second-
ary rather than preeminent importance within
the celebrating group. In a lustration for a mili-
tary camp held in a foreign posting, one can see
a vestige of domestic, mobile images from which
the hand-held statue may have originated, but
with the distinction that by this time such images
have been promoted to public ceremonies involv-
ing larger groups. The concern for the visibility of
the small statue cannot then have been an abso-
lute, but only a consideration dynamically inter-
related to the spatial or architectural context
and the nature and disposition of the audience.
It should not be assumed, therefore, that hand-
held statues must necessarily have been confined
to small gatherings, and excluded from state cer-
emonies. The date of the event Dio describes is
also significant, as it demonstrates that some use
of the hand-held statue pre-dates the establish-
ment of the imperial cult, which, as will be seen,
also made use of this kind of divine imagery.
The circumstances around the definitive appear-
ance of hand-held statues in Roman art sug-
gest that, unlike their Greek antecedents, they
develop not in conjunction with the larger, state-
controlled rituals, but in local and even domes-
tic religious observances, where smaller statuary
would be a natural reflection of a smaller audi-
ence and more limited financial resources. Hand-
held statues as objects for specific ceremonial
function, rather than small statues designed for
shrines, first definitively appear in the art of the
Augustan period and continue through the Julio-
Claudian dynasty, with notable emphasis on stat-
uettes of Lares, protective divinities of the house
and wayfares (Niebling, 1956 1956: 303–31; Zanker,
1969: 205–18; Hano, 1986). As most examples are
in the context of or linked to the imperial cult,
it is apparent that this abrupt appearance of
Lares being employed as hand-held statues is in
response to Augustus’ reorganization of the cult
of these gods into the imperial cult.
Among the best known of this group are those
appearing on the reliefs attributed to an altar of
the Vicomagistri (fig. 1), although some doubt
has been voiced as to whether these do in fact
belong to an altar (Ryberg, 1955: 75–80; Bonanno,
1976: 48; Anderson, 1984). In a procession mov-
ing across two preserved slabs from left to right
is a group of four figures comprised of two who
hold statuettes of Lares, one who holds a statu-
ette of the emperor, and another who holds
some object which has now been broken away,
perhaps a scroll. These four are not the Vicom-
agistri for whom the reliefs are named today, the
magistri of the local cult of the Lares. These mag-
istri follow on after this group of four, and are
dressed in togas. The statuette carriers are con-
trasted with these by their garb, a simple tunic
in combination with a ricinium drawn up over
the head (Ryberg, 1955: 79–80.; Sebesta, 1994: 50
and n. 43). The identity of these statue carriers
has been of some interest to scholarship. Their
adolescent growth of beard along with their gen-
eralized Julio-Claudian coiffures caused Ryberg
to conclude that they are portraits of members
of that clan; but in a more recent consideration
Bonnano has argued more convincingly that the
conventionalized facial renderings indicate that
no such specific interpretation is possible. In
either case it is clear from the beards and the
absence of the adult togas that these are youths
who have not formally taken on the rôle of adult
citizens.
The holders of the statuettes are further distin-
guished from the rest of the processional company
by their poses, which, despite their participation
in the general processional movement from left
to right, are frontal. While these poses subvert
the processional action, they allow the three car-
riers of statuettes to present their charges with
sufficient deference to the visibility of the gods
for the viewer. Each statuette is held near the
torso of its carrier, from underneath in the left
hand. The right hand is raised near the side of
4 chapter one

Fig. 1. Altar of the Vicomagistri, detail, Vatican Museums. Photo: author

the statuette in a gesture which seems part pro-
tecting and part reverentially drawing attention
to the divine presence. It is particularly reveal-
ing that the one figure in the group of four who
does not carry a statuette is the one who does
not share these gestures, and in fact turns slightly
away from the frontal pose shared by the others,
back to the processional direction, thereby func-
tioning as a visual intermediary between the pro-
cession and the static group.
Many of these same elements repeat in another
example from the Julio-Claudian period, a frag-
ment belonging to a monument often, though not
without dissent, identified with the Ara Pietatis
Augusti (Torelli, 1982: 71; Koeppel, 1983: 106–07).
On the fragment in the Villa Medici (fig. 2) a sin-
gle Lar carrier is preserved, a boy again in a sim-
ple tunic with a ricinium, this time draped over
both shoulders rather than over the head. Again
he is posed frontally, holding the Lar before his
body from the underside in the left hand. And
again the empty right hand is raised along the
side of the statuette. The carrier for the second
Lar would have preceeded this one in the pro-
cession, in the lost section to the right, as paired
Lares tend to appear in reliefs and in painted ren-
derings, and indeed even in surviving examples,
with bilateral symmetry, the raised arms of the
gods normally falling on the outside of the set.
The Villa Medici fragment belongs with a series of
others as part of a monument depicting a proces-
sion whose specific occasion is disputed; but as in
the Vicomagistri reliefs, the Lares seem to occur
here in the broader context of the imperial cult.
 processional statuettes 5

Fig. 2. Procession relief, Villa Medici, Rome. Photo: DAI Rome

6 chapter one
The monument to which the Villa Medici relief
belongs is usually dated to the reign of Claudius,
so that along with the Vicomagistri reliefs they
represent the concern for the imperial cult in the
sculptural subjects of the Julio-Claudian dynasty.
Both reflect Augustus’ reorganization of the cult
of the Lares, and his linking of these protective
divinities with the emperor’s genius.
As the Lares were normally rendered in stat-
uette form it is not unlikely that the statues in
processions, at least for local processions like
that depicted on the Vicomagistri reliefs, were
simply statuettes of the gods pressed into pro-
cessional service. On both reliefs the pose and
relative scale of the depicted statuettes are what
one would expect of actual Lares statues (Car-
ratelli, 1990–95: VIII.5.37). However, the Lares
in the Vicomagistri procession stand on bases
which seem exceptionally tall and lack promi-
nent crown and base moldings. The Lar pre-
served on the Villa Medici relief, on the other
hand, has a base which appears more normative
in height, with clearly rendered moldings. As a
tall base would aid visibility away from the hand,
and conventional decorative moldings would be
inconvenient for carrying, the base as it appears
on the Lares of the Vicomagistri relief may reflect
the design for statues specifically intended for
carrying in procession.
The association of the Lares in these examples
with the imperial cult links them with a larger
group of reliefs, mostly altars, which appear in
response to Augustus’ reorganization of the cult
of the Lares and configuration of the imperial
cult. Some of these altars depict statuettes of
the Lares and provide additional evidence for
the conventions of the appearance and handling
of such statuettes. The Belvedere altar (fig. 3),
dedicated by the Senate and the people of Roma,
may commemorate the establishment of the new
cult. The scene on one of the short sides, involv-
ing statuettes of the Lares, has been the subject
of somewhat divergent interpretations by Ryberg
and Zanker (Ryberg, 1955: 57; Zanker, 1969; Hano,
1986: 2344–45, 2364–65). The scene is dominated
by a single large-scale figure that holds his right
arm, now broken away below the elbow, out
towards a group of three smaller figures who face
him from the other side of an altar. For Ryberg,
this large figure is the emperor Augustus. She
points to the similarity in dress between the
three smaller figures with the statue carriers of
the Vicomagistri relief, ungirt tunic, ricinium over
the head, and barefoot, to support her identifi-
cation of these three with the boys or camilli in
that procession. Two of the boys here hold up in
front of them in their extended right hands statu-
ettes of the Lares. Her identification of the three
here with the three carriers of the Vicomagistri
relief supports her interpretation of the action as
a presentation by the emperor of the Lares statu-
ettes to those camilli who will be responsible for
handling them in processions. The third ­camillus,
to the far left, would then be the one to carry
the statuette of the genius of the emperor; and
Ryberg proposes, not implausibly, that the statu-
ette of the genius was held in the emperor’s now
lost left hand, waiting to be presented.
In his reconsideration of the scene, Zanker
asks the very reasonable question whether minor
officiants like the carriers of the Lares would
likely be at the centre of the action on a state
sponsored monument. Zanker’s posing of the
question is of course rhetorical; he assumes the
negative answer in order to pursue his differing
interpretation. Rather than focusing on their age,
as Ryberg does, Zanker describes them by their
office. Thus the smaller scale of the holders of the
Lares indicates their subordinate status rather
than their younger age. They are, then, ministri,
the assistants to the magistri who are responsible
for the operation of the cult. Zanker therefore
identifies the large figure not as the emperor, but
as one of these magistri. As a magister, the large
figure must be engaged in some cult operation
rather than presenting the Lares to their han-
dlers. He proposes that instead of the recipro-
cal actions of presentation and reception, which
unify the ministri and the large figure in Ryberg’s
interpretation, the scene should be understood
 processional statuettes 7

Fig. 3. Belvedere altar, Vatican Museums. Photo: DAI Rome

8 chapter one
as two separate actions: the ministri holding their
Lares and the magister pouring a libation.
Accepting Zanker’s interpretation poses some
problems. The broken right arm of the large
figure is held horizontally, lacking the declina-
tion normally found in one pouring a liquid offer-
ing onto an altar. And restoring the arm with a
libation plate seems to result inevitably in a col-
lision of overlapping and confusingly unrelated
forms at the centre of the scene. The confluence
of gestures above the altar only makes narrative
sense if the statuette of the foremost Lar is being
passed from one side of the altar to the other.
Finally, the positions of the hands of the two
receiving ministri plead for the participation of
the large-scale figure. The base of the left Lar is
held from underneath, just as in the Vicomagistri
and Villa Medici reliefs, except that it is held here
by the right hand rather than the left. The Lar
to the right is also handled by the right hand of
its minister, but he seizes the base from the side,
rather than holding it in the palm from below.
This would be an entirely unnatural and unstable
way to hold such a statuette; but it would be rea-
sonable for the minister to receive the Lar from
the emperor by seizing the base from the side
before shifting it to the palm of the hand, as his
companion has already done. The same arrange-
ment of hands for presenting and receiving a
statuette can be seen on a medallion issued in
celebration of Lucilla’s marriage to Lucius Verus,
where a standing female figure hands a statuette
of the three Graces to a seated female (Toynbee,
1944: 97; Grueber, 1874: 17).
If Ryberg’s interpretation of the action depicted
is the more convincing, it still leaves open Zank-
er’s unaddressed issue of the status and respon-
sibility of those who carried the images of the
gods. The question requires further evidence for
satisfactory consideration, but the reliefs thus
far considered can suggest a pattern for the han-
dling of carrying statues. The Vicomagistri and
Villa Medici reliefs illustrate carrying statues held
near the torso, supported underneath in the left
hand with the right raised near the statue. The
Belvedere altar, on the other hand, has the carri-
ers holding the statues raised to shoulder height,
away from the body, and in the right hand. The
gestures may have the flavour of the inevitable, a
natural and straightforward result of the actions,
but the regularity in the appearance of these
gestures argues for their following a ceremonial
decorum. The distinction among the examples
thus far is determined by the nature of the action:
processions on the Vicomagistri and Villa Medici
reliefs, a presentation on the Belvedere altar. The
pattern is repeated on two further examples. On
a fragment in the Lateran (fig. 4), two youths,
again dressed in the simple tunic with the ricin-
ium cast over the shoulders, are in profile to
the right in front of a farther row of adult males
dressed in togas (LIMC VI, s.v. “Lar, Lares” no. 91;
Ryberg, 1955: 80). The Lar of one of these youths
is preserved on the fragment, but in contrast to
the processions already seen, here it is held in
the right hand, away from the torso, and raised to
shoulder height, that is, similar to the manner in
which the Lares are held on the Belvedere altar.
The subject of the fragment would be described
properly as the end of a procession, where the
Lares carriers now present their charges. The
specific moment at the procession’s end finds its
expression in the mood of hushed expectancy,
as well as the gesture of the togate figure at the
left edge who gently urges the Lar carrier forward
with a nudge to the upper arm of the camillus.
The object of this presentation may be an altar,
or a statue, either of a divinity or the emperor,
following the example of the Vicomagistri reliefs,
where the traces of a large throne appear as the
goal of the procession just where the preserved
section breaks off. The shared imagery of the Lat-
eran fragment and the Belvedere altar accords
with their being reciprocal aspects of the same
ceremonial: presenting and receiving of the stat-
ues, respectively.
All these examples involve the function of the
Lares in the imperial cult. The revival by Augus-
tus of the old Lares cult and its grafting onto
the new imperial cult clouds the source of the
 processional statuettes 9
Fig. 4. Procession relief with Lares, Vatican Museums. Photo: author
ceremonial patterns seen in the reliefs. As the
earliest evidence for hand-held statues, these
reliefs by themselves do not make clear what
elements of their handling continue established
traditions, and what are the products of the new
imperial cult. An altar, now in the Lateran col-
lection, dedicated to the censor C. Manlius by
his clients and again dated to the Julio-Claudian
period is of value for addressing this problem
because its reliefs concern themselves with the
domestic cult of the Lares, independent of the
imperial cult (Ryberg, 1955: 84–87; Torelli, 1982:
16–20; Hano, 1986: 2345–56). On one side of the
altar an enthroned female divinity perches atop
a rocky outcrop, separating two groups of figures,
three males at right and three females at left. At
the left margin one of the women holds out a Lar
in the same manner as on the Belvedere altar and
the Lateran procession relief, in the right hand,
away from the body, and at shoulder height. That
the statuette is so presented before an enthroned
divinity, the same situation toward which the car-
riers of the Vicomagistri reliefs move, and which
can be inferred for the scene of the Lateran pro-
cession relief, provides a consistent picture of
how these statuettes were handled in presenta-
tion ceremonies. Torelli’s explanation (1982: 18)
of the event depicted by the three women as
the applicatio in clientelam, in which the Lar of
the new client is transferred to the household
of the patron, emphasizes the domestic nature of
the act, where the statuette is presented by those
of secondary status within the family group, its
female representatives.
As the altar of Manlius is not dated before
Augustus’s grafting of the cult of the Lares onto
the imperial cult, there is the possibility that the
handling of the Lar depicted here is in fact a
contamination from the newly established con-
ventions of the imperial cult. In addition, the
high quality of the workmanship of the altar has
fostered the judgment that, although discovered
10 chapter one
at Caere, it was manufactured in Roma (Torelli,
1982: 16), making it hypothetically susceptible to
such contamination. Nevertheless, the focus on
the purely domestic manifestation of the cult on
the altar makes in balance the more likely expla-
nation that the manner depicted here of present-
ing a hand-held statue represents the conventions
already existent for the domestic Lares cult, and
possibly for hand-held statues generally, which
was subsequently adopted for the imperial cult.
No example comparable with the altar of Man-
lius exists to confirm that the conventions for
hand-held statues in procession as seen in the
Vicomagistri and Villa Medici reliefs antedate
the introduction of the imperial cult. Indeed the
evidence for the fictive rendering of Roman pro-
cessions from the Republican and early Imperial
periods is so dominated by those Julio-Claudian
examples connected with the imperial cult as to
make it particularly difficult to see through this
lens with confidence to what in these proces-
sions has been borrowed from existing conven-
tions, and what is newly invented. However, two
of the identified features of a hand-held statue in
procession, the placement of it in the left hand
and near the body, are not uncommon for the
carrying of ritual paraphernalia generally, as, for
example, among the women on the inner altar
frieze of the Ara Pacis. This may then be the
accepted manner for carrying all such objects,
with which hand-held statues would be kin.
An altar found in Rome and dedicated by a
group of named ministri of the collegium fabrum
tignariorum (figs. 5 and 6) is decorated with reliefs
which provide important further evidence for the
appearance of, and decorum towards hand-held
statues (Stuart Jones, 1912: 120–21; Ryberg, 1955:
87–88; Pearse, 1975: 100–23). On the basis of the
dedicatory inscription the altar has been dated
to the reign of Augustus or the Julio-Claudian
period generally, making it contemporary with
the various Lares reliefs. But unlike those, this
altar involves neither the Lares nor the impe-
rial cult, being dedicated rather to a cult of Min-
erva. The altar’s decoration includes two figural
panels, one of which illustrates a sacrifice at an
altar placed in front of a tall pedestal on which
stands a life-size statue of Minerva. Despite the
damage to the relief, which has obliterated the
lower half of the goddess’ image, the traces of her
helmet’s plume and her aegis are still visible. Her
left arm is raised in the manner that indicates she
held her spear in this hand. The right arm is low-
ered, and drops diagonally away from the body
at the elbow to an oval object held descended
from the right hand. The contours of that object
and the position of the arm suggest that the god-
dess pours a libation, an act whose piety would
account for her holding her spear peacefully in
the left hand. The pouring of a libation would
also serve to emphasize the piety of the officiant
on the right side of the scene who performs this
same act above the altar in front of Minerva’s
statue. The image of Minerva is also notewor-
thy for her dress. Sleeves seem to cover the arms
down to the elbows. These sleeves could corre-
spond to a khiton worn underneath Minerva’s
usual peplos, or simply the lateral extensions of
an ample peplos alone (Ridgway, 1977: 90–91).
The details of the statue of Minerva are
repeated on the other figural panel of the altar
(fig. 5) which depicts a large-scale figure in a toga
handing to a group of figures a small image of
the goddess. The scene might be read either as
commemorating specifically the presentation
of a hand-held statue of Minerva to the group
depicted, or more generally the providing by the
togate figure to the group, for its sacrificial duties,
the large cult statue of Minerva which dominates
the scene on the other side. In either case, the
scale of the statue is adjusted for the context,
enlarged if actually a hand-held statue, dimin-
ished if standing for the life-size cult statue. But
the subject matter of the presentation of a cult
statue is without parallel, and it is questionable
whether this could be satisfactorily expressed by a
group of figures literally taking hold of the statue.
On the other hand, the evidence, both visual and
textual, for the treatment of hand-held statues,
as well as the internal evidence of the altar for
 processional statuettes 11

Fig. 5. Altar of the collegium fabrum tignariorum, Museo Capitolino. Photo: Ryberg 1955
12 chapter one
the identity of the figures depicted, supports the
reading of this as another hand-held statue. The
consistency between the handling of the statu-
ette of Minerva and the handling of Lares, real
statues of which exist only in this small format,
is a part of the visual evidence. The scene closely
parallels the presentation on the Belvedere altar
(fig. 3). Allowing for the difference that the Bel-
vedere altar involves the presentation of two
statues, where the altar of the ministri involves
only one, the gestures of presenting and receiv-
ing are quite close. And as there is on the altar of
the ministri no depicted altar between the large
togate figure presenting the statuette and the
group of smaller figures receiving it, there is no
possibility here of misinterpreting the action of
exchange for some action of sacrifice.
The side panels of the altar of the ministri
depict a selection of priestly accoutrements and
woodworking tools, so that the altar has long
been thought to be the dedication by members of
a guild of woodworkers, the collegium fabrum tig-
nariorum. The inference has been strengthened
by the discovery that four magistri, those whose
names survive of the six in the altar’s inscription
as being the masters of those slaves who func-
tioned as ministri and who dedicated the altar
during the college’s second lustrum, are also
named in other surviving records of that guild as
serving as magistri in that same lustrum (Pearse,
1975). The selection of the goddess Minerva, as
the patroness of craft workers, is a natural choice
for such a professional association (Pearse, 1975:
114), especially as she appears here with her mili-
tary aspect subdued, her spear moved to the left
hand, and her shield (apparently) omitted. On
the sacrificial scene (fig. 6) there is the trace of a
horizontal form projecting from behind Minerva’s
right thigh. Conceivably this might be the edge of
Minerva’s shield, but the damage precludes a cer-
tain determination. The remaining contour does
not match the curve of a shield, and seems to be
in too high a position. In any case, the statuette
being presented on the other side of the altar
clearly has no shield.
That the altar seems to identify this guild with
a specific type of Minerva has interested scholars
with identifying that type. Ryberg had thought
she resembled Minerva as she appears on coins
of the emperor Claudius (Ryberg, 1955: 88; Mat-
tingly, 1923–50: I, pl. 35, 4). However, the Minerva
on those coins brandishes her spear, making her
a distinct departure from the more pacific type
on the altar. Ryberg’s identification was driven by
her dating of the altar on the basis of formal evi-
dence to the later Julio-Claudian period, and she
therefore focused her search in that area. A more
promising comparison is made by Schürmann
to a relief, thought to come from a large altar,
illustrating a carpentry workshop (fig. 7). Here,
among the workmen, appears their patron god-
dess. Damage to the relief has resulted in the loss
of her head and both lower arms, but the remain-
der of the figure conforms to the Minerva on the
altar of the ministri: left arm held out at shoulder
height as if supported on a spear, the right arm
lowered apparently holding some object away
from the body. The same type would seem to be
repeated in a fragmentary statuette in Dresden,
which sports a double hemmed garment much
like the Minerva of the workshop altar, and has
been judged an eclectic creation of the Augustan
period (Schürmann, 1985: 60). A further exam-
ple which should be considered in the context
of images of Minerva connected with a carpen-
try workshop is the depiction of a shipwright’s
shop depicted on a gold-glass medallion, Vatican
Museo Sacro 345 (Morey, 1959: 23).
Schürmann has further compared the Minerva
of the workshop altar relief to the statue in the
temple of Minerva on the Aventine. The statue of
that temple, if correctly identified on coins, did
hold the spear peaceably in the left hand. But
the right hand held an owl, so that the right arm
is best held directly away from the body, with
an object which sits atop the hand. The altar of
the ministri, preserving the best evidence for the
position of the right arm of the college’s god-
dess, shows the right arm as held in a distinctly
declined position, with the object descending
 processional statuettes 13

Fig. 6. Altar of the collegium fabrum tignariorum, Museo Capitolino. Photo: author
14 chapter one
Fig. 7. Minerva workshop relief, Museo Capitolino. Photo: author
from the hand. Moreover, the temple of Minerva
on the Aventine seems to have been closely asso-
ciated with playwrights and poets, perhaps even
the collegium poetarum itself, rather than with
craft workers. The textual evidence is not clear-
cut, but the craft workers would seem to have
worshipped their patroness instead at the temple
of Minerva Capta near the Caelian (Richardson,
1992: s.v. “Minerva”, “Aedes” and “Minerva Capta”;
Waltzing, 1895: I, 199). More importantly, it is not
necessary to seek the type of Minerva on the
reliefs in question among those of some major
state cult. There was a multitude of more modest
cults around the city about which little detailed
information has survived, either of the image or
the special worshippers. The small gatherings of
participants in both the presentation and sacri-
fice scenes on the altar of the ministri accord well
with a modest, localized cult.
The workshop relief discussed by Schürmann
was recovered from the same area in Rome
between the Capitoline and the Tiber in which
other material connected with the collegium fab-
rum tignariorum has been found, suggesting that
the headquarters of the association was located
somewhere in this area. The scale of the altar to
which this relief belonged is sufficient to indicate
that it represented some guild dedication (Schür-
mann, 1985: 59), in contrast with the more modest
altar dedicated by the six ministri. The exact prov-
enance of the altar of the ministri is not known; but
its earliest recorded location is in a church in this
same area, strengthening its association with the
guild and the workshop relief (Colini, 1947: 26).
The workshop relief has been dated to the
Flavian period (Colini, 1947: 21–28); the altar
of the ministri is dated by its inscription to the
second lustrum of the guild, placing it between
2 BCE and 3 CE, subsequent to Augustus’ general
reorganization of the colleges in 7 BCE (Pearse,
1975; Royden, 1988: 130–34). The appearance of
the same statue of Minerva on the workshop
relief and as the object of worship by the guild
on the ministri altar demonstrates that the hand-
held statue which appears in the presentation
scene on the ministri altar in that it duplicates
the Minerva statue is the Roman equivalent of
what is known from Greek inscriptions as an
apeikonisma (ἀπεικόνισμα), or type-statue, one
which reproduces the iconography of the prin-
cipal, fixed image of the divinity, but serves to
stand in for it on other ceremonial occasions, like
processions. The image on the altar would con-
stitute a rare illustration of a type-statue, while
the text of the Salutaris endowment at Ephesos,
discussed below, demonstrates that the Romans
 processional statuettes 15
were familiar with this kind of image. As the term
only requires the visual reproduction of the prin-
cipal statue, all type-statues are not necessarily
hand-held statues, and conversely, all hand-held
statues are not necessarily type-statues. Thus the
statue of Hephaistos carried on a litter by four
men appearing on coins of Magnesia-on-the-
Maiandros, which duplicates the principal image
of Hephaistos on other coins of the city, may also
be called a type-statue, although it is clearly of
a much larger format than a small, hand-held
statue (Malten, 1912: 240–42). For type-statues,
the iconographic duplication of the principal
statue and the mobility are the defining charac-
teristics; for the hand-held statue the limitation
of scale small enough for one person to carry is
the defining characteristic.
As the appearance of the type-statue on the
ministri altar presupposes the prior existence of
the principal image of Minerva, the presentation
scene must therefore follow after the establish-
ment of the cult and its image, seen in operation
on the opposite side. For Ryberg the act of hand-
ing over the hand-held statue was an inaugura-
tion of the six ministri by the pontifex maximus,
who at the probable date of the altar would be
Augustus. But the epigraphic evidence for the
guild indicates that the ministri who dedicated
the altar were slaves of the six magistri of that
guild, and it seems doubtful that the emperor in
actuality or in representation would be shown
concerning himself with the affairs of slaves.
Moreover, Augustus, like Julius Caesar before him,
was deeply mistrustful of trade guilds, which he
regarded as often little more than criminal orga-
nizations, and took steps to abolish all of them
which were not of high antiquity and pursuing
legitimate business (Suetonius, Augustus 32). In
this context, the scene of sacrifice on the altar
should be seen as a demonstration of the guild’s
pious concern with the needs of their goddess, a
quality sure to appeal to Augustus. Similarly, the
presentation of the hand-held statue should also
be seen as an appeal for the guild’s value, in this
case based on age and legitimacy.
Ryberg identified the large togate figure on
the right of the scene as Augustus because she
could see in the broken profile of the head no
indication of a beard. Stuart Jones had detected
such a beard and therefore concluded that the
figure must be King Numa. In fact the traces of
the broken head seem indecisive on this point,
and allow for either interpretation. But while Stu-
art Jones’s identification of the scene as the pre-
sentation of the Palladium to a group of vestals
no longer seems compelling, the identification
of King Numa deserves serious consideration.
Neither the presentation scene nor the sacrifice
scene matches the contemporary structure of the
guild. The condition of the reliefs is simply too
poor to count up in the officiants in the sacrifice
scene the six magistri, who presumably carried
out sacrifices on behalf of the guild in the imperial
period, and likewise six ministri seems too many
for the group who receive the statuette.1 But if the
events depicted are understood as occurring in
the past, these variations are of no consequence.
Both Ploutarkhos in his Life of Numa and Plinius
(naturalis historia xxxiv.1 and xxxv.159) record a
tradition that it was Numa who first set up the
workers of Rome in collegia for the social benefit
of the city (Gabba, 1984: 81–86; Richard, 1978).
Thus the scene of Numa presenting a carrying
statue of Minerva to the ministri of the carpen-
try guild would assert the antiquity of that guild,
both appealing to Augustan policy on allowing
only long established guilds to continue, as well
as underscoring the guild’s association with the
revered king who was a model for Augustan pre-
occupation with religious and social reform.
The conspicuous rôle of ministri in the presen-
tation scene is particularly valuable for indicat-
ing the social status of those who carry the divine
statuettes. That the altar is dedicated by the min-
istri of the guild rather than the magistri seems
1 I am indebted to the Museo Capitolino for permis-
sion to examine the altar at firsthand, although I cannot
account for more than four figures.
16 chapter one
a departure from the usual practice revealed in
epigraphical evidence. Inscriptions from Min­
turnae, Capua and Delos provide a picture of the
magistri of a cult being responsible for, among
other duties, the business of making such dedi-
cations (Johnson, 1933: 118, n.23; Royden, 1988:
128–34; van Nijf, 1997: 73–128; Münzen, 1935;
Flambard 1982). As dedicators of the altar in
Roma, the ministri are featured in the unusual
presentation scene on one of the altar’s princi-
pal faces. Since these ministri are shown receiv-
ing the statuette it seems reasonable to conclude
that it is also their responsibility to handle the
statuette in its ceremonial appearance during
procession. The absence of the statuette from
the actual scene of sacrifice on the opposite side
of the altar indicates that such hand-held statues
played no rôle during the culminating act, being
rendered superfluous by the presence of the full-
scale image of the goddess.
These ministri clearly take pride in their cer-
emonial responsibility, in choosing their rôle as
tenders of the hand-held statue to decorate their
dedication. The altar thus defines by its imagery
those who tend to the hand-held statue as sub-
ordinate officiants in the operation of the cult.
In this case, the divinity involved is a major one,
even if in the context of a local cult, but the same
hierarchy for those who carry the statues seem
to hold elsewhere. In the images from Roma of
those carrying the Lares in conjunction with
the imperial cult, the carriers are boys as their
scale and dress indicates, though of aristocratic
rank, perhaps of the imperial household itself.
The altar of Manlius suggests a commensurate
situation for domestic cults of the Lares; here it
is the wife of the client who holds the Lar. The
consistency of this relationship answers Zanker’s
concern with the identification of characters in
the presentation scene on the Belvedere altar
(fig. 3). Ryberg would be correct here in her inter-
pretation of the large togate figure as Augustus,
accompanied by the magistri of the cult, as he
presents to the ministri, dressed exactly as the
statue carriers on the Vicomagistri altar, their
charges. The critical defining feature is that it is
the imperial cult which is the focus. Emperors
did take a direct interest in the statuary of the
imperial cult, as a letter from Claudius to the citi-
zens of Alexandreia indicates (Bell, 1924: 5–8, 32;
Smallwood, 1967: 99–102). And Augustus himself
took pride in his providing of statuary for local
cults (Suetonius, Augustus 57).
From the end of the Julio-Claudian period,
another visual example of a hand-held statue
survives, but in somewhat mitigated form. The
paintings adorning the room called the Volta
Dorata in the Domus Aurea of Nero are known
through various descriptions and in drawings
masterfully gathered by F. Weege (Weege, 1913),
but the almost complete loss of the originals
raises the possibility that some details may have
been misunderstood in the descriptions or the
copies. A painting, apparently from one of the
walls, is known from a rendering in the sketch-
book of the sixteenth-century Dutch artist, Fran-
ceso d’Olanda (fig. 8), with corroboration by
eighteenth-century descriptions. It cannot be
certain that the painting in question was copied
by Franceso in its entirety. Weege (1913: 179–80)
identified the subject as the Eleusinian mysteries,
but without substantial comment.
The painting presents an evenly distributed
assortment of figures across the foreground
space, the scene pervaded with a sense of expec-
tancy. Few figures interact with others, and then
only in pairs; the remainder, in their spatial and
emotional isolation, seem unaware of anyone
else around them. Two figures are rendered on
smaller scales than those in the foreground, as
if in deeper space approaching the gathering.
At the right side of the painting the ground line
drops and two figures are only half emerged from
the ground, as if climbing up to join the figures
in the foreground from some lower level.
The preserved elements are consistent with
a gathering for the mountaintop thiasos of
Dionysos (Wrede, 1991: 180). Wrede has pointed
 processional statuettes 17
Fig. 8. Volta Dorata, Domus Aurea. Photo: Weege 1913
to the dress of some women as consistent with
a Dionysian subject. But details may have been
misinterpreted by the copyist: the male at right
with the long pole originally may have carried a
thyrsos, and the cone-shaped object in the liknon
held by two women nearby may have been the
veiled phallus. Nevertheless, there are sufficient
iconographic points to make the identification
with a Dionysian thiasos persuasive: the shallow
liknon, the basket carried by a woman on her
head, the high boots worn by the figure muffled
in a heavy cloak, and the two figures with their
heads veiled. And finally there is, held aloft by
one of the woman, a statuette of a bearded male
god wearing a mantle and an ivy crown, and
holding a staff which may well be a thyrsos, in
short, a statue of the god Liber or Dionysos. The
god’s statuette is on a larger scale than is typi-
cal for Lares, but similar in scale to the Minerva
on the altar of the ministri. The gathering is set
against an intensely dark background, suggesting
a nocturnal event. However, the figures also cast
long shadows from a light source to the right.
The likely explanation of these conditions is that
the time is sunrise or sunset, consistent with an
eighteenth-century report that the background
was red (Weege, 1913: 179). As the identifiable
actions of the characters indicate a time of prep-
aration, sunset is the better choice as the adher-
ents of the god gather for their nighttime revels
(Livius xxxix.13.8–14). The suggestion of some of
the participants arriving to some high ground
corresponds to the localization of such revels in
the mountains.
The presence of Dionysian imagery in a scene
of the Eleusinian Mysteries, the subject sug-
gested by Weege, would not be surprising; but
the absence of any clearly Eleusinian visual ref-
erence (unless one assumes that the figure on
the right holding a long pole in Franceso’s copy
is actually holding a torch) and the presence of a
statue of Dionysos, while no other, more clearly
Eleusinian divinity is present, makes identifica-
tion of the scene as a Dionysian thiasos the bet-
ter choice. Similarly, the presence of the winged
figure of Victoria is consistent with the triumphal
motif of the Dionysian thiasos, but seemingly
out of place in the celebration of the Eleusin-
ian Mysteries. Consideration of the selection of
subject for its site, Nero’s new palace, also gives
the nod to the Dionysian identification. Mae-
nadic rites were performed by some in the impe-
rial household, though perhaps not to its better
external repute (Tacitus, Annales. ix.31). On the
other hand Nero himself, when visiting Athenai,
avoided the Eleusinian Mysteries because fearful
that his culpability in the murder of Agrippina
would cause him to be turned away from initia-
tion (Suetonius, Nero 34). Clinton has argued that
Suetonius here is indulging in rumour monger-
ing, and the real reason for Nero’s decision not
to attend is unknown (Clinton, 1989: 1514). But
18 chapter one
whether Nero’s attitude toward the Eleusinian
Mysteries was fear, antipathy or apathy, the sub-
ject does not present itself as the most likely one
for decorating his palace.
The collection of participants depicted in the
painting is consistent with a contemporary thia-
sos rather than a mythological one: none of those
present can be identified as a mythological figure.
There is a winged figure, dressed in a peplos and
holding a staff, but the scale and proportions of
the figure make clear that this is a child dressed
as Victoria rather than the goddess herself, and
Victoria apparently could be personified by a boy
(Obsequens, de prodigiis 70). The participation
of both women and men is also characteristic of
the Dionysian thiasos as performed during the
Roman period (Henrichs, 1978: 155–60). A similar
mixture of female and male worshippers of Dio-
nysos is cataloged in an inscription on a statue
base of the middle of the second century from
Torre Nova (Cumont, 1933). While the inscrip-
tion and the painting are not simply textual and
visual correlates of each other, the inscription
does underscore the Dionysian character of the
painting. It catalogues the members of the Dio-
nysian community according to their responsibil-
ities. Individuals are specified as responsible for
carrying the basket, and the liknon, tasks which
also appear in the painting. And the text helps
explain aspects of the painting that might oth-
erwise perplex. For example, at the extreme left
of the painting a figure with a mantle drawn up
over his (?) head sits with a child on his lap. Two
names are given in the Torre Nova inscription
described as amphithaleis (ἀμφιθαλεῖς). Cumont
identifies these two as the ministers of the chil-
dren used by the college for prophesy (Cumont,
1933: 230). The visual evidence of the Domus
Aurea painting for such child prophets is of
importance as it corroborates their presence in
Dionysian worship, a presence not known before
Cumont’s publication of the Torre Nova inscrip-
tion. Also of particular interest in the painting is
the manner of the woman holding the statuette
of the god. She stands still, with legs together and
holds the statue away from the body and ele-
vated in her right hand, matching the previously
discussed visual examples for displaying or pre-
senting the hand-held statue, rather than walking
with it. The darker tone given the statue in the
copy suggests that in the original painting it was
depicted as of bronze or gold. If the copy is accu-
rate, the original painting may exaggerate the
statuette for visibility: it is shown as if just under
half life-size, but attached to a tiny base, and is
supported on the fingertips by the bearer. The
prevailing isolation of the figures in the painting
makes it unclear if the woman is presenting the
statuette to one of her companions, or holding it
aloft for the benefit of the viewer. But clearly a
procession has not yet begun.
In its catalogue of the members of the com-
munity, the Torre Nova inscription lists two men
described as theophoroi (θεοφόροι). Cumont argues
that in this context the term should be understood
as meaning carriers of the god, and he concludes
that these two must have carried the image of the
god on a litter during the thiasos (Cumont, 1933:
244). The visual evidence for statues on litters,
to be discussed below, raises problems with this
interpretation. No representation of a statue on a
litter is rendered with two carriers, and the prac-
tical problems of such an arrangement indicate
that this is not the chance of preservation. The
lifting and carrying of a litter by only two people
seems like an awkward proposition for the small
advantage of a somewhat larger statue than what
an individual could carry alone by hand. A litter
carried by two people could only be as wide as
an individual’s shoulders. A litter of such narrow
dimension would not be able to accommodate
very substantial statues. It is for this reason that
statues carried on litters in paintings and relief
sculptures regularly involve four carriers or more.
And each of the hypothetical two litter bearers
would have had the awkward task of raising
two poles up over his head and onto his shoul-
der simultaneously, while his comrade did the
same. Symbols, rather than statues, of gods are
sometimes carried by two figures on litters held
 processional statuettes 19
on lowered arms, as on the arch of Traianus in
Benevento and the Casa delle Nozze d’Ercole in
Pompeii, discussed below in Chapter 4.
A more compelling explanation for the theo-
phoroi of the Torre Nova inscription which is also
consistent with the substantial visual evidence
is that these two individuals are responsible for
hand-held statues rather than a litter, much as
the figure in the Domus Aurea painting. That the
inscription names two theophoroi might indicate
that these two alternately fulfilled the responsi-
bility, or it could indicate the carrying of two stat-
ues, a phenomenon paralleled by the nine statues
of Artemis for carrying in procession specified by
endowment of Gaius Vibius Salutaris at Ephesos
in 103/04 CE (Rogers, 1991, and Gebhard, 1996:
121–23; see Appendix, no. 2). Further consistent
with the identification of the theophoroi at Torre
Nova as carriers of hand-held statues is their rela-
tive status within the community. They are listed
immediately after the highest officials of that
community, the first among the various carriers
of things. They occupy, then, a position similar
to that of the carriers of hand-held statues in
the visual depictions, a position of prestige, but
beneath that of those of the highest status within
the group. Similarly, the carriers of the hand-held
statues of Artemis at Ephesos are ephebes, chil-
dren of an important segment of society, but not
yet themselves fully of that high echelon. It is
significant that Salutaris’ endowment specifies
that the ephebes are only released from their
responsibility for the processional statues after
the procession finishes and the assemblies have
been dismissed (ll.207–09; Rogers, 1991: 162–63;
see Appendix, no. 2). As will become apparent
with the discussion of litters, those who carry lit-
ters have a much different status.
The representations of hand-held statues from
the Early Empire discussed thus far are of par-
ticular importance in that they are all from the
city of Roma, confirming that whatever were the
influences on the development of this genre, by
the first century CE it was fully integrated into a
number of ceremonies, not limited to being an
ancillary element in the new imperial cult, but
also appearing in ceremonial activity of various
societal groups, like trade guilds (altar of the
collegium fabrum tignariorum), religious guilds
(Domus Aurea) and the army (Dio). The final
examples of representations of statues carried by
single individuals are also from Roma, but reflect
the adoption there of Egyptian cults, and there-
fore raise the issue of the importation of Egyptian
religious practices and paraphernalia.
The influence of Egyptian ceremonial tradi-
tions on Roma is a function of the import of Egyp-
tian cults, a practice seen throughout Italy (Tram
tan Tinh, 1964), but in Roma linked particularly
to the promotion of the sanctuary of Isis and
Sarapis under the Flavians (Tram tan Tinh, 1996).
The columns from the Iseum, in their monolithic,
unfluted design and granite fabric being recol-
lections of Egyptian architecture, are decorated
with figures standing on small pedestals, and
carrying a variety of ceremonial paraphernalia.
Two figures among them hold statuettes of Har-
pokrates (Lembke, 1994: 43–44, 186–8). Also from
the Iseum is a votive of a kneeling figure hold-
ing a shrine with an image of a goddess inside
(Lembke, 1994: pl. 38.1).
The situation for understanding the Egyptian
influence is complicated by the Hellenisation of
that state prior to the arrival of the Romans, and
the policy of the Ptolemies of preserving and pro-
moting the indigenous traditions, while featuring
their own participation. For Egyptian religion,
the peripatetic temple statue is the rule. Reliefs
depicting the bringing forth of the divine image
on a bark, carried along on a litter by a contingent
of priests are familiar from temple decoration
(Helck, 1980; Lorton, 1999). But there also appear
on temple reliefs what seem to be statues carried
by hand. The difficulty with interpreting these
images is to determine whether the depiction is
to be taken literally, or as a visual expression for
the offering of a statue. A written description of a
procession involving a statue of Senwosret III in
ivory and one of Senwosret II in ebony suggests
by virtue of the materials of which the statues are
20 chapter one
constructed that they were small enough to be
held by single carriers, providing some evidence
for the existence of this type of statue (Quirke,
1997: 31). A room in the Festival Temple of Thut-
mose III at Karnak is decorated with a register
of priests holding statues of the king shown as
small figures on bases. The accompanying texts
identify the subject as a procession of statues of
the king. It is just possible to maintain that in
this and other similar scenes, the statues corre-
spond to much larger statues brought in proces-
sion accompanied by priests, rather than carried
by them. But the transport of such larger statues
does appear in more descriptive fashion in Egyp-
tian art (Vandier, 1964: 620–24). Moreover, the
register below the procession of statue-bearing
priests depicts temple staff carrying vases, so that
reading a consistent scale between the carrier
and the object carried is the simplest interpreta-
tion of the procession (Fisher, 1956: 34–35; Fisher,
1957: 36–38; Porter and Moss, 1972: 123). While for
Egyptian art there has not been a comprehensive
study of temple and processional statuary, the
prevailing scholarly opinion is that priests might
carry in procession, in addition to the god’s image
in a bark on a litter, smaller statues comparable
to their Roman and Greek counterparts.
For the examples from the Iseum in Roma, the
figures responsible for carrying the small images
of gods are identifiable as priests, thus in marked
contrast to the examples of figures with hand-
held statues in depictions of Roman ceremonies.
By their dress and shaved heads, the figures on
the columns of the Iseum holding Harpokrates
are identifiable as priests. From the kneeling
votive figure, the head is missing, but the hiero-
glyphic text identifies him with an Egyptian
name, Wahibre, and describes his office as priest
of the goddess, Neith. And like Wahibre’s name,
the iconography of a votive statue of a priest hold-
ing a shrine is entirely Egyptian. These examples
suggest that Egyptian practice, even imported
to Roma, continues to adhere to its idiosyn-
cratic form (Dunand, 1979: 93–94, 260–63). With
respect to hand-held statues, this departs from
Roman practice discussed most strikingly in the
status of the individual on whom is conferred
the honour of carrying the god’s image. Even in
Roma, this continues to fall in the Egyptian man-
ner to a priest.
After the Julio-Claudian period there is a
dearth of surviving visual examples of hand-held
statues until the Late Empire. For the interven-
ing time there survives a body of texts bearing on
Roman ceremony, which may provide evidence
for hand-held statues if it were possible to deter-
mine the specific kinds of objects to which these
texts refer. Towards this end, it is useful at this
point to consider the general patterns of devel-
opment that the visual evidence seems to reveal.
The general observation that the large category
of hand-held statue includes the more familiar
Lares is reinforced both by the identical notions
of decorum in their handling in visual depic-
tions, and by the contemporary occurrence of
representations of the Lares and hand-held stat-
ues of other divinities during the Julio-Claudian
period. For the Lares, this visual interest is linked
to Augustus’ reorganization of the Lares cult, and
the development of the cult of the emperor. Simi-
larly, the depiction of a statuette in the hands of
ministri of the collegium fabrum tignariorum may
well reflect Augustus’ reorganization of the col-
leges, as well as his concern for urban cults, at
least those in Roma.
Due to the relatively late date of the evidence
for hand-held statues in Roman ceremony, expla-
nation of their origin can only be hypothetical.
The small scale would seem to make them espe-
cially well-suited to more intimate ceremonies
where that scale would not be a disadvantage for
visibility. And it is easy to imagine that the inti-
mate relationship between the divinity and the
bearer make statues of this type a natural expres-
sion of personal or household divinities. The car-
rying of images in procession adds a larger and
more public element, for which there are the
parallel cases of two venerable Roman ceremo-
nies, the funeral and the triumphal processions;
and the carrying of funeral masks by members of
 processional statuettes 21
the deceased’s family in both funeral processions
and at public sacrifices (Polybios vi.53) even pro-
vides examples of group status being connected
with those allowed to bear single images, similar
to the pattern in representations of hand-held
statues. However, there is no evidence to con-
firm that hand-held statues were ever a part of
either of these ceremonies. The use of multiple
hand-held statues of the same divinity in large
scale, public processions, as that established in
the Salutaris endowment at Ephesos, hints at a
device originally of domestic or local orientation
being adapted to a much larger context. Alter-
natively, the tradition of hand-held statues may
have been a borrowing from Greek ceremony, but
in the absence of a full study of Greek ceremonial
paraphernalia no conclusion on this point is pos-
sible. However, the extravagant range of carried
objects in the procession of Ptolemaios Philadel-
phos is sufficient warning against assuming non-
existence from the absence of physical evidence
(Rice, 1983). One of the striking features of the
body of texts bearing on hand-held statues from
the second, third and fourth centuries CE is that
many are from the Greek East, involve large state
ceremonies blending Greek and Roman content,
and often use specialized Greek terminology.
Apparently by that time, such images were a
familiar feature, at least of these hybrid ceremo-
nies; but the link to the East does suggest a strong
Greek element in the adoption of the hand-held
statue among the Romans.
The Salutaris endowment of 103/04 CE at
Ephesos, already referred to, adds to the infor-
mation from the visual evidence of the Julio-
Claudian period a substantive picture of the
functioning of the hand-held statue within speci-
fied social, architectural and sculptural contexts.
In this case, the statuettes are set firmly within
state ceremony, as the endowment calls for the
inclusion of statuettes of the emperor Traianus,
and various institutions of the community, as
well as the nine representations of the city’s
patron goddess. To the city’s ephebes went the
responsibility of carrying the statues (Rogers, 1991:
58–60; Price, 1984: 170–206; see Appendix, no. 2).
The procession began at the Artemision, where
the statues would be stored, and wound through
the city along a route featuring various important
architectural spaces culminating at the theatre,
where the statuettes were installed on provided
bases. Subsequently, the statuettes would have
continued in procession through the city, return-
ing finally to the Artemision (Rogers, 1991: 80–135;
Gebhard, 1996: 121–23). Some of the bases for the
statuettes have been recovered from excavations
of the theatre (Wankel, 1979: nos. 28–37). Bases
for statues were also part of a sacrarium for the
imperial cult in the theatre at Mérida (Trillmich,
1989–90). As no larger visual elements are indi-
cated as participating in the Ephesos procession,
the visual impact would be achieved by the num-
ber and splendour of the statuettes, specified in
silver or gilded silver, and likewise the splendour
of their carriers.
In addition to the route, the identity of the car-
riers, and the material of the statuettes at Ephe-
sos, the shear abundance of the statuettes (and
their carriers) must have contributed to the visual
effect, the endowment here calling for the man-
ufacture of nine statues of Artemis alone. The
specific form of the statuettes also played a rôle
in shaping the community’s sense of itself, both
those represented in the procession and those in
the audience. The nine statuettes of Artemis, as
distinct from the other statuettes provided for
in the endowment, are specified as apeikonis-
mata, “type-statues.” That such statues are repro-
ductions of some other, well-known statue, is a
point emphasized in the endowment where it
specifies that one of the type-statues should fol-
low the design of the statue of Artemis the torch-
bearer in the exedra of the ephebes (ll.168–69),
an apt visual allusion, as the honour of carrying
the statuettes would fall to these ephebes. So
far as the preserved text reveals, the other type-
statues included an Artemis with a torch and a
libation bowl (ll.173–74), and two more torch-
bearers (ll.186–87). It is possible that all these
statues copy the same original, and specifying
22 chapter one
the sculptural allusion obvious to a local audi-
ence was regarded as an unnecessary detail in
such a text. In any case the iconography is a stan-
dard one for a figure of Artemis (Rogers, 1991: 111).
For both the privileged boys in the procession, as
well as the spectators, these type-statues would
serve to recall not simply the individual statue(s)
copied, but a rich weave of their architectural
settings throughout the city, the events typically
localized to those spaces, by whom, and perhaps
even their history (Rogers, 1991: 80–115). And for
many of the spectators, these type-statues must
have been the best view they would ever get of
the image of the goddess, if the copied statue was
one that was held in the controlled space on the
inside of a temple.
The apeikonisma is identified in glossaries
with aphidruma as terms for a reproduction of a
statue (Charneux, 1992; Robert, 1965; Malkin, 1991;
Nick, 2002: 24–25). The words may simply be syn-
onyms, and neither the frequency of their occur-
rences, nor the details makes a hard distinction
certain. Nevertheless, there is a consistency to
the evidence which makes it possible to propose
some difference between the ordinary usages of
the two terms. The apeikonismata in the Salutaris
endowment are specified by weight, the heaviest
being over seven pounds. The other statues for
the endowment’s procession, imperial portraits
and personifications, are of similar weights, but
these are referred to as eikones (εἰκόνες), even
though they, too, must have been copied from
models, or at least followed some standardized
types. Gebhard estimates the largest statue as not
over a meter high (Gebhard, 1996: 122), and the
statues for the imperial cult at Mérida are esti-
mated to have been 0.80–0.90 m. tall (Trillmich,
1989–90: 99), even if a bit awkward for carrying.
The visual evidence, like the Capitoline altar of
the ministri, suggests that carrying statues could
have been well under that. An addendum to the
endowment further arranges for a statuette of
Athena Pammousos, specifying a similar weight
and material (ll.465–69; Rogers, 1991: 180–81). It
would seem the weight specifications with these
statuettes are not to fix a specific size, since
weight will only approximately determine size.
Rather, the weights in precious metals are for the
more important function in a financial document
of fixing their value. Here the term used for the
Athena is, as for the imperial protraits, eikon. This
statuette is to be installed in the regular assem-
blies, but did not form a part of Salutaris’ proces-
sion. No indication is given as to the design of
the statuette. If the use or avoidance of the term
apeikonisma in the Salutaris document has a pre-
cise implication, it would seem to be for a divine
statue designed after some well-known model,
and intended to be carried in procession.
Unlike apeikonisma, aphidruma is defined and
often used as a term comparable to xoanon (ξόανον)
or agalma, that is, a statue in a temple or shrine
and the focus of ritual (Donohue, 1988: 81–82,
101). That it shares with apeikonisma the sense
of being a reproduction of some other statue is
reflected in its use by Strabon several times to
describe cults that have been transferred from
some earlier one: that of Askelpios at Gerenia in
Messenia (viii.4.4), that of Apollon at Dastarcum
(xii.2.6), and that of the Ephesian Artemis at Mas-
salia (iv.1.4). It also occurs in inscriptions with
this sense of a reproduction, but at times with
the clear implications of some reduced size from
the original, not because of the requirements
of ceremonial use, as with the apeikonisma, but
because of the practice of transferring a cult with
the aphidruma, where some measure of mobility
is advantageous. Ironically this reduced scale is
a characteristic which at times resulted in such
modestly-sized statues being stolen. But as with
the transferring of cults, the mobility here is an
occasional rather than the principal defining
function of the statue.
The details provided by the Salutaris endow-
ment are helpful in identifying other cases of car-
rying statues. At Oinoanda in Lykia, Gaius Iulius
Demosthenes established a quadrennial festival
in 124 CE, with a procession that features again
imperial images, and specifies that along with
them be carried an image of Apollon Patroos,
 processional statuettes 23
and a sliver altar to be dedicated by Demosthenes
(Wörrle, 1988: 187–90; Mitchell, 1990; Gebhard,
1996: 123–25, see Appendix, no. 5). The images of
the emperors, presumably including at least Had-
rianus, Sabina, Traianus and Plotina (and Augus-
tus?), are described as eikones, with no additional
term provided to describe the statue of Apollon.
The bearers of the imperial images, the statue of
Apollon and the altar are the sebastophoroi, ten
in number. Several elements in the provisions for
this procession indicate that the image of Apol-
lon here was probably a hand-held statue. First,
the title of sebastophoroi given to the bearers of
the images and the altar is that applied to those
who carry imperial busts (Robert, 1960; Wörrle,
1988: 216–19; Fishwick, 1981; Pekáry, 1985: 38). It
seems likely that if the imperial images in the
procession are protomai, that the Apollon would
be a statue of about the same scale, a large statue
carried on a litter being the only alternative. The
Salutaris endowment comparatively specifies
divine and imperial statues of about the same
size. The visual effect of images of equal scale is
also preferred by Marcus Aurelius and Commo-
dus in a letter to the Athenian gerousia, where
they direct that the protomai of themselves and
their consorts should all be of equal size (Oliver,
1964: 116). Second, as with the procession estab-
lished by Salutaris, the theatre is a principal locus
for the display of the images carried in the pro-
cession, and probably for the silver altar as well
(Gebhard, 1996: 123–25; Wörrle, 1988: 191–92; see
Appendix, no. 2). And, as with the Salutaris pro-
cession, the constrained space for installing the
statues and the altar in the theatre seems more
suited to a hand-held statue rather than a large
statue on a litter. Third, the number of appointed
sebastophoroi (10) does not seem sufficient to
allow for a statue of Apollon carried on a litter.
As will be discussed below, litters require at min-
imum four, often more, bearers. If the silver altar
dedicated by Demosthenes was treated like exu-
viae, or symbols, of gods carried in procession at
least two, perhaps four, sebastophoroi would have
been needed, and with the (uncertain) number
of imperial protomai, there does not seem to be
enough to accommodate a large statue of Apollon
on a litter. Finally, those responsible for the car-
rying, the sebastophoroi, fit the expected model
of those with this task, a group accorded a dis-
tinct mark of status, but subordinate, in this case
to the agnothetes, who is charged with the power
to appoint them (Wörrle, 1988: 183–209). While
none of these points individually is conclusive,
together they make it more likely than not that
the statue of Apollon Patroos in Demosthenes’
procession was a hand-held statue.
Wörrle compared the Apollon Patroos in the
Demosthenes procession to a silver statue of
Eleutheria recorded in an inscription from Ter-
messos Maior (Wörrle, 1988: 216, n.189; Robert,
1928; see Appendix, no. 6). The object there is
described as a processional statue (ἀγάλματος
πομπικοῡ), and if the use of agalma rather than
apeikonisma is judicious, then it can be concluded
that this was not a type-statue, but whether it is a
hand-held rather than a litter-borne statue is less
clear from the terminology. The specification of
the statue as being of silver is consistent with the
use of precious materials for the objects in both
the Salutaris and Demosthenes endowments.
And indeed the glittering visual effect which
seems a common feature of these processional
sculptures could plausibly have been achieved
even by bronze. But it is not possible to conclude
from extant evidence that a processional statue
in precious metal must therefore have been on
the small scale of a hand-held statue rather than
the larger litter-borne statues, which will be dis-
cussed below in Chapter 2. There is no informa-
tion provided by the Termessos inscription (see
Appendix, no. 6) about the nature of the proces-
sion for which the statue is intended, or what
other statuary or processional paraphernalia the
statue may have been linked to. However, it is
striking that in this marginally Hellenised city
there is again a Roman element to the statue of
Eleutheria in that the priest providing the funds
is one Tiberios Klaudios Phloros, and it is not
unreasonable to suppose that onto the procession
24 chapter one

for which it was intended was again grafted the The dream places these statues in the context
imperial cult. of the ludi circensis. The games and the proces-
That these divine images carried in procession sion leading up to them are popular subjects
are not simply a phenomenon of the Greek East in Roman pictorial art and also are frequently
is demonstrated by a dream of Septimius Severus mentioned in texts, but most of the elements
of his approaching death, and its consequences that make up the pompa for the ludi circensis are
(scriptores historiae augustae, Severus 22): omitted from the visual examples, which focus
. . . on the day of the circus-games, when three plas-
instead on the line of litter-borne statues of gods.
ter Victoriae were set up in the customary way, with Septimius’ dream constitutes the sole evidence
palms in their hands, the one in the middle, which that hand-held statues probably formed a part of
held a sphere inscribed with his name, struck by a that procession. Tertullianus (de spectaculis 7.93),
gust of wind, fell down from the balcony in an upright
position, and remained on the ground in this posture; in his scoffing list of the ingredients of the pompa
while the one on which Geta’s name was inscribed circensis, refers in sequence to “the long line of
was dashed down and completely shattered, and the images, the succession of statues”. By itself, his
one which bore Bassianus’ name lost its palm and text may seem a tautology rather than a distinc-
barely managed to keep its place, such was the whirl-
ing of the wind. tion between types of statues, but he does use
two different terms here, simulacrum and imago.
The Severan Victoriae are lightweight and tem- Conceivably the distinction is between divine
porary installations. Their plaster construction, statues and portraits, as portraits of honoured
even assuming that they were painted or gilded, individuals are evidenced by textual references.
is of no advantage for architectural installation, as But the point of these texts is that the inclusion
Septimius’ dream clearly shows, and can only be of such portraits was exceptional, rather than an
accounted for by the need for each to be carried ordinary and regular element of the procession
by a single individual (Abaecherli, 1935–36: 3). The (Abaecherli 1935–36; Eitrem 1932: 44; Suetonius,
material would render them necessarily ephem- Iulius 76 & Titus 2; Dio xliii.45.2–3; xlvii.18.4;
eral, conceivably intended for one occasion only, scriptores historiae augustae, Marcus Antonius 21).
but the handling that is the defining character- Moreover, when portraits of individuals are
istic of such objects inevitably meant that even included, the clear implication is that they took
statues of metal would have to be replaced peri- their place among the gods, not that such por-
odically because of wear (Fishwick, 1981). Compa- traits formed an element distinct from the gods. In
rable with the hand-held statues of the Salutaris light of Septimius’ dream, Tertullianus’ text might
and Demosthenes inscriptions, which as part of be taken to confirm that, in addition to the bet-
their public presentation were installed in the ter known litter-borne statues, hand-held statues
theatre, these of Septimius’ dream were installed also had their place in the circus procession.
on a podium in the circus. Even assuming that The dream further stipulates the hand-held
there were more images involved than just Victo- statues installed on the podium of the circus. The
riae, giving them some numerical weight, the vast body of reliefs and mosaics depicting the interior
space of the circus would have visually swamped of the Circus Maximus do occasionally indicate
such small objects, and their principal context statues perched atop what might be construed as
for display must have been the procession lead- a parapet or podium, the clearest example being
ing up to the ludi circensis. The conclusion seems a relief from Foligno (fig. 9) dated on style to the
inevitable, then, that the Victoriae which are the third century (Lawrence, 1965). Here above the
subject of Septimius’ dream, while they may carceres sits a group of magistrates under a balda-
have been installed onto a podium, functioned chin, with three small statues to either side fixed
as hand-held statues in procession. to the podium. The shifting scales conventionally
 processional statuettes 25
Fig. 9. Circus relief, Palazzo Trinci, Foligno. Photo: DAI Rome
used in these reliefs make the relative sizes of
the statues and magistrates uncertain, but as
rendered, these statues are of an order suitable
for hand-held statues. The workmanship and
the small scale make the identification of the
depicted figures impossible to determine, except
that they appear from various attributes to be
gods, and that a variety of figures is represented.
The picture of the Egyptian rituals in Roma
gives some focus to the information, provided
in two places in the scriptores historiae augustae
about the behaviour of Commodus in the sacra
of Isis (scriptores historiae augustae, Commodus
9 & Pescenius Niger 6). So devoted was he to the
ceremonies, that he shaved his head to carry the
image of Anubis. The general point of these texts
is the outrageous behaviour of Commodus, but in
normal Roman practice to carry a statue would
be a serious diminishing of status for an emperor.
However, in Egyptian rite, it is not subordinates
who carry the images of the gods, but priests.
Thus the outrageousness of Commodus’ behav-
iour includes his presumption of the status of an
Egyptian priest by shaving his head and usurping
its privileges. And the interest of the author in
detailing the excesses of Commodus provides a
further insight into the nature of hand-held stat-
ues: “when he was carrying the Anubis figure he
used to strike the head of the Isis worshippers
hard with the face of the statue” (Birley, 1976:
169–70). Given the way Commodus wielded his
charge, one can only envision the size of this
hand-held statue as being roughly that of a baton
or club.
In Egypt itself, Roman ceremony is the import.
A series of papyrus texts dating from the second
through the fourth centuries gives some details for
the use of hand-held statues in Roman ceremony
there (Papyri osloenses 3, 94; Oxyrhynchus Papyri
12, 1449; Oxyrhynchus Papyri 10, 1265; see Appen-
dix, no. 4). The texts deal with officials identified
as komastai (κωμασταί), which Robert has estab-
lished are not simply celebrants carrying statues
etc. in procession (LSJ9 s.v. “κωμάζω, κωμαστής”),
but those specifically charged with carrying the
imperial protomai (Robert, 1960: 320; Fishwick,
1981: 91). In this respect, the komastai are equiva-
lent to the sebastophoroi in the Greek East. How-
ever, the texts also specify that these komastai
carry in front of the designated protomai a Nike.
26 chapter one
By parity of scale with the protomai it leads, and
the status of the officiant assigned to this duty,
this Nike (Victoria) should be a hand-held statue,
rather than a larger litter-borne statue. In contrast
with the processions from the Greek East already
discussed, in which a Roman presence is grafted
onto a local identity represented by statuettes of
divinities of local prominence, the ceremonies
described in these papyri make no local refer-
ence, and may be exclusively a matter of impe-
rial worship. And appropriately for a ceremony
which is distinctly Roman rather than Egyptian,
the komastai who carry the Nikai (as well as the
imperial protomai) are not priests but officials.
Several examples of hand-held statues employed
in contexts of imperial worship occur in the
late empire. In 238, after the defeat of Maximi-
nus, Maximus arrived at Aquileia where he was
greeted by embassies from various Italian cities.
In Herodianus’ account, his arrival is marked by
a reception in which the delegates form a pro-
cession out to him carrying statues of their local
divinities (Herodianus viii.7). The hint of sponta-
neity in Herodianus’ description makes it unlikely
that the various delegates had traveled to Aquil-
eia having brought along with them large statues
of city gods to be borne on litters. Statues of a size
to require a litter could be transported great dis-
tances, as demonstrated by the many examples of
statues being confiscated from conquered cities
to be brought back to Roma in the ceremony of
the evocatio, and to be paraded in triumph. How-
ever, there is no corroborating evidence of stat-
ues borne on litters for display at one site being
moved cross-country for display in another. But
it is not implausible that representatives of cit-
ies as part of their regular ceremonial operations
would bring with them on official trips statuettes
of their city’s patron divinity, in much the same
way as Cassius’ army must have brought along a
statuette of a Victoria (and probably other gods)
for the purification ceremony already cited. The
need for there to be a divine presence to hon-
our the arrival of important individuals is illus-
trated by the account of the return of Herodes
Attikos from exile to Athenai in 175 CE (Oliver,
1970: 33–35; I.G. II2, 3606). The throng of Athe-
nians that come to receive him have along with
them Athena and Aphrodite. There is nothing to
indicate in what form these goddesses were pres-
ent, but in whatever form they were, the example
illustrates the custom of a city’s divinities being
present to greet prominent visitors. The subordi-
nation of the Italian delegates to the triumphal
Maximus would likewise fit the usual pattern
of the relative social status of those presenting
hand-held statues to a superior.
The most extensive representation of hand-
held statues comes from the late imperial period,
the arch of Galerius in Thessaloniki (fig. 10). The
lowest two registers on the Northeast side of pier
B depict the tetrarchs, the Augusti enthroned, the
Caesares standing to each side, in the company
of an assembly of gods. Along the bottom regis-
ter, seven niches hold each a Victoria. The regis-
ter is badly abraded, but each Victoria holds in
the crotch of the left arm what has been thought
to be a palm or a military standard (Laubscher
1975: 69–80; Tran tam Tinh, 1996: 229). And in
the extended right arm each Victory holds a stat-
uette, as indicated by the bases apparent under
each of them (fig. 11).
The statuettes are held out by the Victoriae in
the same gesture seen in all earlier examples to
indicate a presentation. So while their swaying
contrapposto poses and the fluttering garments
suggest movement, the rigid architectural frame
and the gestures of the Victoriae suggest an
immobile moment. This ambivalence between
motion and stasis is best accounted for by taking
the register to display a procession of Victoriae
which has just concluded, with the goddesses
now holding forth their hand-held statues. A sim-
ilar ambivalence exists in the iconography. The
decorum for handling hand-held statues applies
to mortals. As a general rule divinities, going back
to Greek cult statues of the Archaic and Classical
periods, may hold other divinities, smaller-scaled,
the Apollon at Delos by Tektaios and Angelion
(Pausanias ii.32.5; Ploutarkhos, peri mousikes 14.),
 processional statuettes 27

Fig. 10. Arch of Galerius, Thessaloniki. Photo: author

the Athena Parthenos, and the Zeus Olympios
being only the most obvious examples. Mortals,
conversely, may hold statuettes of divinities, but
not divinities themselves. In other words, the
holding of a divinity is a divine attribute. Even on
Roman coins and medallions, the pattern seems
to hold, and only when members of the imperial
family appear with the attributes of a divinity, do
they also hold actual divinities, rather than statu-
ettes. Thus Julia Domna appears on a medallion
holding Concordia, but also holding a cornuco-
pia, and Alexander Severus holds Victoria, not a
statuette, but also wears the aegis (Toynbee, 1944:
148, 158, 155). The Victoriae of Galerius’ arch seem
to be the only departure from this pattern. This
odd blending of the worlds of the divine and the
mortal may reflect the special status of the Victo-
riae as an intermediary between these two levels
of existence. The Victoriae perform as mortals
would perform but do so with a divine sanction.
Along with their presenting statuettes, Victoriae
evoke a sense of a procession culminating here by
their traditional rôle of leading of processions. In
a range of Roman processions, including proces-
sions of imperial images, Victoriae lead the way.
The ill portent of the boy falling down with the
Victoria in the purification procession recorded
by Dio Cassius (xlvii.40.8) would also seem to be
most grave if, as likely, this was at the head of
the procession. One of the proposals entertained
in the Senate for the funeral of Augustus stipu-
lated that in his procession the statue of Victoria
from the Curia lead the way (Suetonius, Augus-
tus 100). The pompa circensis, at least in the time
28 chapter one

Fig. 11. Arch of Galerius, Thessaloniki. Photo: author

 processional statuettes 29
of Ovidius, was also led by a statue of Victoria
(amores iii.2.45). The convention continues into
the Christian period, at least within the con-
fines of imperial ceremony, as exemplified on
the Barberini dyptich, where, on the emperor’s
right side, a subordinate military figure carries
a statuette of Victoria (fig. 12). The bearer’s right
hand is spatially ambiguous, and might as well
be understood as being held before, or under the
statuette. But the left hand is clearly supporting
the Victoria, and in accord with the artful canter
of Justinianus’ steed, the scene should be under-
stood as the procession itself, the Victoria leading
the way before the emperor.2
Damage to the register of Victoriae on the
arch of Galerius is too extensive to secure indi-
vidual identifications for the gods rendered in
statuette form, but the contours reveal that both
male and female divinities are present. As their
number does not correspond to the gods gath-
ered with the emperors in the register above, the
statuettes must represent some other group of
gods, and it has been proposed on the number
of statuettes that they are the seven planetary
gods (Laubscher, 1975: 79), complementary to the
ruling celestial divinities appearing below the
emperors’ throne. In conjunction with the mili-
tary triumphs depicted in the registers above, the
processional arrival of Victoriae would surely call
to mind the kind of ceremony of Maximus’ recep-
tion by the city delegations at Aquileia (Herodi-
anus viii.7) The message then would be that the
divine embodiments of the most distant celestial
spheres come to acknowledge Galerius’ (and by
extension the tetrarchy’s) triumphs.
The use of hand-held statues endures into the
Late Empire, as the already cited example of the
Barberini diptych indicates. But the Constantin-
ian period also has its example in the remains of
a building thought to be the Domus Faustae, near
2 I am indebted to Sarah Bassett for having brought
this example of the survival of imperial ceremony to my sion are sufficiently strong to suggest the hypoth-
attention.
the Lateran Palace in Rome. While the full pub-
lication of the material has not yet appeared, a
series of partially preserved, painted wall sections
from a kind of loggia have already attracted atten-
tion; they depict figures done in a monumental
style, firmly modeled in light and shadow against
a featureless backdrop. Red borders beneath
the figures carry identifying inscriptions, but a
series of superimposed names and titles makes
for a complicated picture which has not yet been
fully worked out. It seems that the figures form a
celebration of the Gens Julia Flavia between the
second and fourth decades of the fourth century
(Santa Maria Scrinari, 1965; Santa Maria Scrinari,
1970–71; Mielsch, 1978: 175–78; Liverani, 1993).
Last in the line of the preserved figures is a male
in tunic and toga (fig. 13), like the others turned
very slightly to his proper right toward an arrival,
denoted by a pair of galloping hippocamps. An
inscription identifies the figure as Constantius,
son of Constantinus. A sceptre is held in the
crook of the left arm and in the right, extended
toward the arrival is a small female figure (fig. 14)
who Santa Maria Scrinari (1975: 41) has identified
as Pietas. Despite the condition of the painting,
it is possible to discern that this is a hand-held
statue; the figure stands atop a base decorated
with moldings. The possible identification of the
holder as a youth of the imperial family is con-
sistent with what has been discussed above as
the élite, though secondary status of those who
carry such statuettes. As to the identification of
the divinity represented, she strides forward with
her dress fluttering about her legs. She holds out
a libation plate in her right hand with a metal jug
in her left. She wears a lilac-coloured, over-girt
khiton, on which the rendering of drapery pat-
terns is in a slightly archaizing style. Her hair is
bound off the nape of the neck in a chignon. Her
lithe proportions are those of a girl rather than a
matron. All this speaks of one divinity, Victoria,
were it not for the absence of any trace of wings.
The iconography and the suitability to the occa-
esis that the wings of this Victory were supplied
30 chapter one

Fig. 12. Barberini diptych, Musée du Louvre. Photo: author

 processional statuettes 31

Fig. 13. Domus Faustae, Museo Nazionale delle Terme. Photo: author

32 chapter one

Fig. 14. Domus Faustae detail, Museo Nazionale delle Terme. Photo: author
 processional statuettes 33
a secco in gold (Ling, 1991: 209). Victoriae and
Nikai of course have a long iconography of being
golden or gilded (Pausanias v.10.4).
Victoria occurs again as a hand-held statue in
the Calendar of 354 in the paired imperial por-
traits of Constantius II and Gallus (Stern, 1953:
152–68). The senior emperor sits upon a throne,
while the junior stands holding out in his right
hand a statuette of Victoria complete with its
base (fig. 15). The subordinate rank of the car-
rier of the statuette, as well as the gesture with
which he offers it are consistent with much ear-
lier depictions of such statues. Moreover, Stern
has linked the illustrated act of largess by Con-
stantius II to the consular games, which would
have been immediately proceeded by a proces-
sion. The conclusion of that procession, followed
by the represented scene of the presentation of
the Victoria to the enthroned emperor are com-
parable to the enthroned figure which is the goal
of the procession on the Vicomagistri altar, as
well as the presentation seen fragmentarily on
the Lars relief in the Lateran (fig. 4).
The images and texts which can be connected
with hand-held statues share a consistent deco-
rum for handling these statuettes of the gods. The
variations consist in different gestures depending
on the context, the display of the statuette to a
public in procession, or the presentation or recep-
tion of the statuette. No evidence indicates that
such hand-held statues had any direct rôle in sac-
rifice. The scale of the depicted statuettes varies
considerably, depending on the context and the
intended emphasis in the visual representations,
but there is little evidence for the absolute scale
of these statuettes across the Roman world. And
except in sets intended for group display, as those
provided for in the Salutaris endowment or those
for state processions in Roma, there would be lit-
tle need for a standardization of scale, as long as
the requirement of being borne by an individual
was met. Just as surviving Lares statuettes vary in
scale, so it would seem could hand-held statues.
Indeed, just as Lares belonging to domestic Lara-
ria are indistinguishable from Lares shown used
in imperial ceremony, some of these same statu-
ettes probably served both the static needs of the
shrine and the mobile needs of ceremony. By par-
ity, there is little reason to doubt that among the
very large number of preserved Roman statuettes
of divinities, some number served occasionally or
regularly for the use of ceremonies. Clemens Alex-
andrinus’ (protrepticus 4.44) disparaging remarks
on the bringing of a statuette of Fortuna to the
privy, inadvertently testifies to the Roman fond-
ness for punctuating their lives with the presence
of divine statuettes. But the Salutaris endowment
also provides evidence that hand-held statues for
large-scale civic ceremonies could be manufac-
tured for a specific ceremony, and would be kept
among the holy objects of temple treasuries. And
the altar of the collegium fabrum tignariorum
(figs. 5 and 6) illustrates not only that smaller
groups could also possess such statuettes, but
that the responsibility for such statuettes brought
prestige, and that the reception of it from King
Numa was seen as the suitable visual expression
of the early founding of the guild.
In public ceremonies the hand-held statue
might also function as an apeikonisma, or type-
statue, repeating the form of a prominent civic
or temple sculpture. As the Salutaris endowment
illustrates, the parties in the ceremony, the car-
riers charged with its handling and the viewing
public, would achieve a sense of community in
acknowledgement of the distinction brought to
them as a group by the presence of the larger and
distinctive statue referred to by the type-statue,
but also in recollection of the duties and practices
of worship, and the sacred spaces which focus on
that larger statue. On a smaller, but nevertheless
public scale, the altar of the collegium fabrum
tignariorum exemplifies the use of a hand-held
statue as a type-statue to communicate the col-
lege’s piety towards Minerva Capta, both to the
members of the guild, as well as to the public
who might witness the procession. While these
associations could function in entirely domestic
ceremonies, the lack of power to project them
to a public audience would make the use of a
34 chapter one

Fig. 15. Emperor Gallus, Calendar of 354. Photo: Stern 1953

 processional statuettes 35
type-statue less pointed, and therefore probably
less compelling.
Addendum
A group of monuments illustrating a statuette
carried by a single individual deserves mention
separate from those already considered because
unlike the preceding examples, which purport to
deal with actual Roman ceremonies, these are set
in the context of Greek myth. A large number of
paintings and sculptures depict the story of Iphi-
geneia as priestess of Artemis in Taurike (LIMC
V, s.v. “Iphigenia”; Bielfelt, 2005). The sarcophagi
of this group in particular, which lay out a series
of episodes, have been understood as epitomiz-
ing the story as related by Euripides (Weitzmann,
1970: 23–24), and while the general narratives cer-
tainly match, the differences between textual and
visual narrative inevitably introduce divergences.
For the issue of hand-held statues, the impor-
tance of these visual works is the handling of a
statuette of Artemis by Iphigeneia in the story.
The requirements of the narrative, that Orestes
is to free himself from the Erinyes by bringing to
Greece the image of Artemis from Taurike, makes
an important distinction with the hand-held
statues that have been discussed above. Unlike
those, the statuette which figures in many of the
visual works is not such a hand-held statue in the
sense of being an image employed for its mobil-
ity. Rather, the statuette is akin to other early cult
images in Greek texts, which are the principal
focus of cult practice, but are of great antiquity
and therefore rather small of scale.
The statuette is regularly depicted in these
Roman works held in the left hand, leaning
against the body. It does not therefore repeat
either of the two conventions for depicting the
hand-held statue, either for processing, or pre-
senting/receiving. The difference in how the stat-
uette is held is intrinsically bound to the identity
of who handles it. For Roman hand-held statues,
the carriers are those of prestige but of second-
ary rank. Iphigeneia, by contrast, is the priest-
ess of Artemis, a rank which is never seen with
hand-held statues. Iphigeneia holds the statu-
ette in the described fashion when she appears
to Orestes as the priestess of Artemis and in the
scene of her fleeing with her brother and the
statue: Pompeii III.4.4 (Schefold, 1962: 114); Pom-
peii IX.5.14–16 (LIMC V., s.v. “Iphigenia”, no. 62);
Pompeii IX.8.3 and 6 (LIMC V, s.v. “Iphigenia”,
no. 60); Louvre Ma 1607 (LIMC V, s.v. “Iphigenia”,
no. 76); München, Glyptotek GL 363 (LIMC V, s.v.
“Iphigenia”, no. 75). Thus the gesture would seem
to correspond to Iphigeneia’s protective respon-
sibility for the image of Artemis. Euripides’ text
(Iphigeneia he en Taurois, ll.1156–77) specifies
that Iphigeneia takes the statue from its base to
protect it from pollution of unclean sacrifice.
The gesture as an artistic device may have
little to do with a priestess’ handling of a cult
image in religious practice contemporary with
the Roman paintings and sculpture depicting the
story. Instead, it may be an artifice to re-create
how such small cult images were imagined to
have been handled in the distant past. Eurip-
ides’ text does require the character to hold the
image of Artemis, but gives no specifics that can
account for the regularity with how the statue is
held in the painting and sculptured depictions.
Nevertheless, the gesture can be shown to be, not
a Roman invention, but one that dates to at least
the Hellenistic period. In excavations at Messene,
a small naos of Artemis Orthia preserved a series
of statues of priestesses of the goddess, and an
inscribed base describing the priestess’ responsi-
bility for holding in her hand the bretas (βρέτας),
or wooden image, of the goddess (Themelis, 1994:
115–16 & 1962). One of the statues of priestesses
preserves the upper left torso and arm, indicating
the left arm holding a pillar-like figure with base
leaning against the body, in the same manner as
used in the Roman depictions. As it is unlikely
that a cult convention from Messene exercised
a direct influence over painters and sculptors
of the Roman imperial period, this convention
for priestesses holding a small image must be a
36 chapter one
t­ radition surviving in painting and sculpture, or
a tradition in theatrical staging. And the two may
have formed a single tradition.
The surviving dedicatory inscription at Mess-
ene also stipulates that the priestess held a torch
along with the statue. The evidence of the sur-
viving statue at Messene showing the left hand
holding the statuette indicates that the torch
would have been held in the right. This arrange-
ment for priestesses of the cult of Artemis Orthia
is adhered to in Roman depictions of the Iphige-
neia story when she holds a torch (LIMC V, s.v.
“Iphigenia”, no. 61, 83, 84). In each of these cases
the scene is the appearance of Iphigeneia before
King Thoas to trick him in order that she and her
brother escape with the statue, but deviate from
the version in Euripides in having Orestes and
Pylades present. In two of these cases, the Ber-
lin and Weimar sarcophagi, the statuette is held
differently than in other depictions as upright
in the left hand, rather than leaning against the
body. While this may simply be artistic inatten-
tion, it is striking that the manner of holding
the statue is that used for hand-held statues in
procession, and at this point in the story, Iphi-
geneia is proposing to the king that she needs to
undertake a procession, bringing the statue to
the sea for a purificatory bathing. It is possible
that the pattern for holding a hand-held statue in
procession has influenced how the artist chooses
here to depict the statue and its carrier, in con-
trast to the prevailing tradition for a priestess of
Artemis holding the goddess’ image. This pos-
sibility finds support in a mosaic depiction of
Iphigeneia and Orestes, Museo Capitolino 4948
(fig. 16) (Bevilacqua, 1978–79). He sits while she
holds out in her extended right hand the statue
of Artemis on a small base, the same configura-
tion by which a hand-held statue is presented to
an audience.
Finally, a case which may appear similar to the
Iphigeneia story is that of the theft of the Palla-
dion, again a mythological narrative in which a
character carries a primitive cult statue. As rep-
resented by the group of Diomedes and Odys-
seus from Sperlonga, the Palladium is indeed
carried against the body on the left (Conticello
and Andreae, 1974: pls. 37–47). While it is pos-
sible that this recurrence reflects some influence
from ceremonial convention, the evidence is seri-
ously compromised by the fact that the Sperlonga
group may be a version of an earlier, Hellenistic
group, and that the action here is in no sense a
procession, that the holding of the statue on the
left is dictated by the necessity to carry a sword
in the right hand, and by the distinct difference
in how the statue is held, grasped firmly around
the middle rather than more decorously from the
base. Together, these problems render the theft
of the Palladium group of doubtful help in deter-
mining how a cult statue, much less a ceremonial
hand-held statue, is properly carried.
 processional statuettes 37

Fig. 16. Iphigeneia and Orestes, Museo Capitolino 4948. Photo: author

 Chapter Two
Litter Statues
The ferculum, or litter, functions in Roman cere-
monies to transport a wide variety of objects, the
range of these applications having been studied
by A.L. Abaecherli (1935–36). But the range of
objects indicates that the natures and applica-
tions are concerns distinct from the vehicle itself.
A statue carried on a ferculum in contrast to a
hand-held statue is in the simplest sense a deter-
mination of size and weight. But this description
overlooks the peculiar contexts in which such
statues are encountered in Roman ceremony
and subsequently might be depicted in Roman
art. The size and weight are responses to larger
ceremonial needs; they imply a level of grandeur
and public display that is in contrast with the
limiting qualities of the hand-held statue. Where
the hand-held statue seems to grow out of and
sometimes retains an affiliation with domestic
and small-scaled ceremonies, the ferculum with
its statue is bound in legend and regular usage
with large state ceremony. Moreover, the picture
of statues of gods constructed to be carried on
fercula needs to be sifted from the broader body
of evidence for the use of fercula for transporting
various objects, including other types of statues.
The mythical account of the invention of the
ferculum credits it to Romulus, who devised
some kind of ferculum for carrying military spoils
in triumph and subsequently offering them on
the Capitoline (Livius i.10.5). This association
between the ferculum and spoils would have
been reiterated and reinforced continually in the
Roman mind in triumphal processions, where the
ferculum, at some point taking the form of a tray
rather than the armature that seems implied in
the story of Romulus came to be used to carry the
spoils of conquest. But even within the context
of the triumph, the ferculum is not a vehicle tied
exclusively, nor even predominantly, to statuary;
spoils of all sorts, including the captive enemy
themselves, are described or depicted as being
carried and displayed on it (Tacitus, annales
ii.41; Senaca, Hercules Oetaeus 107–11; Suetonius,
Iulius 37; Florus ii.13). And while the absence of
corroborating evidence makes it impossible to
determine whether the story of Romulus accu-
rately links the origin of transporting statues
on fercula with the triumphal procession, it at
least records the understanding that the fercu­
lum was a device with two distinct functions: as
a mechanism of transportation, and as a kind of
offering tray (Abaecherli, 1935–36: 2). The two
functions emphasize that the ferculum serves to
address two different audiences, the divine and
the human. As the carrying of statues on litters
is common in Egyptian religious ceremony, and
attested for Greek as well, the Roman practice
may be an import. But the Romulus story sug-
gests that Romans themselves accounted for the
practice as an indigenous invention.
The fictive age of the ferculum implicit in the
story of Romulus and accounts of the appear-
ance of statuary on fercula in triumphs require
that the evidence for statues in this particular
rôle be considered first, before the issue of stat-
ues created specifically for carrying on fercula in
other ceremonies. Within the general category
of seized enemy statuary two slightly different
types of statues might be distinguished. The city
of Roma was regularly enriched by statues which
formed a part of the spoils seized from defeated
enemy states. The triumphal procession would
be the natural format for these to be publicly
displayed and then dedicated to Jupiter on the
Capitoline. In addition, though perhaps related
to these, was the more specialized form of statues
of tutelary gods of enemy states who had agreed
to go over to the Roman side in the ritual of the
40 chapter two
evocatio, and were then transported to Roma.
But in contrast to spoils, these were not treated
as booty and dedicated to Jupiter. Instead they
were installed in sanctuaries where they were to
receive appropriate worship (Gustafsson, 2000;
Basanoff, 1947; Berti, 1990; Köves-Zulauf, 1993;
Köves-Zulauf, 1972: 87–94; Le Gall, 1976; Pape,
1975: 36–37; Van Doren, 1954). Both these types
of statues have their own special problems of
identification, though both are also distinct from
ceremonial statues designed for fercula in that
they are, presumably in most cases, objects not
originally constructed for carrying on fercula.
The textual evidence for statues as spoils is
most prevalent for the Republican period. The
description of the sacking of Taras by Fabius
Maximus in 209 BCE (Livius xxvii.16.7; Ploutark-
hos, Fabios 22.5; Pape 1975: 8.), and specifically the
removal of Lysippos’ colossal Herakles and subse-
quent dedication of it on the Capitoline (Strabon
vi.3.1; Plinius, naturalis historia xxxiv.40), and the
removal of statuary from Syrakosios by Claudius
Marcellus (Livius xxvi.30.9; Pape 1975: 6–7.) in
210 BCE after sacking that city make clear the
status of statuary as spoils, but the texts do not
provide incontrovertible evidence of how to dis-
tinguish between these and statues removed as a
result of a ritual evocatio (Pape, 1975: 37). Livius’
account (xxvi.34.12) of the contemporary situation
at Capua, where a college of pontiffs was called
upon to decide which captured statues were to
be regarded as sacred and which as profane sug-
gests that there is in principle a distinction to be
drawn between these two types of “confiscated”
statuary. More importantly, as the nature of these
particular victories places them outside the nor-
mal requirements for a triumph, it compromises
their value as evidence for the rôle of statues as
spoils in sanctioned triumphal processions. The
case of Pompeius’ triumph celebrating his vic-
tory over Mithradates is more simple. Included
among other colossal marvels was a gold statue
of the defeated king eight cubits high (Appianus
xii.116; Beard, 2007: 168). The textual account does
not specifically state that this statue was brought
from the Pontus as spoil; hypothetically it could
have been made at Roma as part of the triumphal
celebration. But then the wonder at the opulence
would lose its edge, and it seems more reasonable
to accept the report at face value as an example
of captured statuary carried in procession.
Visual depictions of triumphs do include spoils,
often as prominent elements, but the number of
cases of statues which might be understood as
spoils is rare. Only a few relief sculptures have
been taken in the modern literature as possible
cases where statues appear as part of the spoils.
Two of these are in situ as decorations of arches
and therefore within clear triumphal contexts.
On the outside frieze of Titus’ arch on the Sacra
Via four soldiers in tunics at the end of a tri-
umphal procession handle a ferculum on which
reclines a river god, identifiable by the conven-
tional pose, as well as a hydria and reeds (Pfan-
ner, 1983: 90) (fig. 17). The river god, no doubt the
Jordan, here is rendered at roughly the same scale
as its four bearers; and one proposal would inter-
pret the “statue” as actually an actor impersonat-
ing the god. However, the uniform scale between
the bearers and the river god need not be read
literally in these fictive triumphs. Indeed, even
the number of bearers shown, in this case four,
is more likely to be an issue of pictorial space and
emphasis rather than simply descriptive of the
number of bearers needed for the weight. The
form and iconography of the river god also pose
problems. A traditionally rendered Greco-Roman
river god seems an implausible statue to have
been genuinely seized from the Jewish rebels.
Thus the simplest and most plausible explanation
is that the river god does not represent spoils, but
is a personification of the topographical features
of the conquered land, one of the many elements
that might make up a triumph (Tacitus, annales
ii.41; Florus 2.13). There is also a river god on a
ferculum on the frieze of the Southwest face
of the arch of Traianus at Beneventum (Rotili,
1972: 111). Again four tunic-clad figures carry the
 litter statues 41
Fig. 17. Arch of Titus, detail. Photo: author
statue, but in contrast with Titus’ arch, the statue
here is rendered on a much smaller scale than its
bearers, and accordingly the possibility that the
river god is being impersonated by an actor has
not been raised. But as with the frieze celebrat-
ing Titus’ triumph, a classicizing statue of a river
god captured from the Dacians seems a less likely
explanation than that this, again, is a personifica-
tion of the defeated topography, in this case the
Danube.
Other possible visual evidence for statues on
fercula in triumphs is more problematic. A cen-
tury ago A. Frothingham proposed that a sev-
enteenth-century drawing reproduced a relief
belonging to a Flavian triumphal arch (Froth-
ingham, 1914). He offered a number of possible
original locations for the relief, including Titus’
arch in the Circus Maximus, or one of the Domi-
tianic arches. Others since have argued for dif-
ferent datings using the stylistic evidence of the
drawing. More recently Spannagel, in an impor-
tant essay bearing on the problems in identifying
specific processions depicted in relief sculpture,
identified a surviving fragment of the original
relief in the Museo Chiaramonti and used the
evidence of physical dimensions, style and ico-
nography to disassociate the relief from the arch
in the Circus Maximus specifically, and from the
Flavian period in general (Spannagel, 1979: 360–
75; Andreae; 1995: 43, no. 152). On both the draw-
ing and the surviving sculptural fragment, four
figures dressed in tunics support the front of the
ferculum. One of the carriers holds in his hand
a staff with a crescent top, to support the poles
of the ferculum during pauses. On the drawing,
above and behind the bearers, are indicated the
foreparts of two galloping horses, rendered on a
smaller scale than the carriers of the litter. The
better preserved of the two horses wears the har-
ness of a chariot, and the perspective relationship
of the two horses best fits a statue of a quadriga.
Spannagel argued that a number of critical ele-
ments visible on the relief bore on an identifica-
tion of the procession represented. The ferculum
bearers, originally eight in number, wearing lau-
rel wreaths he associated with a triumph. But the
presence of a female figure in their midst (surviv-
ing only on the drawing), plausibly a personifica-
tion, seems inconsistent with this. And he pointed
out that a statue of a charioteer is paralleled in
other examples which depict a god carried in the
circus procession, rather than spoils taken from
an enemy displayed in a triumphal procession.
He suggested as a solution to these several con-
flicting elements that the relief might belong to
a monument celebrating Nero’s triumph held to
celebrate his return from the games in Greece in
68 CE, in which his artistic and chariot victories
42 chapter two
were blended with traditional triumphal iconog-
raphy (Suetonius, Nero 25; Dio Cassius lxii.14 &
lxii.20–21; Spannagel, 1979: 369–75).
The problem of identifying the event depicted
on the relief underscores the limitations on the
surviving picture of specific Roman processions.
Even for those processions about which the
most is known (triumph, circus procession, con-
sular procession) relatively few details are pre-
served. And it can reasonably be expected that
since the numerous games (ludi) put on by the
Romans were dedicated to gods, there would be
processions connected with these as well. Tex-
tual accounts rarely indicate at what point in
its course, spatially or chronologically, a proces-
sion is being described, and none describes them
exhaustively. There is no accounting of what
pauses occurred, where and why, or what changes
in order or appearance may have occurred over
a procession’s length. Tertullianus’ reference
(de spectaculis 7) to rituals and sacrifices at the
beginning, middle and end cautions against an
assumption of a rigid continuity from start to
finish (scriptores historiae augustae, Antoninus
Caracallus 9.11). Likewise there is little evidence
for how any of these processions may have been
modified over time. And although the ultimate
goals of these three particular processions are
known, the Capitoline for the triumphal and the
consular, the Circus Maximus for the circus pro-
cession, nothing is known of what form a reces-
sional from any of these sites might have taken.
Caution is therefore needed not to claim more
for the sources than is warranted in identifying a
visual rendering.
The representations of statues borne on fer­
cula from triumphal contexts, then, are most
likely to be a part of the paraphernalia helping
the audience to identify a specific triumph rather
than visual representatives of the statuary taken
as spoils, or images of gods built to appear in
processions. However, Josephus (historia Iouda­
ïkou polemou pros Romaious vii.136) provides the
one bit of clear evidence for the participation of
the images of divinities in triumphal processions.
In his description of that for Vespasianus and
Domitianus he numbers the images of gods (θεῶν
ἀγάλματα). His admiration for the size of these
statues indicates they must be of the type carried
on fercula, rather than hand-held images. And
his comment about the costly materials for these
statues, presumably in contrast to the bronze
or marble usual for statuary, indicates that they
are purpose-built for such processional display.
While it cannot be certain from Josephus’ account
whether these images of gods borne on fercula
comprised a standard element in all triumphs, or
an innovation of the Flavians, in the absence of
any contradictory evidence his account should
be taken at face value (Merten, 1968: 21). The lack
of interest in such divine images on fercula on
Roman reliefs depicting triumphs might better
be explained as reflecting the peculiar character
of this type of procession and the monuments
memorializing it, focusing on the particulars of
the victory and the triumphator. Divine images
on fercula may indeed have been a regular part
of triumphs, but these were not the ceremonies
in which such images were the focus of atten-
tion. This distinction is suggested by Dio Cassius’
account of the institution of a ferculum statue of
the divinized Julius Caesar which is described as
being placed among those of the gods in the cir-
cus procession (pompa circensis), with no men-
tion of triumphs (Dio Cassius xliii.45.2–3). In
similar fashion, his golden chair joined those of
the gods in the procession into the theatre (Dio
Cassius xliv.6.3). These were the ceremonies in
which the honouring and witness of the gods
were the particular emphases.
Spannegel observed that representations fea-
turing statues with chariots on fercula all seem
to belong to the procession inaugurating the cir-
cus games. Because of the prominence of chariot
racing in those games this argument bears some
weight, but the ludi Romani were only one of the
games which featured chariot racing, and the Cir-
cus Maximus was not the venue for all of these.
Furthermore, what specific moments these rep-
resented statues and their bearers correspond to
 litter statues 43

is less clear and, given the nature of the textual
evidence, needs to be wrung from the visual evi-
dence itself. In contrast to the images of triumph,
renderings of statues on litters in the circus pro-
cession tend to be from private monuments, often
found outside Rome, celebrating the individual
magistrate responsible for, or perhaps the partici-
pant in the games held, and therefore of smaller
formats. What specifics they might demand a
viewer to know and recognize may differ from
those of a triumphal monument as well.
A relief from Puteoli (figs. 18 and 19), of dimen-
sions not inconsistent with a sarcophagus lid
(0.45 m. long × 0.26 m. high), shows at the break
along its right side atop a litter a wheel, part of
the chariot box, the right arm of the charioteer
and the complement of four horses (Mingazzini,
1934; Himmelmann, 1973: 39; Spannagel, 1979:
nn. 84–85; Ronke, 1987: 236 and 729, no. 185). The
front four of the litter’s eight bearers also survive
and are preceded by a figure in Roman chario-
teer costume, holding a banner (vexillum) while

Fig. 18. Sarcophagus lid from Puteoli, Museo Nazionale, Napoli. Photo: DAI Rome
44 chapter two
Fig. 19. Sarcophagus lid from Puteoli, Museo Nazionale, Napoli. Photo: DAI Rome
looking back towards the litter as he enters a
vaulted passageway. In front of the column which
supports the side of the arch stands a kouros-type
figure on a base. On the surviving portion of the
adjacent side another figure, on the same scale
as the charioteer, moves to the left while looking
back, seemingly at the group on the front face.
Surface damage obscures much of his costume,
however it is apparent that he wears a short tunic
with a wide belt. He therefore could be a chari-
oteer and Mingazzini in his original publication
of the relief took him to be the same charioteer
as on the front now leaving the vaulted passage.
His dress does differ in one clear element, the
pointed hat the second figure wears.
As Spannagel rightly points out, there is no evi-
dence, visual or textual, to suggest that a statue of
a mortal charioteer was carried in any procession.
The statue on the litter therefore is more likely
a divine one. Additionally, the figure’s surviving
extended arm holding the reigns requires the
charioteer to be aggressively hunched forward.
Such a pose is inconsistent with the well-estab-
lished depiction of a victorious charioteer in
other media, who often holds a wreath or palm
(Dunbabin, 1982). And the pose suggests a god
who races his chariot, rather than simply riding
in it. Mingazzini’s proposal of Sol is therefore the
best. Sol also fits best as the divine counterpart to
the charioteer, both occupationally and because
of the metaphorical links of the chariot race in
the Circus Maximus with the solar cycle (Tertu-
lianus, de spectaculis 8–9; Dunbabin, 1978: 88–89).
The place of arrival is keyed by the kouros statue.
Mingazzini took it to be an ephebic victor statue,
holding a palm leaf at the entrance to the Cir-
cus Maximus. Himmelman preferred a statue of
Apollon with a bow before a palaistra. Again the
condition of the relief creates problems: while it
is clear that something is held in the left hand,
 litter statues 45
certainty about what that thing is goes beyond
the visual evidence. A kouros victor statue seems
an inefficient way to cue the viewer that the place
is the Circus Maximus, and a kouros statue with
both arms bent forward contemporary with the
relief is difficult to parallel. But similarly there
seems little reason for a charioteer or a statue to
process to a palaistra.
With perhaps half the relief missing, the event
depicted on the Puteoli relief does not clearly cor-
respond with any known part of the circus pro-
cession, but not of any other procession either.
Dionysios of Halikarnassos (vii.72) provides the
most detailed description of the circus proces-
sion in general, and he places the participants of
the games in the procession well ahead of and
separated by a good number of others (dancers,
musicians, and carriers of various ritual and dis-
play objects) from the statues of the gods, which
come at the very end. But the strategy of seeking
a literal equation for a visual image like the Pute-
oli relief may be a mistaken one. More probably
it operates by visual cues, guiding the audience’s
understanding of the event as necessary.
While there may be considerable compression
of space, and the use of a kind of visual ellipsis
or distillation in selecting only elements needed,
the combination of a charioteer and a litter-borne
image of Sol points to an occasion where these
were elements of particular import. If the relief
does refer to the city of Roma, a plausible
hypothesis given Puteoli’s close connection with
Roma as a port, one of a series of processions to
the circus might fill that requirement: the pompa
circensis, as well as the processus consualaris or
the various other ludi (Kübler, RE IV: 1126–27 s.v.
“consul”; Mulhouse, 2006: s.v. “ludi”, Brill’s new
Pauly: 866–75). The problematic figure of the
kouros, with both the arms bent forward to hold
some identifying objects, is likely to correspond
to the god Apollon, as Himmelmann suggests.
His appearance here may reflect his general asso-
ciation with the physical perfection of athletic
competition, as well as his conflation with the
sun god and by extension the sun god’s temple
at the Circus Maximus, either for the ludi Romani
or the ludi Apollinares, both held at that venue.
Although the associations with Apollon might
be sufficient, if a specific topographical allusion
was intended, a statue of that god is known to
have stood outside the circus (Ploutarkhos, Titos
1; Hill, 1962: 137; Coarelli, 1992: 156–64).
Another illustration of a charioteer on a litter
is more explicit in describing a statue, as a strut is
indicated under the bellies of the horses, carried
by a group of four men. The example is one of the
so-called Campana terracottas (fig. 20), but seem-
ingly unique among the surviving examples in its
subject matter (von Rohden and Winnefeld, 1911:
134–35; Abaecherli, 1935–36: 1–2 and n. 10 and 23;
Spannagel, 1979: 370, n. 84–85). Two of the bear-
ers here have the staves which appear with some
regularity as equipment of litter carriers. While
in part these may have aided as walking staves,
some, as on the Chiaramonti relief, are shown
with crescent-shaped tops which Abaecherli is
surely correct in interpreting as slots to hold the
litter during pauses (Abaecherli, 1935–36: 2 and
n. 12), which Tertullianus’ description (de spec­
taculis 7) of the circus procession corroborates.
Such supports can only work, of course, if there
is a distribution of them in the front and rear of
the litter. In the present case there are only two,
without the slotted tops and both held by the
lead carriers. The lead carrier on the far side is
turned half to the rear and holding his staff at the
top, against the middle of the litter. The arrange-
ment, which can hardly have occurred naturally
in the action of carrying the litter along, suggests
a pause during which these staves are propped
under the body of the litter to take its weight.
What the Campana charioteer illustrates, then,
is the moment following this pause, when the
procession begins to move forward again.
Interpretations of the identity of the depicted
charioteer have varied according to the icono-
graphic elements paid the greatest heed. The
palm branch held by the charioteer has suggested
to some Victoria or a victorious charioteer (van
Rohden and Winnefeld, 1911: 134–35). However,
46 chapter two

Fig. 20. Terracotta relief, Musée du Louvre. Photo: Réunion des Musées Nationaux/Art Resource, NY

the figure has no wings, and has male coiffure
and anatomy, eliminating Victoria, and the dress
is that of a Greek rather than Roman charioteer,
so hardly a participant in Roman games. Sol is
consistent with all aspects of the iconography, as
the relief of Sol on the arch of Constantinus illus-
trates, and might reasonably carry the palm as a
general indication of victory in the games now
completed in his honour at the circus. Further,
the face of the litter is decorated with a sun disk
at centre, flanked by two sea monsters, probably
indicating the distant seas from and into which
the sun rises and sinks.
The depiction of an episode in the games and
their associated ceremonies, and indeed the
suggestion of a specific moment in the proces-
sion, after the victory and starting up from some
pause, connects the charioteer relief with only
one other subject represented among the Cam-
pana reliefs, those illustrating a range of events
 litter statues 47
from the circus games. The series shares with the
charioteer relief the same crowning palmettes,
and a similar proportional relationship between
the figures and the figural space (Tortorella, 1981:
figs. 28–29; Humphrey, 1986: 180–86). Tortorella
thought that the events depicted might be from
one of the ludi sevirales, or the ludus Troiae spe-
cifically, while Humphrey concluded that a more
generalized rather than specific array of circus
events is represented. A frieze so put together,
to decorate a public or private building, would
apparently arrange in spatial proximity a num-
ber of discrete moments in the games. Surviving
examples illustrate the quadriga race, the biga
race, the crash of a chariot, the hunts (vena­
tiones) against different types of animals, and the
acrobatic riders (desultores). The charioteer relief
would be one additional (and final?) moment in
the festivities.
One further relief has a claim to providing
visual evidence for divine statues carried on fer­
cula in the procession of the circus, the lid of a sar-
cophagus now in the cloister of San Lorenzo fuori
la mura in Roma (Ronke, 1987: 111–13, 292, 728–29,
no. 183; Himmelmann, 1973: 37–39) (figs. 21–23).
Two relief sections extend on either side of the
panel intended for an inscription, never exe-
cuted. On the right side are two litters with their
bearers; on the left a pair of large-scale figures in
togas preceed an elephant-drawn wagon (tensa).
While the lid has been broken at both ends, the
amount of lost length at either side seems not
enough to accommodate additional litters or
wagons. Of the two litters, the first carries an
image of Cybele enthroned with rampant lions,
the second one of Victoria striding forward. The
identity of the goddesses depicted in these two
statues has generated little dispute (Andreae,
et al., 1991: fig. 374). On the other side, however,
the significance of the elephant quadriga and
what figure once occupied the wagon have been
matters of less accord. The figure itself is lost,
although the stumps atop the wagon indicate
that some image, or being, once sat enthroned
there. The only additional physical evidence for
the identification of the figure on the wagon is
the decoration along its side, a marine thiasos
(Himmelman, 1973: 37–39).
The lid has been regularly identified as corre-
sponding to the circus games, without address-
ing whether the procession for the various games
differed in any ways (Abaecherli, 1935–36: 3;
Himmelmann, 1973: 37–39; Ronke, 1987: 111–13).
Alternatively, and relying on the prominent lead-
ing position of Cybele, the relief has been taken
to reflect the procession of the ludi Megalenses
held in honour of that goddess, and thereby used
as the principal evidence for what the procession
of her games looked like, an exercise with consid-
erable danger of begging the question (Turcan,
1996: 47). Central to this difference of opinion is
the distinct functioning of visual as opposed to
textual formulations of such processions. Diony-
sios of Halikarnassos (vii.72) cites the order of the
divine images in the circus procession as the three
Capitoline gods, followed by Neptunus and then
the remainder of the Olympians. In the amores
(iii.2.43–57), Ovidius describes a procession in
which he places Victoria first, followed by Neptu-
nus (Le Bonniec, 1958: 318). The Capitoline triad
gets no mention in Ovidius’ account, although
Minerva is individually identified later in the list
of gods, indicating that the triad did not appear
as such. Even if one assumes that these two texts
are describing the same procession, it is possible
that they correspond to it at different points in
its transit. Ovidius’ description is specified as set
inside the Circus Maximus; Dionysios gives no
point of perspective. More glaringly, Dionysios’
text does not mention a statue of Victoria at all.
In the fasti (iv.389–92), Ovidius records that the
ludi Megalenses included a procession of the gods
at the circus, without further details.
The prominent position of Cybele on this com-
paratively late relief could reflect changes in
processional conventions, corresponding to the
increasing attention paid the statue of that goddess
on the spina of the Circus Maximus, or changes
48 chapter two

Fig. 21. Sarcophagus lid, San Lorenzo, Rome. Photo: author

Fig. 22. Sarcophagus lid, detail, San Lorenzo, Rome. Photo: author

Fig. 23. Sarcophagus lid, detail, San Lorenzo, Rome. Photo: author

in the cult of Cybele, that is, all developments
which begin in the middle of the first century CE,
postdating the descriptions of Dionysios and
Ovidius (Humphrey, 1986: 273–75; Lambrechts,
1952; Fishwick, 1966). And as important as is the
date in establishing the context of the relief is
understanding the significance of the elephant
quadriga as a platform for carrying the statue of
an enthroned figure. In fact no evidence, textual
or visual, supports the assumption operating in
considerations of this lid that divine statues were
regularly transported in this way. Only Cybele is
described by two authors (Ovidius, fasti iv.345;
Prudentius, peri stephanon x.154–61) as being
transported in a wagon (Abaecherli, 1935–36:
5–7); but since Cybele is already present on the
relief in human form she is out of consideration.
There is, however, a well-established visual tradi-
tion on coins and medallions that deified emper-
ors, or members of the imperial family elevated
to divine status, had their images paraded in pub-
lic on an elephant car (Plinius, naturalis historia
 litter statues 49
xxxiv.5; xxxiv.10; Abaecherli, 1935–1936: 10; Grant,
1950: 44, 79 and 94; Scullard, 1974: 255–56; Swin-
dler, 1923: 306–11; Spinazzola, 1953, I: 195–207).
While the dating of the San Lorenzo lid, most
recently to the end of the third into the middle
of the fourth century (Ronke, 1987: 729; Goette,
1998: 167), has relied exclusively on stylistic fac-
tors, the presence of the elephant quadriga cre-
ates a somewhat narrower range of possibilities.
Coin types of deified emperors appear late in
the first decade of the fourth century (Constan-
tius, Romulus, Galerius) and are also popular
under Constantinus (Constantius, Claudius II,
Maximianus), culminating in his own deification
(337–40 CE) (Robertson, 1982: 47, 70, 115, 219–21,
283–84; Bruun, 1966: 108, 310, 394–95, 429–30,
502–03; Amici, 2000). A pagan magistrate in Roma
might well wish to recall his work in organizing
a procession which included the image of any of
these deified imperial figures. Additionally, the
marine thiasos which was deemed appropriate
to decorate the side of the wagon carrying this
image is a striking and peculiar feature. It recalls
the marine thiasos greeted by members of family
of Constantinus in the monumental paintings in
the Domus Faustae, making a case for Constanti-
nus himself, perhaps with reference to the naval
victory against Licinius in 324 (Santa Maria Scri-
nari, 1965: fig. 73). If the elephant quadriga is that
of the deified Constantinus, the sarcophagus lid
of this magistrate in Roma would likely fall in the
330’s or 340’s.
The significance of the elephant quadriga in
the procession alters the perception of the relief as
a description comparable to surviving texts. The
Victoria which is the divine image immediately
in advance of the imperial car and its escorts is
present because of its traditional association with
imperial images and indeed the emperor himself
in Roman processions, not because of its sequen-
tial position with respect to the leading statue of
Cybele. Not only does Victoria appear associated
with triumphal emperors in fictive renderings,
as on the arch of Titus, but emperors did appear
in the company of statues of Victoria. Josephus
(­ historia Ioudaïkou polemou pros Romaious vii.152)
describes multiple statues (probably of the hand-
held variety) of Victoria in gold and ivory carried
before Vespasianus and Titus in their triumph.
One of the proposals for the funeral of Augustus
would have the procession proceeded by the Vic-
toria which stood in the Curia (Suetonius, Augus­
tus 100). And papyri bearing on the office of the
komastes (κωμαστής) in Egypt, those who were
responsible for the imperial busts used in proces-
sions, catalogue along with those imperial images
“the Victory that leads the way” (Papyri osloenses
3, 94; Oxyrhynchus Papyri 12, 1449 and 10, 1265;
Fishwick, 1989: 346; see Appendix, no. 4).
It is possible that the litter-borne statue of
Cybele on the San Lorenzo sarcophagus may
reflect Cybele’s status in late Roman circus
processions at the head of that line of gods, or
that the procession referred to here is for the
ludi Megalenses in Cybele’s honour, though the
relief fits neither alternative precisely as they are
accounted for in the textual evidence. The sta-
tus of Cybele at the head of the procession for
circus games is a hypothesis based only on a lit-
eral reading of the sarcophagus lid itself, opening
the door for circular reasoning in applying this
conclusion back to explaining the sarcophagus.
Likewise, in the procession of the Megalenses,
it was Cybele’s black stone which was carried
rather than her anthropomorphic form and by a
corps comprised of her orgiastic Galli, while the
sarcophagus in no way distinguishes her carriers
from those of Victoria (Ovidius, fasti iv.179–87;
Budde and Nicholls, 1964: 77–78; Vanmasseren,
1977: 97–98 and 124; Turcan, 1996: 38–39). Rather,
the San Lorenzo sarcophagus could be better
interpreted as operating elliptically. The Victoria
leads the way for what was probably a distinct
and separate element of the actual procession, as
the appropriate escort of the image of the dei-
fied emperor in the elephant wagon which fol-
lows, while at the same time she invokes the line
of divine images by her proximity to the Cybele.
Victoria’s proximity to Cybele also calls to mind
the proximity of their temples on the Palatine,
50 chapter two
and the former even hosting of the black stone
of Cybele when it arrived in Roma, until Cybele
had a temple of her own (Livius xxix.14.14; Gruen,
1990: 5–33). Cybele’s statue stands in for the
entire procession of divine images not because
this specific procession was for her or because
her statue came first in line, but by virtue of the
prominence of her statue with her lion escort on
the spina of the circus, thereby communicating
that the goal of the procession is that circus. And
as she is the mother of the gods having her stand
in for all the gods is an easy conflation.
In addition to the triumphal procession and
the processions to inaugurate the various circus
games, other processions held as part of religious
festivals, gladiatorial games and governmental
ceremonies employed divine images on litters.
Much of the visual evidence for these comes from
sculptures or paintings discovered outside Roma,
which has complicated the problem of identify-
ing the specific subjects, since there is often dis-
agreement in interpretation over whether the
subject depicted is set in Roma or locally. Apart
from the divine images, elements of these pro-
cessions seem difficult to distinguish, or in some
cases directly borrow from other processions.
Thus the procession to celebrate the inaugura-
tion of a consul (processus consularis) because
it led up to games held in the Circus Maximus
shares some elements with the circus proces-
sion, and is known to have borrowed imagery
of the triumphal procession as well (Claudianus,
panegyricus de quatro consulatu Honorii Augusti;
Göll, 1859; Jullian, 1883; Kübler, RE 4.1: 1125–26 s.v.
“consul”; Stern, 1983: 158–64).
The fragmentary lid of a sarcophagus from
Aquileia (fig. 24) preserves a magistrate, holding a
baton (scipio) and riding in a mule-drawn wagon,
preceeding a litter-borne baldachin (Ronke 1987:
188–89 & 736; Himmelmann 1973: 38–39). The
front portion of the baldachin has been broken
away revealing inside the conical stone image
identified with Cybele. As with the San Lorenzo
sarcophagus, the difficulty with understanding if
or to what extent a specific event is being por-
trayed lies with the deviations between the tex-
tual accounts of Cybele’s stone image and the
visual context here. The object on the Aquileia
lid is the conical black stone by which the god-
dess was brought from Phrygia to Roma, and
processed there during the ludi Megalenses, and
during a ritual purification (lavatio) for which the
stone was taken from Roma to Almo. Missing on
the Aquileia sarcophagus are the goddess’ orgi-
astic eunuchs who carry the image in the games
to the accompaniment of drums, cymbals and
flutes. And in the procession to the Almo river
the stone is transported in a wagon, not car-
ried on a litter. Even if these deviations are laid
aside, the stone of the goddess on the sarcopha-
gus might suggest that the setting of the event is
Roma. However, the cult of Cybele is known from
a number of sites outside Rome, including Aquil-
eia itself, so there is no requirement to assume
that the action takes place in Roma (CIL v.795a;
CIL v.796; Graillot, 1912: 430; Levi, 1935: 69; Tur-
can, 1996: 57 and 64–65). At least one copy, in
silver, of the stone image is recorded, donated
by a patroness of the Cybele cult at Ostia (CIL
xiv.36), though this could be a votive, rather than
a cult object. Thus the stone of the goddess could
have been copied in the process of establishing
the cult of Cybele at Aquileia in the same way
that the cult of Diana was brought to Roma by
means of a copy of the cult image of Artemis at
Ephesos (Strabon iv.1.4–5). If the setting of the
event on the sarcophagus is Aquileia, one cannot
rely strictly on textual evidence about Roma to
understand the subject. Thus in the procession
as shown, the litter is borne not by the orgiastic
eunuchs of the goddess, but by a corps, probably
slaves, dressed in tunics and mantels (paenulae)
(Kolb, 1973: 109–10; Ronke 1987: 188).
Further, a magistrate escorting the stone of
Cybele is not an element documented for the lav­
atio. The emperor Julian did carry out rituals for
Cybele at Callinicum on the occasion of the lava­
tio (Ammianus Marcellinus xxiii.3.7), suggesting
that a magisterial presence in that ritual is pos-
sible, but not that it is a requirement. The lack
 litter statues 51

Fig. 24. Sarcophagus lid, Museo Archeologico di Aquileia. Photo: DAI Rome

of evidence for such a requirement has resulted
in associating the Aquileia lid instead with circus
processions, including the processus consularis
in Roma (Goette, 1998: 92–93). A further point
of evidence on the Aquileia lid, which is rarely
acknowledged and whose full implications have
not been appreciated, is the wing faintly visible
along the right break, denoting the presence
there of Victoria (Himmelmann, 1973: 38). This
figure of Victoria would appear in the same rela-
tive position with respect to the magistrate as that
goddess does on the San Lorenzo sarcophagus
lid (fig. 21) with respect to the imperial image, so
that her function here must be the same, to lead
the way before the magistrate and his lictors. And
again like the San Lorenzo example, the proces-
sion of divine images is configured, and perhaps
treated as a visual synecdoche, with Cybele at the
lead. To the extent that the San Lorenzo lid may
encapsulate a procession in Roma for the circus,
the same might be true for the Aquileia lid.
Either of the two hypotheses on the subject
matter of the lid, a highly distilled rendering of
a circus procession in Roma or a variation of the
lavatio at Aquileia accepts points of deviation
from the textual evidence. For the larger issue
of divine statues on fercula being used outside
Roma there is other visual evidence. However,
the Aquileia example does provide additional
information on the nature of divine images in
processions by the position and scale of the wing
of Victoria. These indicate that the goddess could
not have appeared here held aloft on a litter.
Clarification of the situation for Victoria figure
52 chapter two
Fig. 25. Funeral relief from Amiternum. Museo Nazionale di Chieti. Photo: DAI Rome
is found on a relief from Amiternum (La Regina,
2001: 358; LIMC VIII, s.v. “Zeus/Iuppiter”, no. 237;
Diebner, 1988; La Regina, 1966) (fig. 25), one of
the group, to which the Aquileia sarcophagus lid
may belong, depicting the use of statues on litters
in processions outside of Roma itself. In the pro-
cession which is the subject of the Amiternum
relief, reconstructed as the frieze of a funerary
monument, at the right margin of what originally
would have been the second block of the frieze,
Victoria rides in a chariot. Although a substantial
amount of time separates these two reliefs, the
Aquileia sarcophagus from the fourth century,
and the Amiternum frieze from the first half of
the first century CE (La Regina, 1966: 52–53), the
scale and position of the wing on the former is
nevertheless a close match for the wing of Victo-
ria on the latter, making it reasonable to recon-
struct the Victoria on the Aquileia sarcophagus
as similarly riding in a chariot. And as on the
Aquileia sarcophagus, additional gods appear on
the Amiternum frieze carried on litters. On the
second block are carried two litters with stand-
ing, frontal images, the first of Jupiter, the second
of Juno. These two indicate the presence of the
Capitoline triad in the form of statues, with Min-
erva appearing on the now lost continuation of
the procession (La Regina, 1966: 47).
The striking feature of these two examples is
that in each god(s) appear both in the form of
a statue, and fictively incarnate (Victoria). The
dilemma of two orders of existence in the same
place and time can be accounted for, particularly
with respect to Victoria, by the convention of
having gods, presumably those required to play
some more active part in the processional drama,
 litter statues 53
impersonated by mortals. Thus Julius Obsequens
understood a boy to impersonate Victoria (de
prodigiis 70), priests are described as the embodi-
ment of the god they serve (Ploutarkhos, aitia
Romaïka 290C), and more broadly flamines or tri­
umphatores are impersonators of the god (Scheid,
1986). The very act of riding in a chariot is itself a
more active rôle than the statues on litters play,
but there is no reason to think the performance
was limited to that. Indeed, La Regina (1966: 46)
in her reconstruction of the Amiternum frieze
plausibly describes the extended right arm of the
Victoria as holding a crown, and a palm branch
held on her left shoulder is still visible.
On the Amiternum frieze there is a figure in
a second chariot following Victoria and sepa-
rated from her by a group consisting of two men
with two boys. The second rider is badly dam-
aged, with only the contour and its implements
preserved. But since for the Victoria only the
chariot box is preserved, this second rider clari-
fies that the two chariots are bigae and are not
controlled by the occupant, but handled by a
groom who appears on the far side of the second
chariot’s horses, on a scale which is intermediate
between the togate men and boys. The use of an
escort compares closely with the same rôle per-
formed with respect to divine wagons (tensae)
for carrying the symbols of the gods (exuviae)
in processions, as to be discussed in Chapter 4.
The presence of the grooms to handle the chari-
ots illustrates that the attributes carried by the
impersonators of the gods are more important
than these impersonators being seen as in direct
control of their chariots.
The second rider holds a spear in the right
hand, a trophy over the left shoulder, and wears
a helmet. Ryberg identified the figure as the mag-
istrate for the procession, as no other figure on
the preserved blocks would seem to fit the rôle
(Ryberg, 1955: 99–100). La Regina on the other
hand identified the figure as Mars (La Regina,
1966: 47; Pekáry, 1985: 122). Ryberg’s interpreta-
tion has the advantage of providing an expected,
distinctive treatment for the magistrate. But La
Regina’s interpretation accounts more directly
for the attributes of the figure. To the evidence
might be added Claudianus’ description (panegy­
ricus de quatro consulatu Honorii Augusti 1–17) of
the inaugural procession (processus consularis)
for Honorius’ fourth consulship, where immedi-
ately after describing the preparations of sena-
tors, lictors and soldiers he describes Bellona
and Mars as if they were participating in the
procession. While it is an open question whether
in a procession of a Christian emperor statues
of these pagan divinities would have taken part,
the metaphorical invocation of these war gods at
this initial point in that procession underscores
the appropriateness of their appearance, and the
general imitation of the triumphal procession by
the consular procession.
The survival of a frieze block among those
from Amiternum illustrating gladiators has led
to reading these as part of the same procession
which includes the statues on litters and the
chariots (Ryberg, 1955: 99; Diebner, 1988: 135–36;
La Regina, 2001: 358). However, La Regina’s recon-
struction of the frieze (1966: 41–43) shows that
the block with gladiators (block d) belongs to
the frieze on the other side of the interior space
of the monument and is not contiguous with
the frieze of the procession. It is not necessary,
therefore, to combine the two as a single subject
(Schäfer, 1989: 397), and as will be shown below,
the emphasis on statues and impersonators of
gods on the Amiternum frieze is distinct from
the usual representations of processions for local
gladiatorial games. Considered only by the heavy
presence of gods and its triumphal character,
the procession is most consistent with a proces­
sus consularis. This character lends some sup-
port to Ryberg’s reading of the trophy carrier as
the magistrate, here impersonating Mars. If this
hypothesis is valid, the Amiternum frieze would
be consistent with other examples in its use of
Victoria as the escort of the magisterial power.
Processions which can with greater certainty
be ascribed to local gladiatorial games are pre-
served on a grave relief from outside Pompeii,
54 chapter two
Fig. 26. Gladiatorial relief, Museo Nazionale, Napoli. Photo: Ryberg 1955
and on reliefs decorating the amphitheatre at
Capua. Several fragments of sculptured parapets,
protecting the entrances to the amphitheatre at
Capua and dating to the middle of the second
century, illustrate the familiar hunched figures
in tunics carrying litters. Only one subject that
survives on a complete parapet section can be
associated with these as it represents a civic pro-
cession. Here a magistrate arrives in the amphi-
theatre, mounting the stairs to his seat (Pesce,
1941: 22–24; Schäfer, 1989: 385). This arrival was
positioned over the centre of the amphitheatre
entrance, and the panels of processions with
litter-bearers would flank it on one side or the
other, depicting the procession proceeding to the
amphitheatre. As the surviving sections preserve
only the bearers, their staves and in one case the
poles of the litters, it is not possible to deter-
mine if they carried the images of the gods, or
images connected with guilds (Pesce, 1941: 18–19;
Spinazzola, 1953: 231). However, these fragments
do speak to the visual sense that the statues(?)
on litters comprise a quintessential element of
such processions, even outside the imperial capi-
tal. Moreover, as one of the fragments preserves
parts of two litter-bearing teams in succession,
it emphasizes the tendency among other depic-
tions to distill from large and complicated pro-
cessions, an essential element to draw on the
viewer’s memory of the original.
The often-discussed grave relief (fig. 26), now
in Napoli (Mus. Naz. 6704), illustrates in several
registers, a procession, gladiatorial games and a
hunt (venatio) (Abaecherli, 1935–36: 2; Ryberg,
1955: 101; Felletti Maj, 1977: 341–42; Diebner, 1988:
131; Junkelmann, 2000: fig. 206; Köhne and Ewigle-
ben, 2000: 72; La Regina, 2001: 359). At the head
of the procession in the top register, two lictors
carrying fasces lead several musicians and then
four figures in tunics at smaller scale who carry
a litter directly on their shoulders (i.e., without
poles). The figures atop the litter are on the small-
est scale, but additionally have distinctly doll-like
proportions, with rather large heads for their bod-
ies. As there follow the litter several figures carry-
ing elements of gladiatorial armour, the litter has
been interpreted as being linked to an armourer’s
guild (Tertullianus, de spectaculis 7), with two
metal smiths depicted at their labour. The figures
sit facing each other intent on their work on the
block between them, the figure on the right hold-
ing his hammer aloft in the right hand.
It has become standard to describe these fig-
ures on the litter as simply exemplars of the
metalworkers’ guild, but this may be to miss
the significance of objects transported on litters.
Both the legend of Romulus inventing the lit-
ter for the triumph, and the function of the lit-
ter as a tray, whether for an image or offering,
imbue the device with divine significance. Even
 litter statues 55
Fig. 27. Procession, Bottega del Profumiere, Pompeii, Museo Nazionali, Napoli. Photo: Caratelli 1990–95
the booty and prisoners in the triumph, to the
extent they are being dedicated to the gods, are
divine property; a generalized and pedestrian
illustration of a guild’s work would not seem to
rise to this required level of divine significance.
More convincing would be some illustration of
the divine connections of the guild’s work. For
the metal smiths’ guild the appropriate figures
are those divine progenitors: Telkhines, Daktu-
loi, Korybantes, or Kabeiroi. These are frequently
conceived as small and multiple daimons, and
often conflated with one another (Strabon x.3.7;
Nonnos, Dionysiaka xxx.68; Diodoros Sikeliotes
v.55; Strabon x.3.19–22 & xiv.2.7; Statius Thebais
ii.269–75). The Kabeiroi were identified with the
Megaloi Theoi of Samothrake, and thought to
have been brought to Troia and subsequently to
Roma as the dual Penates (Dionysios of Halikar-
nassos i.61 & 68; Macrobius, Saturnalia iii.4.). Of
particular importance for the current context is
that they are connected with metallurgy and the
god Volcanus or Hephaistos. Indeed, the strength
of the identification lies in the pose of the ham-
mer-wielding daimon on the right, which is iden-
tical to the statue for the cult of Hephaistos at
Magnesia-on-the-Maiandros, itself shown on
imperial coins as being carried on a litter (Malten,
1912: 240–41).
The guild litter on this grave relief finds its
best parallel on a painting also from Pompeii, VI
7.8, Napoli, Mus. Naz. 8991 (Malten, 1912: 242 and
fig. 4; Abaecherli, 1935–36: –20; Felletti Maj, 1977:
334–35; Fröhlich, 1991: 319–20; van Nijf, 1997: 200;
Clarke, 2003: 86–87; LIMC VII, s.v. “Perdix”, no. 4;
ThesCRA, s.v. “cult images”, no. 591.) (fig. 27). Even
in its fragmentary condition, and removed from
its context, the painting does offer ample testi-
mony on how complex such guild litters could be,
and as it once decorated a shop, it speaks to the
sense of prestige which the processional display
of such litters must have had. While depictions of
litters do not ordinarily provide evidence for such
elaborate decorations, this may be in the interests
of clearly illustrating the carried god. An impe-
rial period inscription, for example, records the
fact that the donor paid for the litter of a fercu­
lum statue of Bellona and its trappings (ILS 3804;
Fishwick, 1967: 153; Wissowa, 1912: 350).
The litter carried here is rendered as both
larger and more elaborate than is the norm for
depictions of litters. The litter is covered in part
with a baldachin, itself decked out in vegetation
and sacral vessels. At the back of the baldachin
three figures, to judge from their bodily propor-
tions either children or again daimons, busy
themselves with sawing lumber. At the front end
of the litter, beneath the pediment of the balda-
chin, a figure in an exomis ponders a prone fig-
ure at his feet. The prone figure is described as
having a spike through his head, although in the
current condition of the painting it is not possible
to confirm this. The exomis worn by the standing
56 chapter two
Fig. 28. Procession, Via del Abbondanza, Pompeii. Photo: AA 1913
figure identifies a worker, and Daidalos has been
recognized here having jealously murdered Talos
or Perdix, inventor of the saw (Schürmann, 1985:
56–57; LIMC III, s.v. “Daidalos”, I). The mytho-
logical identification has been doubted in favour
of anonymous workers (LIMC VII, s.v. “Perdix”,
no. 4). But apart from the evidence above that
litters more likely support a scene of divine or
heroic antecedents for a guild, it is not clear that
carpenters suffered death by spikes through the
head at such a rate as to make this an effective
depiction of anonymous workers. More likely, this
tableau does present the heroic forbearers of the
carpenters’ guild whose shop the painting deco-
rated. At the preserved left edge of the painting,
and apparently standing outside the extent of the
baldachin are visible the spear, shield and lower
edge of the peplos of Minerva, here as the patron
goddess of craftsmen.
It is not clear that the litter was ever part of
a larger processional context, and therefore pro-
vides no information on what ceremony it may
have participated in. The painting’s intention
may have been to focus exclusively on the deco-
ration of the guild’s litter and on its carriers. Four
tunic-clad litter bearers are in evidence, although
as the last pair in order seem to be positioned at
about the middle of the litter, an additional pair
is possible. They carry the litter in a distinctive
manner, on poles apparently extending across
the depth of the litter. Despite this, none of the
preserved bearers is overlapped by the litter itself,
so that the group is arranged as if in a single file.
This defiance of spatial recession allows each of the
bearers’ faces to be clearly visible. A nineteenth-
century publication of the painting described
them as being “of vulgar facial types” (Helbig,
1868: 359–60). It seems odd that the guild, as the
patrons of the painting, would wish themselves to
be presented in quite this unflattering light. Nev-
ertheless, it does suggest something more indi-
vidualized than the generic types provided in the
nineteenth-century watercolour (Carratelli, et al.
1990–95, 5: 390–91). And while the condition of
the painting does not reveal if these are any more
than types, the arrangement does suggest that the
painting is as much a presentation of the guild
members as the litter they carry.
A second painting from Pompeii, IX 7.1, (fig. 28),
on the Via dell’Abbondanza, provides the most
extensive visual description of the use of a litter
in local ceremony (Spano, 1912; Delbrueck 1913;
Della Corte, 1921; Spinazzola, 1953 I: 223–42; Ver-
maseren, 1977: 108–09, 124; Fröhlich, 1991: 332–
33; Clarke, 2003: 87–93; LIMC VIII, s.v. “Kybele”,
no. 73; ThesCRA, s.v. “cult images”, no. 592). The
painting is one of a group decorating the entrance
to a taverna. The architrave carried a set of five
bust-length images of gods. At the tops of the
supporting piers is a pair of pendant images, both
set against a white ground, each with a painted
garland hanging above. In contrast to the images
of the gods in their celestial realm on the archi-
trave, these pier images present the gods in their
earthly manifestations, in the form of the images
through which they are worshipped. Thus on
 litter statues 57
the left Venus Pompeiana and the Eros with her,
though depicted in terms of colour and texture
as animate beings, are indicated as statues. Eros
stands on a tall, cylindrical base, while the larger
figure of Venus stands on a low rectangular one.
On the right pier is the painting of a procession.
An enthroned goddess, uniformly identified as
Cybele, has been carried on a litter, now set on
the ground. She, along with the procession which
has accompanied her, has arrived in the presence
of Dionysos/Liber, who, though part of the same
composition, is rendered in sculptural form as a
bust in a niche.
All the paintings are now badly faded, so that
only general compositional patterns and larger
forms are apparent. But earlier photographs
and meticulous descriptions of details and attri-
butes made shortly after the excavation provide
the essential evidence to assess the subject. The
entire composition on the right pier is framed on
both sides by vertical forms which stand slightly
removed from the cohesive, central grouping: on
the left two musicians on the smallest scale of all
the figures, on the right two tall, thin candelabras
flank an altar on which incense burns. Between
these the mortal and divine figures coalesce into
an unbroken block of overlapping forms. And
despite this compact arrangement, each head
is allotted an unobstructed, frontal presentation
as if they are all posing for a group portrait. This
mass is pinned at either end by the two larger
divine forms, each of which is further set off by
its fastigium frame, Liber in his niche, Cybele
enthroned on her litter backed by a large cloth
spangled with stars.
Of these two gods, it is Cybele who has arrived
with her processional escort comprised of a
priest and assistant, a body of women who vari-
ously carry ceremonial paraphernalia (Summers,
1996: 341) and musical instruments, and a crew of
four litter bearers. These bearers are on a slightly
smaller scale than the other mortals. They wear
tunics and over them paenulae, the same garb as
the litter bearers of Cybele’s stone image on the
sarcophagus in Aquileia (fig. 24). Accordingly,
they have been interpreted as wearing the reli-
gious habit of a foreign cult (Spinazzola, 1953: I:
232–33). However, the shape of their mantels is
consistent with the paenula, and the wearing of
brightly coloured or opulent dress is characteris-
tic of litter carriers (Seneca, de beneficiis iii.28.5,
and Martialis, epigrammata 9.22.9–10). They still
hold in their hands the staves intended to hold
the litter during processional pauses. Here, how-
ever, the litter has been placed on the ground.
The significance is unmistakable: this is the end
of the procession. Moreover, the focus is Liber
in his aedicula, to whom even Cybele directs her
attention.
Like Venus on the opposite pier, the goddess
appears not as a rigid piece of statuary, but as
an animate being who turns off the axis of the
litter towards Liber. Her sceptre has been moved
to the crux of the left arm in order that she hold
a bough in her left hand and more importantly
a patera in her right, pouring a libation. In this
she repeats the action of the priest at the centre
of the group, who also is turned in three-quarter
view towards Liber in his aedicula. Her actions,
therefore, should be understood not as reflecting
necessarily her cult image or the image carried
on the litter, but as intrinsic to the procession’s
arrival at the aedicula of Liber. The connection
Ovidius ( fasti iii.733–34) draws between the
name of Liber and the word for libations (liba­
mina) may also function here to emphasize the
attention paid to the god.
The ceremonial acts, liquid offering and the
burning of incense as distinct from sacrifice, are
appropriate to several possible rituals of thanks-
giving and prayer: supplicatio, obsecratio and
gratulatio (Wissowa, 1912: 424–25). The form of
the object of these ritual acts, Liber as a bust in
his aedicula, is suggestive. He appears here as
one of the heads of gods (capita deorum). This
particular form will the subject of a dedicated
chapter, but here it can be observed that Livius
(xl.59) identifies the head of a god as a format
of a divine image used for ritual banquets (lec­
tisternia) (Nouilhan, 1989: 35 and Milani, 1976).
58 chapter two
As both the supplicatio and the obsecratio occur
as part of a lectisternium, the action depicted in
the painting, directed toward the head of Liber, is
most efficiently explained as the arrival in prepa-
ration of one such banquet, where the head of
the god is set out to receive the public. The estab-
lishment of a shrine was celebrated by holding
a lectisternium as a commemorative foundation
celebration (Wissowa, 1912: 422 and ns. 1 and 2;
Latham, 2007: 227–231; Festus 351). Here then the
occasion of the lectisternium may be the com-
memoration of the foundation of Liber’s shrine.
At Roma, all the public would participate in
visiting the target god or gods to make their sup-
plications, so one can imagine that here at Pom-
peii a religious community of women dedicated to
Cybele have processed to the shrine of Liber for
this occasion, bringing along on a litter their image
of the goddess to join them. Recorded official lec­
tisternia often involved images of gods in male and
female pairs, and it is possible that the painting on
the Via dell’Abbondanza commemorates Cybele’s
image joining Liber’s for such a lectisternium. The
orgiastic aspect of the worship of both gods would
account for their pairing in such a lectisternium
(Vermaseren, 1977: 64). This pairing up of heads of
gods would have required each of the participat-
ing gods to have his or her image brought from
its own temple. But as the goddess is rendered
in the painting not as an image but as if actually
present, the painting does not provide evidence
for the format of her statue brought to this sup­
plicatio. However, a statuette group in Praeneste
(fig. 29) does demonstrate that litters were used to
bring images of a god from another sanctuary to a
divine banquet, a practice which may be restricted
to religious observation outside Roma itself.
The statuette depicts a pair of images of Fortu-
nae, now missing their heads and portions of all
their arms (Agnoli, 2000: 57–59; Champeaux, 1982:
150–155 and pl. IX). Much else about the figures
might strike one as odd. Brendel has emphasized
in the fundamental publication of the group that
despite initial impressions, the figures do not
kneel (Brendel, 1960: 41), but are instead cut off
in the area of the upper thighs. That the figures
end where their bodies meet the couch beneath
them, rather than being figures who kneel is con-
firmed by the handling of the garments, whose
hems are apparent at the front, and whose sides
lap over the poles of litters at either side of each
figure. These are the poles of the litters on which
they have been carried. The rigid frontality of
the figures, with respect to both the litters and
the couch, emphasizes the difference between
these figures as statues, and the Cybele of the Via
dell’Abbondanza painting as an animate being
who participates in ceremony.
In his investigation of the group, Brendel drew
attention to the repetition of iconographic and
formal elements with a coin rendering of the two
Fortunae worshipped at Antium: the Amazonian
dress of one of the two, the appearance of litters
whose carrying poles end in animal protomai,
and the truncation of the figures (Brendel, 1960:
41–42). The Fortunae on the coin are truncated
between the breasts and waist, rather than at the
upper thigh, suggesting that the fact of trunca-
tion is a more significant carrier of meaning than
where precisely the truncation occurs. Brendel
extends the comparison more broadly to the
tradition of Roman funerary renderings of heads
and busts, and images of oracular divinities who
are shown partially risen from the earth to deliver
their prophecies, the latter case being particu-
larly apposite for the Fortunae, who delivered
oracles from their sanctuary at Antium, appar-
ently on their litters according to a reference in
Marcrobius (Saturnalia i.23.13). The couch Bren-
del would understand as a bit of temple furni-
ture upon which the images are set to deliver the
oracles (Brendel, 1960: 44–47). Alternatively, the
setting up of the cult images on a couch has been
thought to represent a lectisternium, or allude to
a marriage bed (Romanelli, 1967: 93; Champeaux,
1982: 150–155). The evidence to assess these inter-
pretations will be considered at greater length in
the chapter on capita deorum.
The presence of the litters is exceptional in
depictions of lectisternia, or textual accounts of
 litter statues 59
them, but Brendel’s argument that the gilded
cult statues of the deities at Antium were perma-
nently fixed to litters so that they could deliver
their oracles while they were carried about their
sanctuary, as Marcrobius (Saturnalia i.23.13)
relates, accounts for the litters being treated
as fixed parts of the statues’ appearance in this
depiction of them. If Brendel’s analysis is cor-
rect, that the statues carried on litters were the
primary statues of the cult, it opens the issue of
what the relationship was between the images
carried on litters and their corresponding cult
images, or indeed any prominent statue of the
divinity. It needs stressing that such a proposed
correspondence rests on the assumption that the
visual examples of statues on litters faithfully
render their appearance, rather than selecting
some common and therefore easily recognized
image of the divinity. Apart from the identity
of the particular divinity, what was the relation-
ship between the statues on a litter and in the
divinity’s sanctuary? No textual or archaeological
evidence directly fixes the location of ferculum
statues during the time they were not in use. But
the number of them involved in the large public
processions in Roma, as described by Dionysios
(vii.72) for the circus pompa, suggests that mass
storage would have required considerable space.
Hypothetically, storage within a divinity’s sanc-
tuary, in one of the ancillary chambers of such
a complex, could have more efficiently provided
for the protection and security of the statue and
its litter.
At least for Roma, the larger and better under-
stood processions, like the triumphal and the
circus, did not issue from a temple, requiring
therefore that the statues, like other elements
of the procession, be assembled at some gather-
ing point. However, outside the capitol and for
smaller processions focusing on a small number
of divinities, the evidence suggests that some
probably did begin at temple sites. The image of
Cybele escorted by her adherents to visit Liber
in the painting in Pompeii and a temple account
from Arsinoe dealing with the hiring of men to
carry the litter of the ξόανον of Jupiter (Wilcken,
1885: 438–39, 441, 468–69) point towards the stat-
ues with their litters being stored in the sanctuar-
ies, as with the Antium pair. This direct physical
association of the ferculum statue with a sanctu-
ary could foster a link between the statue and a
well-known statue of the sanctuary, like the cult
statue.
Apart from the Antium/Praeneste example, the
Aquileia sarcophagus lid (fig. 24) offers the most
secure example of a ferculum statue conform-
ing to a cult image, because of the peculiar form
Cybele’s cult image took as a stone of roughly
conical form. Additionally, it can be concluded
that the stone image seen on the lid would have
to correspond to the local one, derived from the
one in Roma, since according to Prudentius’s
description (peri stephanon x.156–57) by this time
that original in Roma had been incorporated into
a much larger and anthropomorphic image of
the goddess.
Additionally, the statues on fercula on the
frieze from Amiternum have a claim to reflect-
ing cult images. The divinities here, excluding
those impersonated divinities, portray the Capi-
toline triad, consistent with the use of triumphal
imagery in such magisterial processions. The
identification of the Capitoline gods is striking
for the specific rendering of Jupiter. He appears
not as the Capitoline Jupiter was at the time of
the frieze’s construction in the middle of the first
century CE, a colossal chryselephantine statue
modeled after Pheidias’ Olympia Zeus, enthroned
and holding a figure of Roma(?) in the extended
right hand (Suetonius, Augustus 94.6; Dio Cassius
xlv.2.3). This form of Jupiter was installed as part
of the rebuilding of the temple after its burning
in 83 BCE. By contrast, the Jupiter on the frieze
is a standing figure with the right arm lowered
next to the body and holding a thunderbolt. This
rendering of the god seems to hark back to the
cult statue lost in the burning of the temple. Tex-
tual references to this statue concur that it was
of terracotta, standing and holding a thunderbolt
(Ovidius, fasti i.201; Warren, 1970: 63). Ovidius also
60 chapter two
provides a sense of its scale: so large as to barely
stand in its shrine. This survival of the older cult
image in processional imagery is also indicated
elsewhere, as on a fragment of a sarcophagus
depicting a magistrate with a baton in a chariot.
The context has, like that for the Amiternum pro-
cession, been interpreted as one for the games
(Ronke, 1987: 228, 735; Costantini, LIMC VIII,
s.v. “Zeus/Iuppiter”). Accordingly, the Capitoline
gods are rendered as a relief decoration on the
front of the chariot box, and as in the Amiternum
case, Jupiter appears in the archaic guise, stand-
ing with a thunderbolt in the lowered right hand.
As it seems unlikely that the fire which destroyed
the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus spared the old
cult statue, or that a large terracotta statue could
have been saved from the fire, the anachronistic
invocation of the lost statue would appear to be
a method to underscore the great antiquity of the
association between the cult and the games and
their processions. What is less clear is at what
level this appeal to that ancient association was
made: whether the processions did indeed pres-
ent the god in his old form, or whether depic-
tions of the processions would use the old form
regardless of how Jupiter actually appeared on
his ferculum in the procession.
The painting from Pompeii of the procession
of Cybele and her followers to the shrine of Liber
(fig. 28), although the goddess can be construed
as if animate and participating in the ritual
rather than a statue, nevertheless is a similar
case to the other examples in evoking at least a
general sense of a cult image with this large and
majestic depiction of the goddess. Shortly after
the painting was discovered, Delle Corte had
argued that the goddess depicted could not be
Cybele because there was no known temple of
Cybele in Pompeii which could provide for such
an image (Delle Corte, 1921: 69). While there is
still no known temple of Cybele in Pompeii it
is not necessary to assume that the procession
involves an intramural sanctuary of the goddess.
Processions, of course, could extend outside the
resident city. In the specific case of Cybele, the
ritual of the lavatio, which was observed at vari-
ous sites throughout the empire, would have nec-
essarily involved removing the goddess’ image
some distance from her resident sanctuary. Even
if the lavatio as described in Ovidius ( fasti iv.345),
where her image is carried in a wagon, pertained
everywhere, inscriptional evidence expands the
picture to include at least one litter statue as part
of this procession. An inscription of the impe-
rial period from Aquae Calidae in Mauretania
records a litter statue of Bellona described as dea
pedisequa which has been shown to refer to its
rôle as following the statue of Cybele in the lava­
tio procession, and other similar descriptions of
the same goddess insure that the arrangement
was not peculiar to this site (Fishwick, 1967: 153–
54). At whatever distance the lavatio required,
at least one litter statue took part, and as it is
defined in terms of Cybele’s image and proces-
sion it seems likely to have been housed in the
same sanctuary.
The Cybele on the litter in Pompeii is of a
type that descends ultimately from the Meter
made by Agorakritos for Athenai in the fifth cen-
tury BCE, and is subsequently extremely popular
in various media (Vermaseren, 1977–89). It is sig-
nificant that there is evidence for a number of
temples of Cybele in the region around Pompeii
(Tran tam Tinh, 1972: 85–100). Particularly strik-
ing is the Cybele partially preserved in relief on
a base in Sorrento, where the goddess appears,
very much like the Pompeii painting, on a high-
backed throne, flanked by lions, and with her
usual tympanum (Tran tam Tinh, 1972: 122–24).
The Cybele in the Pompeii painting additionally
holds branches which seem to derive from those
carried by her company, but overall the image
there would seem to project a sense of being a
cult statue come to life.
For the two examples of patron divinities car-
ried by members of guilds, the allusion to a cult
statue is rather more indirect. In the cases of
the gladiatorial relief with the armourers’ guild
(fig. 26) and the painting for the carpenters’ guild
(fig. 27) both from Pompeii, an urban setting for
 litter statues 61
the depicted processions seems warranted, yet
the divinities represented do not correspond to
sanctuaries known in the city. The Telkhines as
minor divinities are not likely to have had a tem-
ple of their own, and a temple of Minerva is not
at this point identified in Pompeii. Instead, one
of the Telkhines carried by the armourers dupli-
cates a pose of a cult image of Hephaistos known
to have some currency from Roman period coins.
On the litter of the carpenters’ guild, the parts
of the Minerva preserved along the edge of the
painting reveal a statue on a base, the shield on
the ground at the goddess’ left and the spear held
on the left side. To displace the spear from the
right side, some more important object must
have been held in the right hand. The immedi-
ately obvious correspondence to the Athena of
the Parthenos type in this case is dictated in part
by the appropriateness of a famous rendering of
the patron of craftsmen, but also by the narrative
of Daidalos which takes up the majority of the lit-
ter’s space, a story whose setting is Athenai.
In apparent contrast with this pattern of lit-
ter images being associated with cult images is
the San Lorenzo sarcophagus lid (LIMC VIII, s.v.
“Kybele”; Bieber, 1969; Vermaseren, 1977–89, III)
(fig. 21). At first glance the Cybele carried here
appears to be the type of the goddess enthroned
in a wagon drawn by lions. In fact, no wagon is
shown: the goddess on her throne sits behind a
pair of rampant lions. This seems to be a sum-
mary intended to achieve clarity within the
restricted space, while including the essentials.
But clearly, this is not the black stone of the god-
dess said to have been brought in from Anato-
lia, installed in the temple built on the Palatine,
and featured on the Aquileia sarcophagus lid in
a local version. While the type of enthroned god-
dess in a lion-drawn wagon is known as early
as some Republican coin issues, it achieves a
renewed and more sustained popularity under
the Antonine and Severan dynasties. A statuette
group in New York (1897.22.24) is particularly
informative because the enthroned Cybele is on
a different scale than the lions, which has been
interpreted as indicating that the lions draw, not
the goddess herself, but her statue (LIMC VIII,
s.v. “Kybele”, no. 94; Naumann, 1983: 158; Richter,
1930: 184–85). Where the original statue referred
to here stood is not known, but it is striking that
the revived popularity of the type of the statue
in the lion-drawn wagon coincides with the reor-
ganization and expansion of the cult of Cybele
under the Antonines (Lambrechts, 1952; Fish-
wick, 1966: 194–95), and therefore might originate
at the same time. Additionally, the type of the
goddess in her lion-drawn wagon appears under
the Antonines and subsequently under the Sev-
eran dynasty, as on the reverse of coins of Faus-
tina Maior and Julia Domna to celebrate their
rôles as mother of the empire and of emperors
(Bieber, 1969: 33–36), alluding to Cybele’s capac-
ity as mother of the gods. It would appear then
that although the Cybele that occurs on the San
Lorenzo sarcophagus lid cannot be with certainty
identified as a cult statue, it is one which is inte-
gral to the cult of the goddess as developed in the
later empire.
Taken together, the visual and textual evi-
dence provide some broader scope on the expe-
riential context of the processional display of
statues. Not surprisingly, these objects drew
attention to themselves by scale and luxurious
material. In contrast with statues in temples,
where the isolation of the individual divinity (or
small group) could be presented in a tighter and
more controlled focus, statues on fercula even if
alone are viewed in the context of a procession
busy in visual activity which competes with the
statue, and where even with the ritual pauses the
encounter is distinctly fleeting.
Scale and material serve to draw attention to
such statues. Josephus (historia Ioudaïkou polemou
pros Romaious vii.132) reports on the imposing
scale of the litter statues of the gods and describes
them as constructed of opulent materials. In the
same account of the triumph of Vespasianus, he
describes the Victoriae who led the way for the
emperor and his sons as being variously of gold
or ivory. These may be hand-held statues, but
62 chapter two
the text provides some evidence for the expected
identification of the opulent materials. This is
further corroborated by Ovidius (amores iii.2.43–
44) who specifically describes the statues of the
gods on fercula proceeding through the circus as
being of gold and ivory. Dio Cassius (xlviii.31.5)
refers to a Roman statue on a litters as a “pro-
cessional statue” (ἄγαλμα πομπεῦον). The same
term (ἀγάλματος πομπικοῦ) is applied to a statue
of Isis Eleutheria the cost of which is provided by
a Roman and which is specified as being of sil-
ver. As this, too, is likely a litter statue, it further
corroborates Josephus and Ovidius on the luxury
materials used for such objects (Robert, 1928:
57). The amount donated for the statue indicates
that this was not a statuette to be carried by a
single individual, like the statuettes specified in
the Salutaris endowment at Ephesos, but within
the range of statues’ costs known from Africa and
Italy (Duncan-Jones, 1982: 94, 162–63; see Appen-
dix, no. 2).
Construction in gold, silver and ivory presup-
poses an armature system of some kind, but the
goal of such construction need not be with an eye
to weight reduction. As examples from Ptolemaic
Alexandreia (Athenaios, deipnosophistai v.202a–c)
and the Romans’ own experience with process-
ing statuary captured from conquered enemies
(Appianus, historia Romana xii.116) amply dem-
onstrate, very large and heavy objects were no
bar to processional display. Indeed, even from
the imperial period there is evidence for statuary
not intended for processional use being pressed
into such service. The preserved letter from the
emperor Claudius to the Alexandrians declines
the honour of two gold statues whose subjects
are already fixed, and already manufactured
(Bell, 1972: 5–6, 27). One, constructed as a Pax
Augusta Claudiana he directs to be dedicated to
Roma. The other, whose subject is not mentioned
in the letter, he instructs to be used for proces-
sions. He also stipulates that they provide this
second statue with a δίφρος. The word can have
several possible meanings, although the pub-
lisher of the letter finds “throne” the most likely
(Bell, 1972: 32). The choice finds support from a
description of an enthroned processional statue
of Faustina Minor by Dio Cassius (lxxii.31) which
uses the same term. In the Alexandrian case, the
need to provide an existing seated statue with a
new throne is a striking specification, suggest-
ing that the requirements of processional func-
tion could not be met by simply retro-fitting the
statue’s original throne to a litter.
The performative nature of processions and
its temporal consequences have a fundamen-
tal effect on how the involved statues operated.
Against the fleeting quality of the encounter by
the viewer was the reiteration of the visual expe-
rience with these same statues as the processions
were repeated in the liturgical cycle. And the
dramatic tension inherent in such performance
also played its part: that in both the progression
through the streets and at the ritual pauses all
would go as prescribed. The perils were in part
of the moment, as the disastrous portent of a
ferculum statue” (ἄγαλμα πομπεῦον) of Mars fall-
ing down during Caracalla’s reign (Dio Cassius
lxxix.8.1) illustrates. The perils were also pro-
tracted, the inevitable deterioration of statues
subjected to regular handling and moving. The
best parallel for this lies in the images of the
imperial cult which were similarly handled, and
consequently required replacement (Fishwick,
1981; Fishwick, 1989).
It was by this repetition that ferculum statues
could function, even more effectively than cult
images which they seem often to have emulated,
to distribute the visual information of the god’s
appearance to the broader public. The particu-
larly striking case is that of Jupiter Capitolinus
as he appeared borne on a litter in Roma, since
this image seems to have preserved before the
public’s eyes a configuration of the god which
ceased to exist in his temple by the early first
century BCE.
The statues themselves, for all their size and
luxury, are fundamentally props, and their full
function relies on the participation of those who
carried them along and the crowds who came to
 litter statues 63
see the processions. The expectations of decorum
as much as the reality of how these groups played
their parts were essential ingredients in how well
it all came off.
The major commentators on the ferculum stat-
ues in processions in Roma, Dionysios of Halikar-
nassos, Josephus and Tertullianus, by addressing
them as a unity, emphasize the visual effect of the
sheer mass of divine images. Dionysios (Romaîke
arkhaiologia lxxii.13) gives an accounting of gods
and heroes which (assuming a single statue on
each litter) minimally would require thirty lit-
ters, and this he describes as only a partial list.
Despite what must have been the intended
overwhelming effect of these numbers, viewers
were capable of and did respond to statues on
a more individual level as well. Ovidius (amores
iii.2.43–55) describes the arrival of a procession
at the circus where his interest, due to romantic
aspirations, is focused on the statue of Venus. But
his catalogue of the sequence of statues and the
partisans he names for each reflect the responses
of these groups for individual statues. This effec-
tive fragmenting of the great mass of divine
images where individual statues receive the
attention of interested parties is also suggested
by the account of Dio Cassius (xlviii.31.5) of the
circus procession in 40 BCE, where the statue of
Neptunus was singled out for enthusiastic recep-
tion by the crowd in order to express its support
for Pompeius against Caesar and Antonius. That
such behaviour of singling out a god’s statue was
regarded by the organizers as bad form at least in
this particular case is demonstrated by their sub-
sequently removing the statue of Neptunus from
the lineup. And the response of the crowd to this
gesture to public order by driving the organiz-
ing magistrates from the Forum under a pelting
of stones provides a vivid sense of competition
between groups in society to manipulate the the-
atre of a procession and its constituent elements
to their own ends.
As with the processional statuettes, a part of
the visual presentation of the ferculum statues
involved those whose task it was to carry these
images. The standard of decorum which was
expected of the carriers of litters lies behind
Cicero’s caustic warning (de officiis 1.31) not to
adopt the habit of enfeebled walking typical of
those who carry litters. Significantly, he does not
level his charge against those who carry litters
generally, but only those in processions. That is,
he seems to feel there is less attention to their
keeping a rigid comportment than there ought
to be. The reality of transporting, large, chrysele-
phantine statues to which Cicero is responding
is also acknowledged by Ovidius (amores iii.2.54)
when he imagines that the inevitable shaking
and swaying of the statue is in fact the goddess
Venus responding favourably to his entreaties for
aid in his romantic enterprise.
These two allusions to the task of carrying
statues on litters underscore the contrast with
carrying processional statuettes, that the for-
mer amounts to something like real work. And
as such, a different set of social qualifications
for the performers applied. For while the car-
riers of statuettes were from among the élite,
those who carry litters come from a lower social
rank. Those who transport the wealthy in litters
are slaves (Seneca, de beneficiis 3.28.5; Martialis,
epigrammata 9.22.9–10); equally those who carry
the gods, though this may be an honour, come
from among those whose lot it is to bear loads.
Evidence for the social status of those who bear
the litters of the gods comes from the inventories
of the temple of Jupiter at Arsinoe, where entries
record the hiring of “workers” to carry the statue
of the god in procession (Wilcken, 1885: 438–39,
441, 468–69). This can be compared to the “work-
ers” hired to draw the cart for the phallus of
Dionysos on Delos (Vallois, 1922: 103–04).
In contrast with Cicero’s notion of the perfor-
mance of ferculum carriers, the visual portrayals
present them in ideal form. They regularly wear
short tunics, with occasionally paenulae. They
trudge along with the knees bent and the upper
body slightly stooped. The pose is used with con-
sistency, even for the painting of guild members
from Pompeii carrying the image of their patron
64 chapter two
goddess and heroic antecedents (fig. 27), where
the commercial site of the painting makes it clear
that the guild members are to be viewed with a
sense of pride. The sense of arduous effort that
typically prevails in the visual evidence is an ide-
alized presentation of the procession with each
individual doing his allotted part. The desire
to communicate the proud participation also
accounts for the peculiar perspective treatment
encountered for a significant number of the lit-
ter carriers. Though the renderings of the carriers
are in no sense portraits, the sculptors and paint-
ers seem to feel instinctively that their faces must
be visible so far as possible. As a result, heads of
carriers on the far side of a litter will violate the
logic of spatial recession by appearing on the
near side of the poles. Even in the relief today
in the Museo Chiaramonti from an imperial
monument of the first century CE, where spatial
recession might be expected to be observed more
rigorously, the two preserved carriers who belong
to the far side of the litter nevertheless position
their heads on the near side of the pole. On the
roughly contemporary Amiternum frieze (fig. 25)
the lead carriers on the far sides of both Jupiter’s
and Juno’s litters also appear with their heads on
the insides of their poles. The same effect can
occur much later, as on the sarcophagus lid frag-
ment in Aquileia (fig. 24), where the carrier on
the far side behind the baldachin appears in this
same arrangement.
This predilection to have the carriers with their
heads on the viewer’s side of their poles might
be accounted for by the random switching of the
poles from one shoulder to the other in order to
reduce fatigue during the long tread, but then it
wants explaining why near side carriers never
appear on the far side of their poles. Moreover,
in two cases, spatial recession is distinctly dis-
torted to achieve the effect. On the guild painting
from Pompeii (fig. 27), all three preserved carri-
ers appear with their heads on the near side of
the pole, all in the same spatial plane, and two
carriers establish that plane as nearer the viewer
than the litter itself. Three centuries later the San
Lorenzo sarcophagus lid (fig. 21) develops this
spatial hierarchy to its fullest extent. Behind all
the carriers of Victoria’s and those preserved for
Cybele’s litters, rise a series of corresponding fig-
ures. They might appear to be the far side carri-
ers, but in fact they are on a larger scale and their
shoulders are above the level of the poles. They
are therefore better understood as the escorts of
the litters. This leaves the carriers as the series of
smaller figures, all in the standard stooped poses,
and all strung out along the shallow plane of the
foreground.
The identity and visual treatment of the lit-
ter carriers in Roman renderings offer a point of
contact with foreign cults in Rome, and thereby
add emphasis. Dionysios (Romaîke arkhaiologia
ii.19) is rather unsympathetic to foreign ceremo-
nial practices. His general point is that Romans
perform religious rites for foreign gods, but in
their own manner. He specifically contrasts the
Roman worship of Cybele with games against the
imported pattern of worship, exemplified by the
Phrygian priests and priestesses and their pecu-
liar frenetic processions, vividly described also
by Lucretius (ii.600–60). It is this latter practice,
Dionysios adds, in which Romans are forbidden
to participate. As none of the visual evidence
for ferculum statues which show Cybele is as
old as Dionysios, it cannot support his sweep-
ing statement. The three examples which do
feature Cybele, the Via dell’Abbondanza paint-
ing (fig. 28), and the sarcophagus lids in Aquileia
(fig. 24) and San Lorenzo (fig. 21), though they
have sometimes been thought to illustrate the
Phrygian ministrants of the goddess, including
the eunuch priests, all lack the frightening frenzy
Lucretius’ description would lead one to expect.
The litter bearers in these examples have been
equated with Cybele’s Galli; if so it is difficult to
distinguish them in dress or bearing from proper
Romans. Certainly they share little by way of
idiosyncratic dress with the Galli (Bieber, 1968:
fig. 12; Budde and Nicholls, 1964: no. 125, 77–78).
However, improved understanding of the history
of the Roman worship of Cybele reveals a series
 litter statues 65
of expansions of the cult, and the participation in
aspects of it by Romans (Lambrechts, 1952; Fish-
wick, 1966). The earliest visual example, the Via
dell’Abbondanza painting, dates after the first of
these changes, that under Claudius. The Phry-
gian rites described by Lucretius and Dionysios
may have used priests to carry the litter of the
goddess, but apparently in certain aspects of her
worship at least, the more usual Roman practice
of using members of the lower social rank to do
the work of carrying litters prevailed.
The disjunction between the Phrygian prac-
tice of priests bearing the litters and the Roman
tradition is reflected more pointedly in Egyptian
religious ceremony, both as practiced in Italy,
and as it continued in Egypt. The practice of
processional litters in Egyptian religion is one
long established and documented before contact
with Roma, providing a control to measure any
exchange of practices. Again, the visual evidence
tends to lend support to Dionysios’ claim of seg-
regation between Roman and Egyptian practice.
That segregation is most pronounced in the car-
riers of litters, workers in Roman practice, priests
in Egyptian. The distinction is visually made clear
in the waist-tied mantles and shaven heads of the
Egyptian priests, who have the authority over pro-
cessions (Robert, Skeat, and Nock, 1936: 83). But a
distinction is also drawn in what is carried, as the
large, chryselephantine statues supported by the
Roman workers seem distinct from Egyptian tra-
dition. Evidence in the form of Roman terracotta
lamps from Egypt supports a consistency in the
indigenous practice where priests carry the shrine
which houses a small image of the divinity: Louvre
E20615; Berlin, Ägyptisches Mus. 12417; and Cairo,
Egyptian Museum 27081 (Dunand, 1990: 186–87,
no. 504, ThesCRA II, s.v., “cult images”, no. 593b;
LIMC IV, s.v. “Harpokrates”, no. 217, ThesCRA II,
s.v. “cult images”, no. 593a).
Macrobius (Saturnalia i.23.13), in a passage in
which he compares Roman practice of carrying
the gods on litters in the circus processions and
at sanctuary of Fortuna at Antium, describes the
god of Heliopolis in Assyria (Baalbak) where the
carriers are described as having shaven heads
and being the leading men of the province. As
he claims this cult was brought from Egypt, his
account matches well with the practice of priests
there carrying the god, as distinct from the indig-
enous Roman practice of workers carrying larger
statues.
From Italy itself the corresponding evidence
of Egyptian cult, while it does portray the car-
rying of religious apparatus by priests, does not
provide the same imagery as found in Egypt.
Material from the Iseum in Roma instead shows
priests holding a variety of cult implements, and
at least one statuette of Harpokrates, but no lit-
ters (Lembke, 1994: 43–44, 186–88). This absence
of the procession with litters from among the
depictions of the Isis cult in Roma may reflect
the real public face of the Egyptian religion as
practiced in the imperial capital.
The well-known occurrence of a litter used in
Egyptian cult in Italy is in the mosaic installed in
the sanctuary of Fortuna at Praeneste, although
this example is conditioned by being fictively set
in Egypt not Italy. The evidentiary value of the
Praeneste mosaic is further compromised by res-
toration. Four Egyptian priests passing through a
propylon carry a rectangular object on poles; so
much is clear. Unfortunately, the centre of the pro-
pylon, including much of the rectangular object
which might be a litter and what, if anything it
supported is restoration (Meyboom, 1995: 39,
275–76). All that can be said is that these priests,
if indeed they carry a litter, transport some small
object, consistent with the visual evidence for
priests with litters from Egypt itself, and distinct
from the large, chryselephantine statues carried
by workers in the Roman fashion.
It is ironic that despite the distinction which is
maintained visually between the identity of the
litter carriers in Roman religious practice and
Egyptian, it is a Roman writer from Egypt, who
provides the last word from Antiquity on Egyp-
tian litters. Claudianus, in his panegyricus de
quatro consulatu Honorii Augusti in 398 (4.565–
74), draws a comparison between the emperor
66 chapter two
borne by his soldiers in triumph and an Egyptian
god carried forth from its temple by the priests.
Whether so late in the fourth century statues of
pagan divinities either in Italy or Egypt would still
be publicly processed is a separate issue. But as
an Alexandrian, Claudianus apparently had anti-
quarian knowledge of Egyptian practice. If his
point is simply to praise the god-like qualities of
the emperor, it is passing strange that he does not
draw the comparison closer at hand of a Roman
god carried on its litter. But the Roman example,
because of the large scale of such statues, fails
Claudianus’ point: just as the weight of divinity
causes the Egyptian priests to pant and sweat
under their (apparently) small load, so it is with
the soldiers carrying the imperial if child Hono-
rius, who at the time of his fourth consulship was
only 14 years old. Though it is not his interest,
Claudianus is also valuable for understanding the
depictions of Roman litter carriers, since these
even more than the depictions of Egyptian lit-
ter carriers, are regularly shown as panting and
sweating under the weight of divinity.
 Chapter Three
Capita Deorum
Capita deorum, heads of gods, are distinctive
among ceremonial genres in being referred to in
texts with a specific title but one which seems
to require some explanation. These texts also
link this genre to a specific ceremony, the lectis-
ternium or divine banquet (Wissowa, 1923; van
Ooteghem, 1964; Milani, 1976; Nouilhan, 1989).
However, the texts are few in number, cover a
relatively brief period of time, and pose some dif-
ficulties of interpretation. Additionally, the visual
evidence which can be brought to bear on the
identity and use of this sculptural genre has not
been fully explored.
Livius (v.13 & xxii.10; and Dionysios of Halikar-
nassos, Romaîke arkhaiologia xii.9), among his
numerous references to lectisternia, reports with
some detail lectisternia for appeasing the gods in
399 and 217 BCE in response to disasters, here
pestilence and military defeat. For each, the gods
honoured are named, six and twelve respectively,
two to each couch, and usually, though notably
not always, one male and one female paired on
each couch. The occasions Livius cites are early,
but evidence that such occasional lectisternia con-
tinued to be held is found in the report of Mar-
cus Aurelius holding a lectisternium in 167 CE in
response to a plague (scriptores historiae augus-
tae, Marcus Antoninus 13). Simultaneously with
these public arrangements, private banquets
were also held, though little detail is given about
these except their broad inclusiveness across the
society (Sheid, 1985). In her consideration of these
accounts, Taylor drew the distinction between
these exceptional and occasional lectisternia and
the regularly held lectisternia, of which those for
Jupiter, the epulum Iovis, and Ceres, the lectister-
nium Cereris, are only the best known (Taylor,
1935: 123). Van Ooteghem further has sought to
distinguish between the occasional lectisternium
as specifically for appeasing the gods, and the
regular petitioning of gods as a supplicatio (van
Ooteghem, 1964). The holding of regular lectister-
nia may also have been an element of imperial
cult. An inscription from Gytheion in Lakonia
dictating details of the ceremonies for the impe-
rial images has been persuasively interpreted as
describing a lectisternium in the theatre for the
εἰκόνας (portraits) of Augustus, Livia and Tiberius
(Rostovtzeff, 1930: 12–16; Eitrem, 1932: 43–48; Fish-
wick, 1991: 566; Gebhard 1996: 117–21; see Appen-
dix, no. 3). A part of this argument points to the
parody of a divine lectisternium recounted by Sue-
tonius (Augustus 76), where the young Augustus
and his friends played the parts of the gods, as in
fact a stage in the development of the lectister-
nium in the imperial cult (Rostovtzeff, 1930: 15).
In addition to these, privately funded lectisternia
are also attested (CIL V.5272; Compostello, 1992;
D’Arms, 1998; Lindsay, 1998; Dunbabin, 2003 ).
Elsewhere, Livius (xl.59) directly links the use
of the genre of heads of gods with the lectister-
nium in recounting a baleful portent in which
the gods in this format, arranged on couches for
the banquet, turned away. Also pertinent are two
definitions in Festus which have been the source
of some range in interpretation. One (Festus, 472)
defines struppi as wreaths of verbena placed in
front of the heads of gods, and the second (Fes-
tus, 56) defines the heads of gods as themselves
made of the little bundles of verbena. From this
it has been possible to assert that the heads of
gods are themselves simply the wreaths or bands
(struppi), the wreath as a decoration for the head
on these occasions standing in for it in a kind of
visual synecdoche (Hölscher, 2007: 37–40). This,
however, seems to do violence to the sense of
Livius’ description of the heads turning away.
Alternatively, Festus’ and Livius’ accounts have
68 chapter three

Fig. 29. Fortunae statuette, Museo Archeologico Prenestino, Palestrina. Photo: author

Fig. 30. Fortunae coin, American Numismatic Society, NY. Photo: Brendel 1960

been taken to indicate that the heads of gods
were small scale images employed in the lectister-
nia (Wissowa, 1912: 422–23; Rüpke, 2001: 103–104).
Taylor and Abaecherli put forward a reconcilia-
tion to these two poles of view in the observation
that the wreaths could at times have been substi-
tuted for the original images which were in the
form of heads (Taylor, 1935: 123; Abaecherli, 1935:
134). This suggestion would account for how such
wreaths could come to be called heads of gods, as
the definition in Festus seems to indicate.
The visual evidence is here considered in
chronological order. Fortuitously, the earliest evi-
dence is of Italian origin, allowing the establish-
ment of a Roman pattern before taking up the
later examples from elsewhere in the empire.
The statuette group of the twin Fortunae at
Praeneste (fig. 29), dated on formal evidence to
the early first century BCE, has already been cited
as a representation of statues on litters. All discus-
sions have agreed on the important point that the
group represents not the goddesses, but images of
the goddesses on litters which themselves rest on
a couch. This point has been argued thoroughly
by Brendel comparing these figures with the god-
desses as they appear on a coin (fig. 30) minted
by Q. Rustius late in the same century (Brendel,
1960; Champeaux, 1982: 150–155). On the coin
the Fortunae appear with the same iconography,
again on litters and again truncated, although
in this case in the upper torso, rather than at
mid-thigh. About the significance of the couch
in this group there has been disagreement. Bren-
del regarded the couch as temple furniture upon
which the images have been set; the litters cor-
respond to Macrobius’s description (Saturnalia
 capita deorum 69
Fig. 31. Coin of Caldus, British Museum. Photo: Grueber 1970
i.23.13) of these goddesses being carried about
their sanctuary on litters in order to deliver their
oracles (Brendel, 1960: 44–47).
Brendel’s concern was to account for the trun-
cation of the divine images on both the sculptural
group and the coin, which he saw as emblematic of
the chthonic nature of the divinities, in each case
presented as if rising from the earth. In addition
to the visual evidence he cited, one might mar-
shal in support of his argument the votive heads
of Italian origin which also have an association
with the sanctuaries of chthonic gods (ThesCRA,
s.v. “Dedications, Rom; I. Italien; A. Offerte in
forma di figura umana”). Unlike Brendel, Cham-
peaux focused on the significance of the couch
in the Praeneste statuette group, which she inter-
preted as a marriage bed, the goddesses placed
on it in this votive offering as a plea for their aid
in securing a fruitful nuptial (Champeaux, 1982).
While this interpretation accounts better for the
couch, visual comparanda are hard to come by to
illustrate cult statues on a couch carrying nuptial
significance. And, of course, Brendel’s concern to
account for the peculiar truncating of the images
is not addressed by this. However, Romanelli,
in his catalogue of the Praeneste sanctuary pro-
posed the identification with the lectisternium
(Romanelli, 1967: 93); and there is no reason why
a supplication for a fruitful marriage could not
take the form of a lectisternium, the votive here
functioning as the permanent reminder to the
goddesses of the mortal devotion.
If the Praeneste group presents the goddesses
at a lectisternium, it would constitute the earli-
est known rendering of the ceremony. And it
may be the tradition of using in this ceremony
the heads of gods on couches which accounts for
the truncated form of the goddesses here. But in
any case, the Praeneste statuette group shares
visual characteristics with the subsequent depic-
tions of gods at the lectisternium. Typically, the
gods are arrayed in rigidly upright and frontal
poses, distinct from the pose of a figure reclin-
ing on a couch. There is a disjunction in scale
between the couch and the images set upon it.
Multiple figures appear on a single couch, again
distinguishing the divine images as statues rather
than incarnate beings. And finally, there is a reg-
ular truncation of the bodily form, although the
degree of abbreviation varies.
After the Praeneste group, the earliest identi-
fied visual rendering of a divine banquet occurs
on the reverse of a coin minted in 61 BCE by
G. Caldus (Grueber, 1970, 1: 475, no. 3837) (fig. 31).
Here a high, base-like form is flanked by trophies
and bears an inscription commemorating the
minter’s father as a member of the college of Sep-
temvir Epulones, whose responsibility it was to
carry out the epulum Iovis, the banquets in hon-
our of Jupiter. The base therefore has been inter-
preted as the couch itself, and on the top is set a
puppet-like figure of a god (Grueber, 1970, 1: 475).
Though quite schematic, this god appears to be
only half-length and is posed frontally, the arms
70 chapter three
Fig. 32. Lamp with banquet. Photo: DarSag, fig. 4381
Fig. 33. Lamp with banquet. Photo: DarSag, fig. 4382
on either side of the body, in these fundamentals
comparable to the Praeneste group.
In her discussion of heads of gods, Abaecherli
was the most aggressive in identifying this for-
mat in the Roman visual record. Her list included
heads of divinities associated with altars, shrines,
or temples, an example of a head on an agonistic
table, and even some appearing as isolated ele-
ments in paintings from Pompeii (Abaecherli,
1935: 136). It is possible to argue that those con-
nected with a cult structure or shown in a sanctu-
ary may thereby be claimed as the genre of heads
of gods for lectisternia, since such banquets were
held in sanctuaries on the temple platform (Wis-
sowa, 1923: 1110–1111). But beyond such cases, the
proposal might be challenged as not falsifiable.
Where there is no specific ceremonial context, it
may be beyond proof whether a Roman viewer
would recognize in a given rendering a distinc-
tion between a sculpture in the bust (or some
truncated) format used in the divine banquet,
and a god which happens to be represented in
the bust format. And making such a distinction
would not add appreciably to understanding this
sculptural genre as it functioned in ceremony. As
surviving textual evidence associates the genre
only with this single ceremonial function, the
surest cases are those in which there is a plau-
sible understanding of the sanctuary setting or a
ceremonial action.
In one of the earliest modern accounts of the
lectisternia, Bouchè-Leclercq reviewed the tex-
tual evidence, that which is still employed today,
to which were added two visual comparanda
(Bouchè-Leclercq, 1877–1919: 1006–1012). These
were terracotta lamps, apparently of Italian
provenance, and were published in line drawings
(DarSag, s.v. “lectisternia”, 1011) (figs. 32 and 33).
In each a single couch supports a grouping of gods
on a smaller scale than the couch, these gods ren-
dered as roughly half-length images. The figures
are set vertically rather than lying on the couch.
On one groups of three male and three female
gods flank a central, bearded god. The groups of
youthful gods complement each other by turning
slightly toward the axially placed elder god, who
is rigidly frontal. The other lamp has more spe-
cific attributes for the selected gods which sup-
port Bouchè-Leclercq’s identifications: Sarapis,
Isis, Selene and Helios. Here the cushion of the
couch is clearly visible, and a tripod table stands
at centre in front. These details certify that the
lower bodies of the gods are not obscured behind
a long table, as sometimes the case with depic-
tions of feasting, but that these are truncated
images set on the couch.
 capita deorum 71
The second lamp is further important in that
it was reportedly found at Pisaurum in Italy, pro-
viding some evidence that such a rendering of a
divine banquet, at least for those Egyptian gods
amalgamated with Greco-Roman gods, was com-
prehensible and acceptable to a Roman audi-
ence. Similar evidence for these gods at banquet
in the western empire is provided by a terracotta
lid found near Augsburg which shows Sarapis
and Isis on a couch. Harpokrates and Anubis
are also present, but it is not clear if they are
intended to share the couch inhabited by Sarapis
and Isis. And so far as damage allows, the gods
here do not appear to be statues (Lederer, 1936:
206, n. 29; Montserrat, 1992: 305; Takacs, 1995;
Bricault, 2004; Alfano, 1989–1990). This evidence
takes on some significance in the context of a
series of terracotta reliefs, predominantly money
boxes and lamps, and coins which have been
shown to depict the lectisternium or its Greek
counterpart, once Museum Antiken Kleinkunst,
München 5614, reportedly from Egypt (Lederer,
1938: 77–79); once Berlin Antiquarium 31275
(Lederer, 1936: 207; Castiglione, 1961: 294–295);
Varga-Castiglione Coll., no. 123, Budapest (Cas-
tiglione, 1961: 295–297); once Lederer Coll., Berlin/
Lugano, purchased in Egypt (Lederer, 1936: 208,
no. 2; Castiglione, 1961: 295) (figs. 34–37). This
material has had little place in the general dis-
cussion of the lectisternia for a variety of reasons.
The terracottas are of humble craftsmanship,
making the interpretation of details a challenge.
Much of the publication dates before the Second
World War during which some of the objects
were lost. Others were in private collections and
are now of unknown whereabouts. Rarely are
the terracottas from precise archaeological con-
texts, and because the lamps in particular may
well have functioned in a variety of settings, both
sacred and not, the connection of the imagery
with a specific cult or ceremonial function must
rely entirely on internal evidence. However,
Stewart has now demonstrated the value of such
humble material for gleaning evidence of cult
statues from the images on such objects (Stewart,
2000). Finally, to the extent any provenance can
be established, the material is Egyptian, posing
the question whether this evidence reflects only
banquets as held in Egypt, rather than regular
Roman practice. Nevertheless, it cannot escape
attention that the money boxes and lamps which
make up the bulk of this evidence themselves
form part of the paraphernalia which might be
associated with putting on such a banquet in a
sanctuary (or anywhere else). And while it can-
not be assumed that they functioned exclusively
for banqueting purposes, the adoption, by these
objects, of imagery from such banquet functions
is certainly apposite (Castiglione, 1961: 301–302;
Graeven, 1901; Wissowa, 1912: 429).
Along with several terracotta money boxes are
two fragmentary terracotta reliefs (figs. 38 and 39):
once Lederer Coll., Berlin/Lugano, purchased in
Egypt (Lederer, 1936: 208–209; Castiglione, 1961:
297–298); and Cairo, Egyptian Archaeological
Museum 27163 (Lederer, 1936: 209; Castiglione,
1961: 298; Dunand, 1979, 275, no. 368). And,
finally, one lamp completes this evidence: Louvre
E14371, of unknown provenance (Dunand, 1990:
177; ThesCRA, s.v. “cult images”, no. 293). All this
material dates broadly to the second and third
centuries CE, and each will be referred to in this
discussion by its location, or last known loca-
tion. While there is considerable variation in the
clarity of the rendered forms, all share a fron-
tal display of a group of gods on a single couch
with a cloth coverlet and horn-shaped sides. The
gods are presented as rigidly upright and frontal,
and on a decidedly smaller scale than the couch
itself. On all except the Budapest money box the
same five gods appear: Sarapis, Harpokrates, Isis,
Demeter, Hermanubis. Only four gods appear
on the Budapest example (fig. 36), and there the
working is so coarse as to make certainty about
the identities impossible, although the selection
as in the other cases seems to involve male and
female gods. Even the two fragmentary examples
(figs. 38 and 39) repeat the same gods, and the
Cairo relief, where the couch is intact, allows
room for the full complement of the same five
72 chapter three

Fig. 34. Money box, once Antiken Kleinkunst, München. Photo: Lederer 1936

Fig. 35. Money box, once Antiquarium, Berlin. Photo: Lederer 1936

 capita deorum 73

Fig. 36. Money box, Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest. Photo: Lederer 1936

Fig. 37. Money box, once Lederer Collection, Berlin/Lugano. Photo: Lederer 1936
74 chapter three

Fig. 38. Banquet relief, once Lederer Collection, Berlin/Lugano. Photo: Lederer 1936

Fig. 39. Banquet relief, Egyptian Archaeological Museum, Cairo. Photo: Dunand 1979

gods. The consistency in the gods who are the
subject of these terracottas, as they belong to
the group of divinities who are principal in syn-
cretic Roman/Egyptian worship suggests that the
banquets presented belong to a practice recog-
nizably Roman rather than purely indigenous.
The gathering of these groups of gods on a single
couch, reflecting different scales, confirms that
these are statuettes of gods as they appear at
these banquets, rather than the gods themselves.
There is some range among these statuettes in
the portion of the body employed. On the Cairo
relief (fig. 39), if the figures are abbreviated at all,
they extend nearly to the knees. In all the other
cases, however, the gods appear as no more than
waist-length or bust-length figures. Harpokrates,
because he is rendered as a child, is treated
exceptionally, on the Berlin (fig. 35) and Berlin/
Lugano (fig. 37) money boxes as a squatting fig-
ure, and perhaps also on the München money
box (fig. 34). On the Berlin/Lugano relief (fig. 38),
however, he is rendered truncated at the waist as
 capita deorum 75
the other gods. This visual evidence, then, con-
forms to the texts describing images of gods in
some truncated form and small scale being used
for lectisternia and at least originally referred to
as heads of gods.
None of the terracottas depict beneath, or
in front of, the couches the ancillary furniture
expected at a mortal banquet. Instead there
are additional divinities, canopic jars (?), and
symbolic animals. On the München money box
there is an incense burner, a variation befitting
the offering of incense at a lectisternium (Wis-
sowa, 1912: 424–25; Lederer, 1938: 78). A similar
allusion to the non-sacrificial offerings charac-
teristic of the lectisternium appears on the Paris
lamp below the couch in the form of the wick
slots for the scented oil to burn. Further, two of
the money boxes, München and Berlin, are fin-
ished on their reverse sides with a pattern of
ashlar masonry, plausibly taken to indicate the
more formal location of the couch in a temple
compound (Lederer, 1936: 208; Castiglione, 1961:
295), which is consistent with textual evidence
that officially sponsored lectisternia were held on
the pulvinar of temples, probably to be identi-
fied with their podia (Festus 351 and 472; Livius
v.13 and xl.59; Valerius Maximus ii.4.5). A paral-
lel case for this proposal is a lantern in Karlsruhe
with Harpokrates relining on a base with ashlar
pattern and a vaulted opening, which is therefore
identified as a lighthouse (Schürmann, 1989: 288,
no. 1089; Loeschcke, 1909: 396).
The choice to represent the gods as images of
both truncated form and small scale is thrown
into contrast by the occurrence in the same
medium of depictions of a god at banquet in
which the divinity is show at the same scale as
the couch and in normative bodily form. This
occurs both for anthropomorphic representa-
tions of gods, as on a terracotta relief of Sarapis
in Cairo (Dunand, 1979: 268, no. 348; Kraus, 1979),
and for their animal symbols, for example a dog,
thought to represent the god Sothis (Bailey, 1988:
III: 74; Weben, 1914: pl. 41, no. 461).
The same gods which regularly appear in statu-
ette form on these Egyptian terracottas also occur
on a pair of coins from Alexandreia minted under
Marcus Aurelius and Septimius Severus illustrat-
ing a divine banquet (Lederer, 1936; Lederer, 1938;
Castiglione, 1961: 294). This corroboration by a
governmental institution of a banquet with these
particular gods lends support to the hypothesis
that the terracotta evidence reflects a broadly
Roman rather than a peculiarly Egyptian phe-
nomenon. It is not clear that the coin of Marcus
Aurelius represents the gods in the truncated
form favoured on the terracottas; the Severan
coin may do so. But the use of a single couch of
the familiar type arrayed with five small images
of gods certainly supports their identity as statu-
ettes displayed for this ceremony. Lederer in the
initial publication of the coin of Marcus Aurelius
sought to establish a direct link between the coin
type and the special lectisternium known to have
been held by the emperor in 167 CE (scriptores
historiae augustae, Marcus Antoninus 13; Lederer,
1936). The re-appearance of the same coin type
under Septimius somewhat weakens the argu-
ment in the absence of a known lectisternium at
that time.
The lectisternium displayed on the terracot-
tas, alternatively then, could reflect those regu-
larly held to honour these gods on the pulvinar
of a temple, as the ashlar decoration on two of
the money boxes suggests. One possible further
explanation, entertained by Castiglione, is that
the banquets represented on the terracottas are
those held, sometimes more as social than reli-
gious occasions, by one of the numerous clubs or
associations of Egypt (Castiglione, 1961: 301–303;
Montserrat, 1992: 306). The evidence that such
organizations existed at all in the indigenous
Egyptian religion is inferential before the sixth
century BCE; but the phenomenon becomes
abundantly attested in the Hellenistic and Roman
periods, particularly for such syncretized gods as
Sarapis (Vernus, 1980; de Cenival, 1972; Hughes,
1958; Otto, 1905: 125–133). And it does seem clear
76 chapter three
that the banquets of these later periods reflect
their Greco-Roman rather than Egyptian charac-
ter (Youtie, 1948: 27).
Surviving papyri, many contemporary with
the terracottas under discussion, have been the
subject of considerable investigation for the
light they throw on the nature of such societ-
ies and their banquets (Milne, 1925; Youtie, 1948;
Koenen, 1969; Montserrat, 1992). So defining
a feature of these societies was their banquet-
ing that the term for couches, klinai, comes to
be synonymous with the societies themselves
(Philo, in Flaccum 17; Youtie, 1948: 20). The ban-
quets of these societies could be held variously in
rooms or restaurants operated within sanctuar-
ies, or in private houses or facilities (Milne, 1925:
9). Many of the surviving documents record the
operations of the so-called klinai of Sarapis. How-
ever, the degree to which the banquets held by
these clubs had a religious emphasis is disputed,
with Youtie and Milne on one side arguing for at
best a nominal association with the patron divin-
ity, and Koenen on the other seeing a function
of honouring the god as fundamental. But even
Youtie on the skeptical side maintains that the
image of the god would be present, even if there
were no ritual activity apart from the banquet
itself (Youtie, 1948: 13–14; Montserrat, 1992: 303).
And for the problem of the type of statuary used
to represent the gods in such ceremonial func-
tion, it is immaterial what the degree of religious
sentiment might have been, as long as an image
was part of the expected paraphernalia.
The Sarapis who is the patron for many of the
clubs recorded in the papyri is also one of the
gods who occurs regularly on the coin and ter-
racotta evidence. But it is the figure of Isis who is
placed at centre among the five gods, suggesting
that it is she who is a centre of attention. Sarapis
is regularly placed at the right end, the position
of power and honour in Roman banquets (Small,
1991: 257–258); the positions of these two closely
associated gods may be to emphasize their spe-
cial status and pendant relationship in these ban-
quets. It is suggestive that Koenen has noticed a
correspondence between the dates for the ban-
quets of the klinai of Sarapis given in the papyri
and the festival of Isis (Koenen, 1969: 125–126).
And a kline for Isis specifically for the goddess
is recorded at Philae (San Nicolo, 1913–15: I: 24).
In sum, the evidence of the papyri can be taken
to support, or at least does not contradict, Cas-
tiglione’s proposal that the terracottas illustrate
banquets held by clubs. But there is some other
evidence which bears on the question.
Two of the money boxes, as has been noted,
suggest by their decoration with patterns of ashlar
masonry, the location of a temple podium. This
in itself does not contradict a club association for
the represented banquets, since the papyrological
evidence indicates that their banquets at times
were held in sanctuaries. One additional, par-
tially preserved example of a banqueting couch
with statuettes of gods provides a further visual
element not otherwise attested. Petrie excavated
at Herakleopolis Magna a fragmentary terracotta,
perhaps originally a money box, repeating the
same couch, and an array of small figures of gods
in the same manner as on the other examples
(Petrie, 1905: 1–2, no. 45, and pl. XLVII). But adja-
cent to one side of the couch, on a much larger
scale, was a head. Petrie recognized by the hair
style a priest, and thought that the priest, along
with a missing companion on the other side, was
carrying canopic jars on a litter. Petrie’s inter-
pretation did not have the advantage of the ter-
racotta evidence discussed here, all published
much later, nor the Roman images of litters, both
of which contradict his interpretation. However,
a number of small, terracotta lamps from Egypt
(figs. 40 and 41) do corroborate figures carrying a
collection of statuettes of gods, but it is clear that
they are set on a banqueting couch, of the same
type appearing on the money boxes, rather than
a litter. The small scale and coarse execution
makes the identification of the couch carriers
on these lamps difficult, but they are generally
understood as mythological rather than priests:
Erotes, geniuses, Psyche, Pan (Castiglione, 1961:
298–301; Bailey, 1988: III: 11, 24, and pl. 43). The
 capita deorum 77

Fig. 40. Lamp with banquet couch, British Museum Q2044. Photo: Bailey 1988

Fig. 41. Lamp with banquet couch, British Museum Q2046. Photo: Bailey 1988

condition of the Herakleopolis Magna terracotta
makes identification uncertain, but the statuette
on the right seems to be Sarapis with the kalathos
headpiece. And others have preferred to see here
the same arrangement of statuettes of gods as on
the other terracottas. A canopic jar does appear
elsewhere with the other gods, and may repre-
sent Osiris (Lederer, 1936: 208–209; Bailey, 1988:
III: 11, 24, and pl. 43).
It is also apparent by the position of the priest’s
shoulder on Petrie’s terracotta, in front of and
above the cushion of the couch, that he cannot
be carrying the couch as do the mythological fig-
ures on the lamps. In fact, it was recognized not
78 chapter three
long after Petrie’s publication that the Herakleo-
polis Magna terracotta was another example of a
divine banquet, this time with a priest (Vogt, 1924:
14, n.6; Lederer, 1936: 209–210). The real impor-
tance of the Herakleopolis Magna terracotta lies
in the presence of a priest at one of these divine
banquets. The Gnomon of the Idios Logos stipu-
lates Roman control over religious practice in
Egypt, and specifies that a priest is not permitted
to participate, at least in his capacity as priest, at
the banquets of a kline (Milne, 1925: 7–8). It fol-
lows that Castiglione’s effort to associate the ter-
racottas illustrating divine banquets with those
of the klinai flounders, and the alternative is that
they depict occasional or (more likely) the regu-
lar banquets for the gods in sanctuaries.
The small, terracotta lamps illustrating a pro-
cession of the banquet couch, although illustrating
a subject distinct from that of the Herakleopolis
Magna terracotta, are of considerable value in
providing documentation for an element of the
lectisternium not otherwise known. Since both
the required furniture and the statuettes must
have been kept in the sanctuaries, the bringing
forth of these objects with a ceremonial flair can-
not be surprising. There is no need to infer that
this procession took place exactly as depicted on
the lamps, with the statuettes already positioned
on the couch, but accepting some such proces-
sion presents no difficulties. And the formality
of such preparatory operations should be com-
pared to the preparation of the couches recorded
by Livius (xxii.1) for a lectisternium in the temple
of Saturnus which is carried out by senators.
The combination of a processional arrival of the
images with the lectisternium is paralleled in
cases of the related banquet ceremonies of the
Greek divine banquet and the Roman imperial
cult. An inscription of 197/196 BCE for the cult of
Zeus Sosipolis at Magnesia stipulates that xoana
of the twelve gods were dressed and borne in
procession to a tholos in the agora, where three
couches were set up (Dittenberg, 1960: no. 589;
Eitrem, 1932: 36; Donohue, 1988: 60–61; see
Appendix, no. 1). The apportioning of twelve
gods onto three couches suggests that the statues
were of small scale, corresponding to the Roman
practice for lectisternia, but there is nothing to
support an assumption that the Greek practice
called for truncated statuettes as Roman tradi-
tion commonly did. Likewise, the inscription for
the imperial cult of Augustus, Livia and Tiberius
at Gytheion has been interpreted as stipulating
a lectisternium for the imperial images. These
images were brought in procession from the
sanctuary of Asklepios and Hygieia where there
probably were kept, and accompanied by images
of Nike and Aphrodite, to the theatre. Here a
table and an incense burner were placed before
the images and the lectisternium offered (Eitrem,
1932: 43–48; Rostovtzeff, 1930: 12–16; see Appen-
dix, no. 3). Along with this group of comparanda
should be counted the Fortunae from Praeneste
(fig. 29), where the vestige of the processional
arrival of the images remains in the litters on
which they were transported.
Secondary to these depictions where a banquet
is the subject matter are those cases of heads of
gods where the action or the setting is appropri-
ate to a lectisternium. The painting on the façade
of a taverna on the Via dell’Abbondanza in Pom-
peii (fig. 28) has been identified in the discussion
of ferculum statues as the arrival of a procession
to celebrate a lectisternium. The sculptured head
of Liber in the real niche in the pier is inextrica-
bly bound to the fictive, painted procession by
composition. The attention of the members of
the procession and the goddess Cybele on her
litter is uniformly directed at this image of Liber;
and the images of the two gods pinion the crowd
at either end by their large, pedimented frames.
The head of Liber in a niche stands in for a shrine
of the god, or perhaps is the shrine itself, whose
inauguration, or its anniversary, is the occasion
of the lectisternium. If this is the accurate inter-
pretation of the sculptural/painted decoration,
the head of Liber here is the head of a god in its
ceremonial sense.
The companion pier to that displaying the pro-
cession features other images of statues: Venus
 capita deorum 79
and Eros on bases. The architrave connecting the
two presents, in a series of square frames, bust-
length renderings of four gods: Luna, Mercury,
Jupiter and Sol. In Abaecherli’s broad interpreta-
tion, these too would be capita deorum, but as
there is nothing whereby a viewer could identify
these as representations of statuettes of gods, it
is more cautious to take them at face value as
the gods in their cosmic realm, contrasting with
the gods in their earthly (painted and sculptural)
manifestations below on the piers. These same
four gods appear again in bust format in cubicu-
lum 14 of the Casa della Caccia Antica, a group-
ing which has been compared to those on the
Via dell’Abbondanza for their apparent cosmic
significance (Allison, 1985: 26).
If the head of Liber in a shrine frame cues the
audience to its status as a statuette in the for-
mat for a lectisternium, the same would apply to
similar depictions of heads on coin issues. Two of
Commodus from Laodiceia ad Mare show on the
reverses Tykhe as a head in a shrine (http://rpc
.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/6277 and 9011). In each
case the Tykhe head is set on a seat with high
back but without arms, perhaps a couch. Val-
erius Maximus (xxi.2) records the tradition that
women at banquets would dine in chairs rather
than reclining; on these coins Tykhe seems to be
rendered in this traditional female setting, pre-
sented for the lectisternium at the anniversary
of the temple’s founding. Similarly, on a coin of
Lucius Verus from Alexandreia Sarapis appears
in bust format in a niche above the door on this
façade of his temple (Dattari, 1901: 256, no. 3803;
Weber, 1911: 10; Abaecherli, 1935: 136).
A late example provides evidence that the for-
mat of heads of gods was still a viable and rec-
ognizable one into the period of the Christian
empire. The bronze cup from Caesarea Maritima
(fig. 42) has been dated on the basis of the techni-
cal similarities with other examples of the inlaid
metal decoration to the middle of the fourth
century CE (Bielefeld, 1972; Finkielsztejn, 1986:
427–428). Although there are inscribed labels for
a number of the figures represented, the iden-
tification of the specific events has been the
subject of several different interpretations. That
proposed in the original, thorough publication
of the cup by Will remains the most compelling,
although none of the other proposed explana-
tions affect the significance of the heads of gods
as they appear on the cup (Will, 1983; Finkielsz-
tejn, 1986; Gersht, 1996: 307–317). The subject
of the figural decoration comprises the founda-
tion story of the city. In a series of scenes, the
establishment in the fourth century BCE of the
original settlement at the site by Straton, king of
Sidon, is laid out: oracular directions from Apol-
lon to Straton, arrival by ship at the shore, and
the greeting of Straton by Asklepios and Hygieia.
The story comes to its close in a scene anachro-
nistic with respect to the preceding, but whose
fundamental identity is apparent: offerings made
before the Tykhe of Caesarea Maritima. Here a
Roman priest in a toga and veiled pours a liquid
offering before what has been described as a
tall, narrow altar, but is better understood as an
incense burner. Standing behind him a tunic-clad
boy holds the box of incense. The Tykhe who is
the object of this offering is the type of Tykhe
particularly favoured in Caesarea Maritima. She
wears a mural crown, holds a sceptre or spear in
her left hand and is dressed like an Amazon in a
short tunic, baring the right breast. The extended
right arm holds a bust, thought to correspond to
the reigning emperor. Her right leg is propped
upon a ship with behind her the half-length per-
sonification of the port of the city. The details of
the Tykhe are well documented in sculpture and
coins from Caesarea Maritima, and correspond to
a local amalgam of Tykhe, Dea Roma and Astarte
(Gersht, 1996: 307–309; Kadman, 1957: 50–53).
Despite the preceding events all set in the fourth
century BCE, the Roman priest, the bust of the
emperor, and even the specific pose and attributes
of Tykhe all belong to the Roman period of the city,
a point driven home by the surviving inscriptions
on either side of Tykhe which identify her with the
genius of the Roman colony (Will, 1983: 4). Above
these proceedings, set against the top edge of
80 chapter three

Fig. 42. Cup from Caesarea Maritima, Musée du Louvre. Photo: Réunion des Musées Nationaux/Art Resource, NY

the scene, is a simple rectangular frame with five
heads inside, whose significance to the occasion
has not been accounted for. The frame is appropri-
ately hung with garlands along its lower extent. At
the right side of the frame is an inscription, “holy
games” (Will, 1983: 24). The offering of liquid and
incense rather than animal sacrifice before Tykhe
as the genius of the colony, the array of heads in
a discrete space which must be the pulvinar or
temple, and the designation of the celebration of
games are all consistent with the performance of
a lectisternium before capita deorum.
The occasion of the games and conjoined ban-
quet for the gods is the anniversary of the cult of
Tykhe, the genius of the colony, marking the found-
ing of the city. Games and regular lectisternia are
the appropriate ceremonies for such anniversaries,
as at Roma with the establishment of the cult of
Cybele and her games, or the games for Ceres (Fes-
tus 35; Wissowa, 1912: 422 and n. 1 & 2). The cele-
bration of the founding of the city and the birthday
of Tykhe was still observed at Caesarea Maritima
into the fourth century CE (Eusebius, de martyribus
Palastinae xi.30), contemporary with the cup. The
audience, then, would have found no difficulty in
understanding the Roman rites and games being
referred to, and the cup therefore is important evi-
dence that this late a Roman audience could be
expected to identify by the context and the bust
form of gods a lectisternium and its capita deorum.
 capita deorum 81
The rank of inlaid heads of gods has lost three
of its original complement of five, but traces of
attributes on the background provide evidence
for identification for some of the missing mem-
bers. The configuration of five heads is at odds
with the descriptions in Livius of the earliest
lectisternia, where in each case an even num-
ber of paired male and female gods is described.
However, the visual evidence already discussed,
which is much closer in date to the Caesarea cup,
more frequently shows five gods at a lectistern-
ium than an even number. The difference might
be accounted for as a variation introduced over
time, but it may also be significant that Livius
(v.13, xxii.10 & xl.59) describes in any detail only
occasional lectisternia, while that on the cup
must be a regular lectisternium. If Livius’ descrip-
tions are taken to typify the occasional, the num-
ber of gods honoured for regular lectisternia may
be determined only by local needs.
The central head of the five is missing, but
reeds etched into the background have been
taken plausibly to identify Neptunus, and under
raking light it is possible to make out the traces
of a beard as well (Will, 1983: 7).1 The model of
other visual evidence suggests that the central
head should correspond to the most important
deity of the banquet group. None of the heads
belong to gods depicted elsewhere on the cup,
and excluding these, Neptunus would hold a
place of prominence for a harbour city. The head
at the left edge, also lost, preserves traces of a
helmet, and here Will proposed Minerva as the
likely candidate. Next to her is preserved a radi-
ant male head which must be Sol. The head at the
right edge preserves no good evidence to support
an identification. Between this head and Neptu-
nus is a head which Will identified as Augustus,
who had originally ceded the territory to King
Herodes. However, this proposal has several
1 I am grateful to Dr. Cecile Giroire of the Musée du
Louvre for permission to carry out an examination of the
cup under raking light in order to make out the details in support of the proposed identification. How-
described here.
difficulties. The head has the generalized appear-
ance of a Julio-Claudian emperor based on the
hairstyle, but it might be objected that an emperor
of the Constantinian dynasty, who adopted the
same hairstyle, would be more likely in a fourth
century CE rendering. But closer scrutiny of the
head reveals that the series of strokes comprising
the hair are positioned above the forehead rather
than as bangs hanging over it. The hairstyle is
thus not that of a male, but that of a female, the
so-called Melonenfrisur. The head also seems to
wear a small veil at the back of the head, rein-
forcing a female identification. But just as impor-
tantly as these iconographic details, an imperial
head joining those of the gods at a lectisternium in
a temple is without parallel. Apparently, images
of two gods joined the imperial family in the
lectisternium described by the Gytheion inscrip-
tion, but that banquet is one for the imperial cult,
held in a theatre, rather than one honouring the
gods in a temple. The head on the Caesarea cup
should therefore be a goddess, and balancing the
Sol on the other side the obvious candidate with
this particular hairstyle would be Luna. While
the condition of the surface prevents certainty,
under raking light, there appear symmetrically
disposed projections at the top of the head where
one would expect the horns of a crescent moon,
like the reed of Neptunus or the rays of Sol.
One final type of ceremonial object warrants
consideration as it has been interpreted in recent
scholarship as employing the capita deorum. In
an argument to support the hypothesis that the
capita deorum should be equated with the exu-
viae, or attributes of the gods, a third-century
coin from Nikomedia in Bithynia is identified
as depicting a sculptured head of a god upon a
chair (La Rocca, 2007: 85). The issue of whether a
chair appears in Roman depictions of lectisternia
needs to be kept a separate one from the issue
of whether this sculptured head is an example of
the objects referred to as capita deorum. But if
true, this would provide critical visual evidence
ever, the coin is better understood by comparison
82 chapter three
with well-studied types minted contemporane-
ously in nearby Nikaia, and types from Athenai
extending from Augustus to the third century.
These depict not a chair, but a prize table for
a variety of different games held in these cities.
These tables are distinguished from the chairs in
being broader and having all four legs shown, as
on the Nikomedian coin, while for the chairs on
the coins only the front legs appear. Among the
objects regularly displayed on these prize tables
are busts, variously of emperors or gods, presum-
ably depending on the recipient of the festival
being commemorated on the coins (Bosch, 1950;
Shear, 1932: 304–306; Seltman, 1947: 28–29). It is
also characteristic of these depictions of prize
tables to show objects, often vases, below the
table, as in the comparatively clearer case of a
second-century mosaic from a villa at Tusculum
(McCracken, 1939: 332–333) which should be
understood as standing in front of the table. Such
objects laid out in front of chairs and thrones
would contradict their function as seats. It is
possible in accordance with Abaecherli’s view
of applying the title of capita deorum to a wide
range of sculptured busts of gods, that the divine
busts on prize tables might have been described
by that title, but there is, this coin type now
excluded, no visual or textual evidence to sup-
port equating these with exuviae, a distinct sculp-
tural form which will be addressed in Chapter 4.
The body of visual evidence for capita deorum
provides a substantial expansion to the sparse
information provided in textual accounts, both
clarifying details only dimly indicated in the texts,
and adding other specifics. The bulk of the visual
evidence seems to reflect the regular rather than
the occasional lectisternia, a distinction which is
hardly noticeable in the texts alone. The abun-
dance of the visual reflections of the regular lec-
tisternia implies the frequency of the experience
of this particular ceremony in Roman lives, with
its configuration around incense and offerings
rather than sacrifice, and perhaps more direct
access to the divinity than in the formalities and
expense of animal sacrifice. Even the occasional
lectisternium described by Livius (v.13) posits a
considerable measure of concomitant private
devotion. The use of regular lectisternia to cel-
ebrate the inaugurations of temples, and anni-
versaries of the inception of games would make
them a much more common phenomenon than
their scant presence in texts suggests.
In addition to the frequency of the lectister-
nia themselves, the evidence also points to the
ancillary ceremonial action of the bringing out
of the furniture and divine images for the ban-
quets. The sculptural images depicted in the per-
formance of lectisternia are in accord with the
descriptions of the capita deorum in the texts.
This specialized format appears variously from a
bust to a figure truncated in the upper legs. Only
in rare cases are the representations of the gods
in banquets configured as full-length figures. In
addition to the images of the gods being abbrevi-
ated, they are also shown in all surviving cases
as small enough to allow multiple statuettes to
fit on a single couch. The evidence of the texts
confirms the disposition of multiple images on
a couch, but the textual evidence is slight and
consistently describes only two gods to a couch.
This configuration cannot be explained as simply
reflecting a male/female pairing since the images
in the texts are not always by paired sexes. But
with several of the visual cases indicating a pro-
cession of the statuettes to the banquet setting,
it is reasonable to infer that the images for lectis-
ternia, being small enough to carry, could be fit
several to a couch. Assuming the models of the
Greek banquet for gods, as that at Sosipolis, and
the lectisternium of the imperial cult at Gytheion
apply, textual evidence for the pre-banquet pro-
cessions is consistent with this inference.
 Chapter Four
Exuviae
Festus (500) explains a tensa as the carriage made
of ivory and silver which brings the exuviae, or
attributes, of the gods to the pulvinar in the cir-
cus for the games there. Valerius Maximus (i.1.16)
provides an anecdote which confirms the connec-
tion of the exuviae, in this case of Jupiter, with the
circus games. And finally, a fragmentary inscrip-
tion from Roma dating to the late second or early
third century CE (CIL VI.32333) corroborates the
connection of exuviae with the pulvinar, certainly
to be understood as that in the circus, and used
in connection with the games there. While sym-
bols or attributes of gods were common elements
of Roman processions, those referred to in these
texts seem to have the distinct status in that they
stand in for the gods themselves as witnesses of
the games in the circus and will therefore be the
focus of this chapter.
The use of processional attributes of divinities
has a long history, apparently as long as the prin-
cipal temple images of cults. In the well-known
processions of Athenai objects which might be
described as attributes, the peplos of the Pana-
thenaia, the phalluses of the Dionysia, and the
divine clothing of the Plynteria, were featured
elements. The same seems true for Roman pro-
cessions of which details are preserved. But attri-
butes like these would be difficult to distinguish
from the ordinary paraphernalia of worship, as
distinct from something standing in for the god.
Nevertheless, the evidence for the broader cat-
egory of attributes of gods provides a perspective
to understand the special treatment and status of
those in the circus games.
Attributes of a god would have brought dis-
tinction and attention to those charged with
their handling, as with the bearing of the insig-
nia of Jupiter, which Plinius refers to as exuviae,
by a general in triumph (naturalis historia vii.145;
Bonfante Warren, 1970: 57–62; Schäfer, 2002: 44;
Malavolta, 1985). In the cases of Roman proces-
sions where there is some evidence for the han-
dling attributes, there is a distinct element of the
theatrical. The women carrying the ivory combs
of Isis in procession did so according to Apuleius
(metamorphoses xi.9) with arm-waving reminis-
cent of a synchronized swim team, to communi-
cate to the viewers (and presumably the goddess
herself ) their qualifications and readiness to tend
the goddess’ cosmetic (Alfano, 1989–90: 787). The
same text describes those who carry the mirrors
of the goddess, but here the emphasis is on the
devotion to the goddess expressed through the
physical effort. From this it can be inferred that
these mirrors were larger, probably borne on a
litter, a possibility supported in the visual evi-
dence to be discussed below.
Inscriptional evidence also provides some
details about those carrying attributes in proces-
sions for the cult of Cybele and her cohorts, Attis
and Bellona. The cult, as it developed during the
imperial period, was served by religious colleges
identified by their obligation to carry the attri-
butes of one of these gods: reed carriers (canno-
phoroi), tree carriers (dendrophoroi) and spear
carriers (hastiferi). The descriptions in Philo-
calus’ calendar for 354 CE of different days in
March for processions of Cybele as canna intrat
(entrance of the reed) and arbor intrat (entrance
of the tree) do little to clarify a visual image of
how the reed(s?) or tree were transported and
displayed, and by how many members of the
college at any one time (Hepding, 1903: 145–148,
169–172; Showerman, 1906; Graillot, 1912: 262–281;
Lambrechts, 1952; Fishwick, 1966; Fishwick, 1967).
On the other hand, a description by Herodianus
(i.10.5) of an attempt on the life of Commodus
where the assassin disguised himself among the
84 chapter four
spear bearers during a procession for Cybele has
been interpreted as involving the spear bearers
(hastiferi) of Bellona, which, if correct, indicates
something of the mode of carrying the spears and
that it involved a large number of members of
the college (Hepding, 1903: 169–172; Graillot, 1912:
278–280; Fishwick, 1976: 148–150, 154).
In contrast with these attributes of Cybele and
the supporting colleges of carriers, was the cista,
the basket holding the secret objects of the cult.
Both Cybele herself, and the ancillary goddess Bel-
lona, had such processional baskets, but unlike the
other attributes, these are closely associated with
the priests, who the scholarship understands are
the ones to carry them in the processions, though
it warrants emphasis that this is an inference
(Graillot, 1912: 134–135; Fishwick, 1967: 154–155; CIL
VI.2233). Similarly, a priest of Isis is described as
carrying the secret cista (Apuleius, metamorphoses
xi.11). Nevertheless, the inscription of the Diony-
sian college from Torre Nova provides a contrast-
ing example. A series of ministers are listed who
carry specific items which fit broadly into the
category of attributes: baskets, winnowing fans,
phalluses, and torches (Cumont, 1933: 233). Here,
too, there is a carrier for the cista, but this person,
while listed first among the carriers of attributes, is
listed along with the others as subordinate to and
distinct from the priests and officials of the college.
Thus the pattern of the carrying of the secret cistae
suggests that while these holiest objects were not
surprisingly given special considerations, there is
some variation in who holds the responsibility of
carrying them. And the specifics of the carrying
and display of attributes generally may well vary
from one cult or ceremony to another.
A similar diversity is illustrated in the range
of social status of those handling the attributes.
Apuleius (metamorphoses xi.11) describes the con-
siderable presence of women who perform this
task in the cult of Isis. The colleges of Cybele’s
cannophoroi admitted both sexes, usually of free
but socially lower status, with even slaves appear-
ing among the members (Graillot, 1912: 262–264).
Women, however, were not admitted to the col-
leges of the dendrophoroi (Graillot, 1912: 264–278).
And the inscriptional evidence for Bellona’s has-
tiferi indicates that at least the members of the
college, if not exclusively its patrons, were male
and not from the lowest ranks of society (Fish-
wick, 1967: 147–148).
All this serves to set the context for those who
handle the exuviae of the gods in the circus pro-
cession as described by Festus (500), transporting
them to the games in special carriages. The treat-
ment of these carriages and their cargo comes
closest to the association of the secret cista with
priests in the processions reviewed. For the exu-
viae, which similarly embodied a measure of sanc-
tity by standing in for the god, a boy was selected,
presumably from a family of high social status,
but also fitting the requirements of having both
parents still living, to act as escort for the carriage
(Cicero, de haruspicum responso 11.23; Valerius
Maximus i.1.16). This would be the ill omen of
Nero’s dream to accompany the tensa of Jupiter
to the circus (Suetonius, Vespasianus 5.7) since he
did not qualify to do so. And similarly beardless
youths accompany a carriage on a Julio-Claudian
relief in Budapest (Schäfer, 2002: 45).
The importance of this pairing of carriage
and escort is reflected in the circus procession
on fragments of sarcophagus lids. On one in the
Capitoline Museum, 2464, (fig. 43) a youth stands
in the centre of a group of bearded figures, who
face him (Abaecherli, 1935–36: pl. VI.1; Ronke,
1987: 730, no. 187). On another in the British
Museum, GR 1805.7–3.145, a solitary and beard-
less youth stands behind the team of horses and
turns his head back in the direction of his charge
(Abaecherli, 1935–36: 7–10; pl. VI.4; Walker, 1990:
18–19 and pl. 3; ThesCRA, I, s.v. “processions”, no.
41). And on yet another (Berlin 864), a tensa is
depicted in the Circus Maximus while Erotes-
driven chariots race about. Leading the tensa is
again a beardless youth (Humphrey, 1986: 44).
The carriages themselves were outfitted in
precious materials; Festus (500) mentions ivory
and silver. The carriages alone appear with
some regularity in a variety of media, fitted with
 exuviae 85
Fig. 43. Sarcophagus lid, Museo Capitolino. Photo: DAI Rome
elaborate relief decorations on the sides, shield-
ing their cargoes (Abaecherli, 1935–36: pls. VI–VII;
Abaecherli, 1935: pl. I; Lawrence, 1965: figs. 1 & 13;
Gladigow, 1985–86: fig. 14; Andreae, 1991: no. 373).
Exceptional both in general design and in dis-
playing rather than hiding the exuviae, probably
because of its foreign divinity, is the carriage of
Astarte, to judge only from coin representations
(Abaecherli, 1935–36: 8). The status of the car-
riages is reflected in that those on the Capitoline,
at least, had their own shrine, and with their use
by the élite as vehicles to communicate their own
status in sponsoring them (CIL III, p. 845, and Dio
Cassius xlvii.40.4; CIL X.6102). With the emblems
of the gods hidden inside the carriages, the relief
decorations on the sides served to identify the
individual god to the procession spectators. But
in the wider prospects of the goal of the proces-
sion, the Circus Maximus, to identify and to draw
attention to the arrivals where these reliefs could
hardly have been made out by many, each god
also was provided with an announcer, nomencla-
tor (CIL VI.740; Abaecherli, 1935–36: 9.).
The importance of keeping the exuviae hidden
during the procession is illustrated by the anec-
dote reported by Macrobius (Saturnalia i.6.15) of
a boy, watching the procession from above, see-
ing into the carriages at their secret contents.
The consternation of the procession organizers
over this violation of decorum resulted in the
route subsequently being screened. This solution,
rather than the simpler one of roofing over the
carriages, speaks to the religious need to keep the
divine objects exposed to the sky.
The exuviae of the gods potentially reached
the second stage of their ceremonial lives once
86 chapter four
the procession had reached journey’s end. For
attributes large or in multiples, such as those
described for the cult of Isis, nothing is known
of their disposition at the culmination, and it is
possible that their ceremonial function may not
have extended beyond the procession itself. By
contrast, those transported in secret to the cir-
cus had what might be considered their most
important function at that destination. However,
understanding of how the attributes were han-
dled at the circus and the response to them there
relies entirely on visual evidence. The interpreta-
tion of this visual evidence has turned to textual
accounts of the sellisternium, or chair ceremony,
to account for the prominence of chairs and
thrones in the visual evidence.
There has been a line of argument in the schol-
arship that identifies the sellisternium as a subset
of lectisternium, that is, a banquet but with the
condition that chairs rather than couches are
provided for females, divine or mortal. Taylor was
instrumental in challenging this identity, arguing
instead that the sellisternium was a distinct cer-
emony involving chairs or thrones and held in
the theatres. Valerius Maximus (ii.1.2) cites the
use of chairs for Juno and Minerva in the banquet
for Jupiter, that is, the epulum Iovis, but he men-
tions this by way of illustrating that the practice
had become unusual in domestic banquets. As he
does not contrast this domestic practice with all
religious banquets, but only with this specific one
on the Capitoline, it is open to question whether
it can be applied universally to religious practice.
Inscriptions preserving imperial enactments of
the Augustan and Severan periods make refer-
ence to sellisternia held by women and for female
divinities in conjunction with the ludi saeculares,
the secular games (CIL VI.32323–32324; VI. 32329;
Wissowa, 1912: 431–432; Taylor, 1935: 123–124). But
these games by their nature were only occasion-
ally held. And, finally, the ceremony to appease
the gods ordered by Nero after the fire in Roma
incorporated a sellisternium by mortal women in
worship of Juno (Tacitus, annales xiv.44). As a
group these references to a sellisternium are quite
restrictive in terms of the specific occasions on
which some banquets are described as by and for
females.
That a greater distinction needs to be drawn
between the sellisternium and the lectisternium is
supported by an oft-cited text from Tertullianus
(ad nationes i.10). In his criticism of the honours
accorded divinized “princes” he lists in pairs types
of honours. Tensa and currus are paired, for exam-
ple. Both are vehicles, but the tensa is the vehicle
for carrying the crown of the deified emperor,
while the currus the elephant-drawn wagon for
the statue of him. In the same list of honours,
Tertullianus pairs the sellisternia with the lectis-
ternia, which should not, then, be understood as
alternative terms for the same honours, but differ-
ent honours (Taylor, 1935: 127–128; Salomonson,
1955: 11–14). Significantly, the text also requires
that a sellisternium can be applied to males, so
that defining it as a banquet with goddesses on
chairs clearly does not fit the evidence.
It would also seem to follow from these texts
that a general conclusion that goddesses sat at all
ceremonial banquets, and that such banquets are
called sellisternia is too sweeping. The absence
among identified (Roman) visual examples of
divine banquets where goddesses sit on chairs,
and the contrary visual evidence where god-
desses do appear on couches cast grave doubt on
it. Added to this, male divinities did sometimes
sit on chairs at banquets, at least in the textual
sources.
Further, it is not at all certain that the term
sellisternium must be restricted to banquets. Just
as there was more than one ceremony to which
the term lectisternium was applied and with dis-
tinct religious goals (van Ooteghem, 1964), there
might be more than one ceremony described
as a sellisternium, one of which was not a ban-
quet at which some divinities sit on chairs. Tay-
lor’s explanation of coin evidence proposes an
understanding of how the term could be applied
(Taylor, 1935: 126–128). A series of coins of Flavian
date (figs. 44 and 45) depicts divine attributes on
chairs spread with a cloth, matching Festus’ (386)
 exuviae 87

Fig. 44. Coin with chair of Jupiter. Photo: Mattingly 1923–50

Fig. 45. Coin with chair of Minerva. Photo: Mattingly 1923–50

description of the sellisternium as involving the
chair adorned with a sumptuous cloth referred to
as Babylonica, and Taylor, followed by Abaecherli,
therefore identified these as portraying just such
a sellisternium. The attributes depicted include
those for both gods and goddesses, consistent
with the indication of the other textual evidence
that the sellisternium, in all its occasions, is not
exclusively female (Taylor, 1935; Abaecherli, 1935;
Mattingly, 1923–50: II: 231, 236, 240, 297). Taylor’s
proposal has been reconsidered several times
since her original publication, each time assess-
ing the argument from the perspective of different
bodies of evidence, and each time confirming her
conclusion that a sellisternium, as distinct from
a lectisternium, was held in the theatres (Wein-
stock, 1957: 148–149, 155; Hanson, 1959: 81–92;
Damsky, 1995). However, in the most recent sur-
veys of the lectisternia and sellisternia, the earlier
position that the two ceremonies were identi-
cal has been followed instead, although without
addressing Taylor’s arguments (La Rocca, 2007;
Hölscher, 2007). Nevertheless, the great bulk of
the evidence supports her original conclusions.
To identify the specifics of the sellisternium
which was commemorated on the coins, Taylor
pointed to the series historical accounts of the hon-
ours accorded deified emperors, and occasionally
88 chapter four
some other members of the imperial family. The
earliest of these was for Julius Caesar, and pro-
vided that “his golden chair and his crown set
with precious gems be carried into the theatre in
the same manner as those of the gods” (Dio Cas-
sius xliv.6.3, l.10.2). The text can be interpreted
to imply that attributes of the gods were set on
chairs or thrones when they were carried in pro-
cession to and set up in the theatre, although
there is a minority opinion that the divine attri-
butes were simply carried on fercula. Visual evi-
dence discussed below may shed some further
light on the theatre procession (Abaecherli,
1935: 131; Taylor, 1937: 254; Weinstock, 1957: 148;
Hanson, 1959: 84). With some variations in the
details, accounts of those given the divine hon-
our and having a chair carried in procession to
a theatre extend down to the Severan period
(Dio Cassius liii.30.6, lviii.4.4, lxxii.31, lxxiii.17.4,
lxxv.4.1). The occasional references to multiple
theatres among these accounts have been under-
stood to indicate that this chair ceremony took
place in several theatres (Taylor, 1935: 127, n.24;
Calabi, 1954; Weinstock, 1957: 153–154). As Taylor
herself acknowledged, no text applies the term
sellisternium to this ceremony, but it does seem
to provide for a throne ceremony as required by
Tertullianus’ list of imperial honours. In a study
complementary to Taylor’s, Albaecherli argued
that some of the attributes shown on chairs in
the Flavian coin series are those of the emperor
and empress, as they might have appeared with
the gods at the theatres (Abaecherli, 1935). Bring-
ing to bear additional textual and numismatic
evidence, Weinstock and Damsky subsequently
re-assessed the Taylor/Abaecherli hypothesis
and while agreeing with the identification of a
divine sellisternium, they were less convinced
of the identification of imperial symbols among
the divine exuviae on the coins (Weinstock, 1957;
Damsky, 1995).
Damsky made a convincing argument that the
particular sellisternium recorded on the Flavian
coins was not held in the theatre as Taylor had
rightly supposed to be the usual practice, but in
this particular case in and to commemorate the
opening of the Colosseum. To this Flavian series
he linked coins repeating the motif of a divine
symbol on a chair, beginning with coins issued
under Traianus commemorating the divinized
Vespasianus and Titus. Two later issues, under
Antoninus Pius and Philippos II, correspond to the
900th and 1000th anniversaries of Roma. Damsky
posited that all these coins are commemorative of
games held in the Colosseum on these occasions
with a consistent iconography of the thunderbolt
of Jupiter on the chair dressed with the sumptu-
ous cloth referred to by Festus (386). A portion
of Damsky’s argument, that these occasions are
ill-suited to an expiatory lectisternium, is blunted
by the demonstration (van Ooteghem, 1964) that
there are two distinct types of lectisternia, one of
which is regular and often linked to anniversa-
ries, so not of the expiatory type. Taylor’s dem-
onstration that the sellisternium is not identical
with the lectisternium renders Damsky’s point
something of a red herring, but the observation
that the ceremonies commemorated on the coins
are not expiatory is still apt.
The sequence of Flavian coins, and the subse-
quent issues connected with them in iconogra-
phy, though they need to be understood initially
in their numismatic context, should also be placed
in the broader one of other visual evidence which
shares that iconography (Weinstock, 1957: 148).
Closest to the coins is a gem, once in Berlin (no.
7656) and dated broadly to the first century CE,
which features the thunderbolt of Jupiter on a
draped chair (Furtwängler, 1896: 283). A relief in
Mantova (fig. 46) also displays the thunderbolt
of Jupiter laid out on a chair (Levi, 1929). There
have been significant restorations to the relief,
but the overlapping of the enframing molding
at several points by the original forms assures
that the relief did not extend higher than now
preserved and that therefore the seat is a chair
and not a high-backed throne. Atop the one vis-
ible leg perches a small, winged figure, an Eros.
Though its torso is broken away it would appear
that the Eros cradles the thunderbolt, it being too
 exuviae 89
Fig. 46. Throne of Jupiter, Palazzo Ducale, Mantova. Photo: author
large for the chair alone. The complementary leg
is not actually shown, the eagle at the left occu-
pying the point where it should appear. But this
second leg presumably supports the second Eros
who appears near the top and functions partially
to secure and partially to hold up for view a large
cloth which extends, like the thunderbolt, beyond
the chair to the right. This latter portion of the
cloth hangs over and reveals a step-like architec-
tural backdrop, whose lowest register appears at
the lower right corner of the panel. This archi-
tectural backdrop is tied to the one throne leg by
their being, like that leg, slightly askew to the flat
plane of the relef. These would correspond to the
seats or steps in the theatre in which the divine
chairs were set with their exuviae. The spatial
relationship between the cloth and the steps is
inconsistent, with the upper portion of the cloth
adhering to and following the form of the steps,
but the extreme right edge falls vertically from
the top to its weighted corner near the bottom
without responding to them. A similar inconsis-
tency in the treatment of the forms underneath
the cloth is witnessed where the cloth responds
to the wing of the eagle over which it falls, while
there is no indication of the seat from which it
hangs. Levi has suggested that this cloth is the
toga of Jupiter (Levi, 1929: 275). But despite its odd
projection beyond the chair on one side, its posi-
tion covering the seat and underneath the divine
symbol is consistent with other renderings of the
Babylonian cloth which Festus (386) describes as
accompanying exuviae on chairs. The final ele-
ment of the relief is the sceptre which extends
diagonally across the relief from the lower right
to the upper left. Incongruously, it appears to run
beneath the seat and behind all other elements.
The Mantova relief has been assigned to the reign
of Claudius, without argumentation (Levi, 1929:
276; Picard, 1954: 14). But the incongruities in the
spatial relationships of the objects, the missing
throne leg, and the general cramped filling of
90 chapter four
the visual frame might be better understood in
a later chronological context. A similar compres-
sion of forms in space, and a very close parallel
for the thunderbolt, for example, are apparent on
the arch of Traianus at Beneventum, or on the
Great Trajanic Frieze later incorporated into the
arch of Constantinus.
A particularly rich collection of depictions of
divine exuviae is preserved from the Casa dei Cervi
in Herculaneum, some in situ others removed in
eighteenth-century exploration of the site (Tran
tam Tinh, 1988). In oecus XXIX, exceptionally
within this house painted in a dominant blue
palette, each of three walls depicted a throne at
the centre of the attic level of an architectural
framework. The seats are thrones with high backs
and arms, corroborating the occasional reference
in the texts to thrones instead of chairs. On the
best preserved throne (figs. 47 and 48), on the
west wall, an aegis is thrown over the back and a
helmet rests on the seat, with a shield and spear
leaning against the throne, and an owl near the
footstool, all indicating Minerva. A second throne,
on the east wall, but too poorly preserved to iden-
tify the iconography, matches this one. And on a
third throne, removed in the eighteenth century,
are a sceptre leaning against it and a peacock
adjacent, so the throne of Juno (Tran tam Tinh,
1988: 70). The paintings of thrones on all three
walls in oecus XXIX, then, are suggestive of a Cap-
itoline triad. On the better preserved west wall,
the throne of Minerva was flanked by theatrical
masks, providing some corroboration for Taylor’s
argument that the sellisternium was a ceremony
normally held in connection with the theatres.
The painted decoration of the north portico
of the Casa dei Cervi included a series of framed
panels, some of which again depict thrones with
divine symbols. These were removed in the eigh-
teenth century, but three have been identified in
the Napoli archaeological museum. They differ
from the thrones in oecus XXIX in representing
an installation of the symbols on their thrones
by pairs of Erotes. In each case the high-backed
thrones have arms and footstools, and are flanked
by the Erotes, one of whom holds a garland or
an additional symbol. On two better-preserved
examples (figs. 49 and 50), the dove and the
helmet on the thrones probably correspond to
Venus and Mars. On a third, less well-preserved
throne, the indistinct symbol on the cushion has
been taken to be a helmet, with a spear leaning
against the throne, so that of Minerva, or alter-
natively, if the object leaning on the throne is a
sceptre, the throne of Juno (Tran tam Tinh, 1988:
55–56; Picard, 1954: 13; La Rocca, 2007: 95 and
fig. 17). A contrast is apparent with the paintings
of thrones in oecus XXIX, in that these in the por-
tico depict the installation of the divine exuviae
on thrones, rather than thrones with the exuviae
already in place. As the thrones in the oecus make
specific reference to the theatre, the installation
of exuviae by Erotes may indicate a distinction in
ceremony or venue.
A pair of free-standing thrones in München
provides additional evidence for the sellisternium
combining exuviae of the gods with the divine
honours accorded emperors. Two survive, origi-
nally with backs worked separately but now lost.
The condition of these thrones makes identifica-
tion of the specific symbols employed difficult,
but Venus and Mars are the best candidates. La
Rocca has determined that these two thrones
were found in the area of the temple of the dei-
fied Claudius on the Caelian Hill (La Rocca, 2007:
97–104; Richter, 1966: 99; Picard, 1959; Weinstock,
1957: 147–148; Picard, 1954), and originally they
must have formed part of a larger set there of
enthroned symbols of gods. These sculptured
thrones form a group along with the paintings in
oecus XIX of the Casa dei Cervi and the series of
Flavian coins (figs. 44 and 45) of larger cycles of
divine exuviae set on thrones.
The paintings from the north portico of the
Casa dei Cervi, though also depicting a throne
ceremony, are distinct from this group, and find
a closer parallel in a set of reliefs which like these
depict Erotes in the process of installing the
divine exuviae on thrones, already decked with
their Babylonian cloth. On the reliefs the thrones
 exuviae 91

Fig. 47. Throne of Minerva, Casa dei Cervi. Herculaneum. Photo: DAI Rome
92 chapter four

Fig. 48. Throne of Minerva, Casa dei Cervi. Herculaneum. Photo: Tran tam Tinh 1988
 exuviae 93

Fig. 49. Throne of Venus, Casa dei Cervi, Museo Archeologico, Napoli. Photo: Tran tam Tinh 1988

Fig. 50. Throne of Mars, Casa dei Cervi, Museo Archeologico, Napoli. Photo: Roux Ainé 1839
94 chapter four
are incorporated into a rank of Corinthian pilas-
ters. They were first recorded in Ravenna in the
fourteenth century, and while the majority of
fragments remain in that city, in the church of
S. Vitale (figs. 51 and 52) and the Museo Arcives-
covile, others were dispersed during the Renais-
sance to Venezia (figs. 54 and 55), Firenze and
Paris (fig. 53), the last preserving the only com-
plete panel in the lot. These reliefs have been
dated variously as Augustan, Julio-Claudian, or
Flavian (La Rocca, 2007: 93–95; Bober and Rubin-
stein, 1986: 90–91; Beschi, 1985; Weinstock, 1957:
148; Taylor, 1935: 126; Ricci, 1910: 247–259). And
while most of the fragments depict the installation
of exuviae on thrones, two additional fragments
depict an escort of walking women in Greek dress
against the same architectural backdrop, suggest-
ing that the installation should be understood as
connected with a preceding procession.
While the first group of renderings of exuviae
already on thrones corresponds well with the
texts describing the sellisternium performed at
the theatres following on the open procession of
the symbols, this second group of thrones with
Erotes installing the symbols requires an alterna-
tive occasion. Both the presence of these divine
figures rather than mortals and the installation
ceremony itself correspond better with the special
handling of those symbols of the gods in the circus
procession and subsequently after their arrival at
the circus. Dionysios of Halikarnassos (vii.72) in
his description of the circus procession makes
no mention of the exuviae, focusing instead on
the larger images of the gods in this procession,
those borne on fercula. Nevertheless, the special
attention given to the procession of the exuviae,
their secretive transit, the opulent carriages, the
special escorts, and their announcers all speak to
their high religious status. Moreover, it was these
symbols not the other images in the procession
which stood in for the gods at the circus after
they were installed there in the pulvinar, a large
temple-like structure centrally positioned along
one of the long sides (Hanson, 1959; Humphrey,
1986: 78–83; Hugoniot, 2006). No preserved text
seems to describe this ceremony. However, the
importance of the objects transported hidden in
their carriages is indicated by their being the only
elements of the procession which appear again in
depictions of the later events in the circus. On
the circus relief in Foligno while the charioteers
already race around the spina a single carriage
appears drawn up against the background archi-
tecture, its horses shed, and doubtless its contents
removed. While it may seem that the sculptor of
the relief employs a compressed temporal repre-
sentation of things which do not belong in the
same place at the same time, the parking of the
carriages inside the circus could account for
the report by Dio Cassius (l.8.2) of the carriage of
Jupiter being demolished in the circus. Addition-
ally, on a fragment of a child’s sarcophagus in the
Vatican (fig. 56) a tetrastylon stands on the spina.
Either inside or perhaps decorating the walls of
this structure appears a tensa with its horses still
in harness, a shrine or perhaps a votive (Law-
rence, 1965: 122, 131).
The Ravenna reliefs and the paintings from
the north portico of the Casa dei Cervi depict the
throne ceremony required in removing the exu-
viae from their individual carriages and installing
them on the thrones in the pulvinar of the circus,
in which the holiness of the objects is emphasized
by their being handled by the divine Erotes. As
Tertullianus (de spectaculis 7) lists thrones among
the objects carried in the circus procession, it is
a reasonable assumption that these thrones are
the same which were subsequently placed on
the pulvinar for the exuviae. The ancient source
of the Ravenna reliefs has never been established
satisfactorily. They have been thought to have
decorated some temple, but this is seemingly
contradicted by the peculiarity of their original
configuration in two identical sets, oriented in
the same direction, as established by the dupli-
cate panels represented in the Paris (fig. 53) and
Venezia (figs. 54 and 55) collections, and the two
in S. Vitale (figs. 51 and 52). Two sets which are
 exuviae 95

Fig. 51. Throne of Neptunus, San Vitale, Ravenna. Photo: author

Fig. 52. Throne of Neptunus, San Vitale, Ravenna. Photo: author

96 chapter four

Fig. 53. Throne of Saturnus, Musée du Louvre. Photo: Réunion des Musées Nationaux/Art Resource, NY

Fig. 54. Throne of Saturnus, Museo Archeologico, Venezia. Photo: author

 exuviae 97

Fig. 55. Throne of Saturnus, Museo Archeologico, Venezia. Photo: author

Fig. 56. Circus relief, Vatican Museums. Photo: author

98 chapter four
Fig. 57. After painting of procession, Casa di Nozze di Hercules, Pompeii. Photo: Caratelli 1990–95
not mirror images of each other, especially with
the section of female figures in procession, would
ill fit the long sides of a temple as the length of
the preserved fragments requires. The reliefs
have also been attributed to a theatre decoration
(Picard 1954: 12–13), but if the interpretation of the
subject matter argued here as that taking place in
the circus is correct, the more likely source for
these reliefs is a pair of decorated parapets dupli-
cating each other along either side of a circus. A
full treatment of this proposal will appear as a
separate essay.
It is conspicuous that all the coins subsequent
to the initial Flavian series depicting a divine
sellisternium as well as the Berlin gem and the
Mantova relief (fig. 46) present exclusively the
thunderbolt of Jupiter. This might be accounted
for by the chance of preservation, or explained as
a visual synecdoche where the symbol of the king
of the gods stands for the symbols of them all.
But a simpler explanation would be that all these
commemorate sellisternia at games honouring
Jupiter specifically, and the Capitoline games pro-
vide an attractive candidate. These games were
founded by Domitianus as a penteteric celebra-
tion on the Greek model, encompassing musical,
gymnastic and equestrian competitions. Despite
Domitianus’ damnatio memoriae, the Capitoline
games continued down into the fourth century
(Suetonius, Domitianus 4–5; Wissowa, 1912: 311
and 465; Caldelli, 1993), and thus span the chro-
nology of all the extant examples of Jupiter’s
thunderbolt on a chair or throne. The different
types of competitions included required a range
of venues, resulting in Domitianus’ building of a
new odeum and stadium, as well as restorations
of the Circus Maximus. Just as the texts describe
sellisternia held in the different theatres where
games were put on, so sellisternia for the Capito-
line games presumably would have been held in
each of the appropriate venues.
There are two further visual examples of exu-
viae which cannot be assigned to the city of Roma.
A painting in the Casa delle Nozze d’Ercole, Pom-
peii VII.9.47 (fig. 57) illustrates the divine attri-
butes in a procession extending on either side
of a small, tetrastylon temple, inside of which
stands Venus, with Priapus and Eros represented
as statues on either side of her. The goddess has
presented Hebe, who descends the temple steps,
to her consort, Hercules. While most interpreta-
tions of this combination of mortal and divine
activities naturally place emphasis on the cen-
tral divine wedding (La Rocca, 2007: 87; Ryberg,
1955: 169; Della Corte, 1924: 90–92), these do not
effectively account for the procession itself. The
arrangement of this procession passing behind
the temple might better be imagined as indicat-
ing that the temple of Venus is a station on the
path rather than the procession’s goal. Alterna-
tively, the procession has been described as one
for Isis. This relies on the female figure immedi-
ately to the right of the temple being identified as
a priestess of Isis holding her sistrum (Tran tam
Tinh, 1964: 132–133; Delle Corte, 1924: 91–93). The
attributes of Isis and Sarapis carried on fercula
 exuviae 99
do lead the procession, yet oddly for this second
interpretation it is that of Sarapis which appears
first, with Isis’ following second: a snake in a tree
for Sarapis and a temple for Isis. Moreover, Sara-
pis’s and Isis’s symbols are not the only ones in
this procession. To the right of the temple come
two more litters with attributes, a helmet first,
the second now obscured by damage, these fol-
lowed by sacrificial animals, and finally a chair
carried on two poles.
The weakness of identifying the procession as
one for Isis is that such a procession would then
have no meaningful relationship with the divine
action at the centre of the painting. More plau-
sibly, Sarapis and Isis are given pride of place in
the procession because of their importance in the
religious life of the city. Similarly, the pair repre-
sented by the helmet and the missing attribute to
the right of the temple would correspond to Mars
and Venus, also a goddess pre-eminent in the city,
and her divine consort, much like the thrones in
the Casa dei Cervi. If this reading is correct, the
procession entails the attributes of divine con-
sorts, in each case with the male preceding the
female, in celebration of the newly wed pair of
Hercules and Hebe. And if the procession is in
celebration of those two, the sacrificial animals
must be intended for them. Although the sex of
the bovine is now unclear due to damage to the
surface, it represents an appropriate offering to
the son of Jupiter, while the lamb carried on a
boy’s shoulders fittingly is intended for Hebe as
the embodiment of youthful beauty.
The attributes are here carried on a series of
litters, not in carriages, and as an inscription from
Formiae records a tensa for Minerva there (CIL
X.6102) presumably as at Roma itself for a circus
procession, it can be concluded that this Pompei-
ian example is not a circus procession. The three
female figures in the procession are rendered on
a larger scale than the males carrying the litters,
who therefore are to be understood as youths.
The simple tunics of each boy are decorated with
narrow stripes, indicating that they are the sons
of the equestrian class (Stone, 1994: 15). Because
of the prominence of Hebe, identified in Roma
with Juventas, these youths are likely members
of one of the colleges dedicated to her worship.
Several such colleges for Juventas are attested in
Italian cities, and apart from dedicating mem-
bers to the goddess of youth, they also fostered
those members’ service to other gods, including
of course Hercules (Della Corte, 1924; Wissowa,
1912: 58, 135–136, 276; Livius 31.62.9).
In the painting, at the end of this line of attri-
butes of divine pairs and following the two sac-
rificial animals, two final youths carry on poles
a chair, on the cushion of which appears to be
a crown (La Rocca, 2007: 87; Tran tam Tinh,
1964: 133). Both the position, separated from the
divine attributes by the sacrificial animals, and
the breaking of the pattern of male/female pairs
mark the chair as distinct from them, so not for
another of the gods. The extra wide proportions
of the chair are like that of the honourific bisel-
lium, or double wide chair (Schäfer, 1990). But
this chair is distinct from the normal bisellium in
having a kind of back, suggesting a throne, even
if it lacks arms. The clear indication of excep-
tional honours, yet distinction from the gods is
in accord with the position of a deified emperor
in procession with the exuviae of the gods to a
sellisternium for the theatre games. Likewise, the
sacrificial animals are consistent with the altars
known to have been provided at the theatres
(Hanson, 1959: 81–92). In the absence of firm evi-
dence that the exuviae of the gods were carried
on their thrones in a theatre procession, and the
possibility of a local variation on the pattern fol-
lowed in Roma, the strongest case for this Pom-
peiian example is as a theatre procession leading
to a sellisternium there.
An altar dedicated to the cult of Cybele (fig. 58)
and dated by style to the second or third century
is without provenance, but illustrates on one of
its faces the attribute of the goddess in the form
of her cista set on a throne carried on a ferculum
(Fitzwilliam Museum GR5.1938: ThesCRA II. s.v.
100 chapter four

Fig. 58. Altar of Cybele, Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge. Photo: Tillyard 1917

 exuviae 101
“initiation”, no. 132; La Rocca, 2007: 88–89; Ver-
masseren, 1977–89: VII: 11–13; Vermasseren, 1977:
97–98; Budde and Nicholls, 1964: 77–78, no. 125;
Tillyard, 1917). The four figures carrying the litter
are in Phrygian garb, as are a pair of statues of
figures on the litter who hold up a pole or tree
between them. By their Phrygian garb, both the
litter bearers and the statues holding the pole
have been identified as Galli, originally Phrygian
immigrants who worshipped the goddess and
arrived in Roma with her. But given the relatively
late date of the altar, these would no longer be
the Phrygians but Romans who had taken up the
foreign cult (Wissowa, 1912: 320–321). In light of
the textual evidence for the dendrophoroi and
the carriers of the cista surveyed above, those
depicted here should be members of a college,
and priests, respectively. The altar either suggests
that the dendrophoroi and the priests at that
time actually dressed as Phrygians, or depicts the
contemporary worshippers by imaginary asso-
ciation as the original immigrant Phrygians. The
uncertainty involved compromises how literally
this transport of the cista on a throne should be
taken as showing a procession leading to a sellis-
ternium. The cista on a throne in fact quotes the
form in which the goddess appeared in the sculp-
tured pediment of her temple on the Palatine
(Tillyard, 1917: 286; Picard, 1954: 11–12). But while
the altar cannot be taken at face value as simply
an illustration of a procession with Cybele’s cista,
it does at least indicate that a Roman audience
would find plausible the carrying of both attri-
butes and thrones on litters. As the circus pro-
cession is excluded since how the exuviae were
carried there is firm, the theatre procession for
the sellisternium represents the best documented
case for such an arrangement.
The attributes for most of the Roman gods
are not prominent in either the textual or visual
evidence, but this does not present an accu-
rate picture of the importance of these peculiar
objects in Roman religious experience. They, or
their transportation, represented the critical ele-
ment of the procession to the theatres and the
spectacle which took place there. The grafting
on of the imperial cult to this procession both
acknowledged its importance, and added an
additional element of political propaganda. And
while the circus procession was thick with con-
stituent elements, many large and resplendent,
in terms of religious import the divine exuviae
were paramount. It is they which represented
the gods at the games in the circus. The culmi-
nation of both these types of processions was a
throne ceremony, a sellisternium, which should
be distinguished from the banquet or lectister-
nium both in what it constituted and where it
was held. The sheer visual opulence reported of
Roman processions might imply a sameness to
them all, but the singular manner in which the
exuviae were treated in the circus procession
offers a warning against such an assumption.
Keeping the symbols both conspicuous yet out
of sight until their installation on the pulvinar of
the circus must have enhanced the theatricality
of that moment, one which is then translated in
the visual representation of it as requiring the
agency of minor divinities.
 Epilogue
The various modes of ceremonial sculpture preva-
lent in the Roman world are distinct in terms of
design, scale and materials, when compared to
the better-known genres of Roman sculpture. But
as important to the characterization of each type
is its specific ceremonial function, and the aspects
of the theatre of that ceremony: the actors and
audience, and the conventions of behaviour. The
evidence, both visual and textual, for understand-
ing the individual types, their distinctive qualities
as well as the points in common among them
often dictates that only inferences can be drawn.
Nevertheless, with these cautions in mind, the
evidence for the individual types of statue can
serve to amplify the picture for others.
The visual representations of ceremonial stat-
uary say little of bad planning, accident or poor
performance, but in so doing testify to the strong
desire that these events would all go off perfectly.
It is only in the occasional textual reference, like
the report (Dio Cassius xlvii.40.4) of Minerva’s
carriage for transporting her symbol to the Circus
crashing on its return to the Capitol, that of the
boy peering down into the carriages during their
procession to see the hidden exuviae (Macrobius,
Saturnalia i.6.15), or Cicero’s (de officiis 1.31) dis-
approving reference to how litter carriers might
inattentively disport themselves, where the inevi-
table realities of such enterprises find any men-
tion. But this is in accord with the nature of ritual
itself, which by its repetition works to negate the
passage of time (Turner 1986: 78). The visual ren-
derings thereby become a perpetual present of
things going perfectly.
Generally the use of these sculptural types
seems ceremonially focused. Thus the large,
litter-borne statues only appear in processions;
capita deorum function only in divine banquets,
and exuviae are used only in conjunction with
throne ceremonies. This specialization in applica-
tion should not obscure the manifold treatment
within these ceremonial restrictions. The exuviae
were hidden during the circus procession, but
apparently on view in the processions to the the-
atres. And in both cases there must have been
a protocol for installing the exuviae into their
places at the theatres and the circus. Similarly
capita deorum presumably were brought out to
the banquet couches with a ceremonial protocol,
and some visual evidence from Egypt supports
the inference.
Statuettes had the broadest ceremonial appli-
cation. They were carried in processions, culmi-
nating in a presentation. At least so far as the
evidence indicates, the statuettes were presented
before the image or person of the emperor or the
image of a god. But the statuette also played a
subsequent rôle as a fixed object. The statuettes
of the Salutaris endowment at Ephesos were
installed in the theatre for a time following their
procession through the city. This corroborates
the curious anecdote of the statuettes of Victo-
ria for Septimius, Caracalla and Geta installed in
the circus in Roma (scriptores historiae augus-
tae, Severus 22). As images of Victoria had a spe-
cial function in processions to accompany the
emperor or his image, this Severan group must
have been used in this fashion during the circus
procession for the emperor and his sons after
their designation as co-rulers, and like the statu-
ettes at Ephesos were installed subsequently at
the culminating venue.
Not surprisingly, the bulk of the evidence
focuses on that principal ceremonial appearance.
But as any procession or appearance requires a
complementary recession, these too must have
been carried out with an appropriate protocol.
The account (Dio Cassius xlvii.40.4) of the car-
riage for Minerva’s symbol accidentally being
destroyed after the circus procession on its return
104 epilogue
to the Capitol sanctuary hints at these recession-
als. Likewise, the preparation of these sacred
objects can be presumed to have been carried
out according to some established ceremony.
Tertullianus’ reference (de spectaculis 10) to the
theatre and circus processions proceeding from
all the temples requires one to imagine both the
series of smaller processions bringing the images
from various sanctuaries, as well as the marshal-
ling and organizing for the procession itself. Even
capita deorum, the one type of ceremonial sculp-
ture not principally dedicated to a processional
function, nevertheless must have been brought
out to and removed from their banquet couches
with due regard. Terracotta depictions from Egypt
of the carrying of capita deorum on their couch
hint at just such an arrival in the accompaniment
of a priest. The legal prohibition against priests
attending the banquets themselves requires that
the operation must proceed or follow that ban-
quet as an arrival or departure.
As all these types of sculpture are intrinsi-
cally bound up with a performative function and
mobility, the problem of their location when not
in use presents itself. The care with which the
objects are handled speaks to their sacred nature,
allowing the inference that they might frequently
be stored in sanctuaries. For statuettes the Salu-
taris endowment from Ephesos where the statu-
ettes originate from and return to the sanctuary of
Artemis provides evidence this was the case (see
Appendix, no. 2). Tertullianus (de spectaculis 7),
in his description of the circus procession and
apparently referring to the large statues on litters,
similarly suggests that for this large format the
sanctuaries functioned for storage. Capita deo-
rum are set out for banquets in sanctuaries; thus
the sanctuary would be the most likely storage
place for them as well. And finally, the account
already cited (Dio Cassius xlvii.40.4) of the car-
riage for Minerva’s symbol crashing on return to
the Capitol sanctuary tells the same story with
respect to the storage of the exuviae. Further,
the accounts of the activities of the religious col-
leges of Cybele indicate a close coordination with
sanctuary administration, which also implies a
close physical association. And while much of
the evidence applies to ceremonies conducted in
the city of Roma, there is sufficient representa-
tion from outside the city (the texts cited above
as well as the visual evidence from Pompeii) to
suggest that this association of the various cere-
monial sculptures with sanctuaries was common
practice.
The human agency which distinguishes cer-
emonial from fixed sculpture is a fundamental
element of these objects. For the processional
statuettes, the litter statues and the exuviae, those
whose obligation it is to carry or escort them
are a regular feature of the visual depictions.
The (male) children of the élite are prominent
among these. It is they who are responsible for
carrying statuettes in civic processions in Roma
and Ephesos, and for carrying the exuviae of the
gods to their thrones in the theatre in Pompeii.
They also have the responsibility to escort the
hidden exuviae in the circus procession. The sta-
tus of these youths, élite yet subordinate within
their social rank, is one that recurs generally for
those who perform with the sculptures in Roman
ceremonies. The status of those whose charge
it is to handle statuettes remains constant into
the Christian period, where the Calendar of 354
and the Barberini diptych illustrate statuettes of
Victoria held by subordinates in the presence of
the emperor.
Within the religious guilds, those who carry
the sacred images are again not those with the
highest rank within the guild. The trade guilds
partake of a similar prideful participation, while
acknowledging their subordinate social rank.
Their own commissions depict them as the bear-
ers of litters, an occupation associated with mere
labourers. The altar dedicated by the ministri
of the collegium fabrum tignariorum shows that
guilds were not limited to the rôle of litter carri-
ers, but could also take charge of statuettes. How-
ever, the function of the statuette in this case is
confined to their own ceremonies for their patron
divinity, so distinct from those performed by the
 epilogue 105
élite youths in that the ceremonies are not the
large, civic ones.
Capita deorum and certain aspects of the exu-
viae fall outside the pattern of the other sculptural
types in this regard. Neither the texts describing
capita deorum nor the visual representations of
them seem to give much attention to the human
agency of their performance. Some visual evi-
dence does indicate a ceremonial bringing out of
the sculptures to their banquet site, though this
processional is carried out by winged, youthful
beings, perhaps Erotes. This ceremonial bringing
out of the sculptures amounts only to an append-
age to their principle function. But despite the
absence of attention to the human agency in
the visual record, Livius (v.13) does record in his
accounts of special (as opposed to regular) lectis-
ternia with capita deorum the participation of the
entire Roman population in visiting these ban-
quets. They then constitute the human agency of
this particular statuary type.
While representations of the transport of the
exuviae do feature those youths who escorted
the carriages in the circus procession, the cul-
minating action, their installation on thrones in
the pulvinar of the circus, appears only through
the agency of Erotes. Such divinities enacting a
parody of a ceremony are not unfamiliar. Here,
the critical moment in the handling of the sacred
objects, which prior to this point have been care-
fully shielded from all human view, their installa-
tion on the thrones, calls for a heightened sanctity
for the operators. Similarly, the Erotes who bring
out the capita deorum are the only beings shown
handling those sculptures. In each case, Erotes
make particularly fitting sacred, metaphorical
replacements for the Romans themselves, since
the Roman people, like Erotes, are descended
from Venus through their founder, Aeneas.
Finally, the ceremonial sculptures are factors
in and help map the history of the shift of the
empire into a Christian one. Tertullianus (de spec-
taculis 7 & 10) had already expressed great con-
cern over the danger that the allure of the theatre
and the circus represented for Christians, and of
course is an important source for the elements
which make up the processions and the statu-
ary involved. It is remarkable that a number of
objects which provide visual evidence for capita
deorum (Caesarea Maritima cup), litter statues
(S. Lorenzo sarcophagus lid, Aquileia sarcopha-
gus lid) and processional statuettes (Domus Faus-
tae paintings, Calendar of 354, Barberini dyptich)
date to the Constantinian period or later.
These survivals of the old religious parapher-
nalia are consistent with Tertullianus’ fears of
the inherent appeal of these public festivals.
Their popularity is also reflected in the piecemeal
approach of the imperial decrees of the codex
Theodosianus, which allowed the various specta-
cles to continue with certain restrictions as long
as no sacrifices were involved (codex Theodo-
sianus ii.8.20; xv.4.1.1; xv.5.2; xvi.10.17). As the var-
ious ceremonial acts with which the sculptures
had long been associated had not traditionally
included sacrifice, a pragmatic toleration could
be maintained. The success of such a stratagem,
or a concession to its inevitability, is documented
in the long survival of at least the litter statues,
modified to their new master in the later history
of Christianity.
An additional ingredient promoting the sur-
vival of these objects into the Christian period
was the assimilation of certain sculptural forms
into the cult of the emperor. The deified emperor
could still appear on its wagon in the circus pro-
cession of the San Lorenzo sarcophagus lid. And
even more enduring was the close association of
statuettes of the goddess Victoria with the per-
son or image of the emperor. Thus a statuette
of Victoria can still be presented to the emperor
in the Calendar of 354, and in perhaps the final
appearance of all these sculptural forms, on the
Barberini diptych the emperor, usually identified
with Justinianus, still appears with the statuette
of Victoria leading the way.
 Appendix
Inscriptional and Papyrological Texts
1. Magnesia-on-the-Maiandros. decree concern-
ing the cult of Zeus Sosipolis (197–96 BCE)
Text: Kern, 1900: 82–83
Translation: Donohue, 1988: 470
ὁ δέ στεφανηφόρος ἄγων τὴν πομπήν φερέτω ξόα-
να πάντων τῶν δώδεκα θεῶν ἐν ἐσθῆσιν ὡς καλλίσ-
ταις καὶ πηγνύτω θόλον ἐν τῆι ἀγορᾶι πρὸς τῶι βωμῶι
τῶν δώδεκα θεῶν, στρωνύτω δὲ καὶ στρωμνὰς τρεῖς ὡς
45 καλλίστας . . .
Let the stephanophoros leading the procession carry the
xoana of all the twelve gods in garments as beautiful as
possible, and let him build a tholos in the agora near the
bomos of the twelve gods; and let him spread out three
couches as beautiful as possible . . .
2. Ephesos. endowment of Gaius Vibius Salutaris
(103/04 CE)
Text: Rogers 1991: 152–185
translation: excerpted from Rogers 1991
. . . προσ[έτι δὲ καὶ νῦν προσελθ]ὼν εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν
ὑπέσχε[το ἐννέα ἀ
πεικονίσ[ματα καθιερώσειν,] ἓν μὲν χρύσεον, ἐν ᾧ καὶ
ἀργ[ύρεα]
ἐπίχρυσα, ἕτ[ερα δὲ ἀργύρεα] ἀπεικονίσματα ὀκτώ,
εἰ[κόνας τε]
25 ἀργυρέας εἴ[κοσι, πέντε μὲν] τοῦ κ[υ]ρίου ἡμῶν
αὐ[τοκράτορος]
Νέρουα Τραϊα[νοῦ Καίσαρος Σ]εβαστοῦ Γερμανικοῦ
Δ[ακικοῦ, καὶ]
τῆς ἱερωτάτ[ησ γυναικὸς αὐτοῦ Πλ]ωτείνης καὶ τῆς
ἱερ[ᾶς συνκλήτου]
καὶ τοῦ Ῥω[μαίων ἱππικού τάγμα]τος καὶ δήμου, [τούτων
δὲ χω-
ρὶς εἰκόν[ας δεκαπέντε Ἐφεσίω]ν τήν πόλιν
προσ[ωποποιούσας,]
30 [τοῦ δήμ[ου καὶ τῶν ἓξ φυλῶν κα]ὶ βου[λῆ]ς καὶ
 γερ[ουσίας καὶ ἐφη-]
Βεία[ς . . .
156 . . . ὥ[στε καὶ αὐ-
τὰς τίθε[σ]θαι ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις ἐπάνω σελίδος τῆς
βουλ[ῆς μετὰ τῆς
χρυσέας Ἀρτέμιδος καὶ τῶν ἄλλων εἰκόνων. Ἄρτεμις δὲ
χρυσ[έα, ὁλκῆς]
λειτρῶν τριῶν καὶ αἱ περὶ αὐτὴν ἀργύρεοι ἔλαφοι δύο καὶ
τὰ λοιπὰ ἐπίχρυσα
160 ὁλκῆς λειτῶν δύο, οὐνκιῶν δέκα, γραμμάτων πέντε . . .
168 ὁμοίως καὶ ἄλλη Ἄρτεμις ἀργυρέα λαμπαδηφόρος,
 ἐ[μφερὴς]
τῇ ἐν τῇ ἐξέδρᾳ τῶν ἐφήβων, ὁλκῆς λ ζˊ, οὐνκιῶν εˊ,
γραμ[μάτων ˊ,] . . .
182 [ὁμοίως καὶ ἄλλη Ἄρτεμις] ἀργυρέα [ χ]ειρὶ
[, ὁλκῆς λ ˊ, οὐνκιῶν θˊ . . .
202 [. . . τὰ δὲ προγεγρ]αμμέ[να ἀπεικο]νίσματ[α ἀποτιθέσθω]
 σαν κατὰ
[πᾶσαν νόμιμον ἐκκλ]ησίαν κ[αὶ τῇ τῇ νέᾳ] νουμη[νίᾳ
ἔτους άρ]χιερατι-
[κοῦ ἐπιτελουμένῃ θυσί]ᾳ ἐν τῶι [θεάτρωι ὑπ]ὸ τῶν
κα[θηκόντων ἐπὶ τὰ]ς κατὰ σε-
205 [λίδας τεθειμένας κ]αἰ ἐπιγεγ[ραμμένας] θ’ βάσεις [ἀνὰ
 γ’, ὡς ἡ ἐπὶ] τοῖς βά-
[θροις καί ἡ ἐν τῇ δ]ιατάξει βο[υλῆς, γερου]σίας,
ἐφη[βείας καὶ φυλῆ]ς καθιέ-
[ρωσις. μετὰ δὲ τ]ὸ λυθῆν[αι τὰς ἐκκλσί]ας
ἀποφ[ερέσθωσαν τὰ ἀπεικονίσ-
[ματα καὶ αἱ εἰκόνε]ς ε[ἰ τὸ ἱερὸν τῆς Ἀρτέμ]ιδος κα[ὶ
παραδιδόσθωσαν ὑπὸ]
[τῶν φυλάκων, συνεπιμελουμένων ἐκ] τῶν νεο[ποιῶν
δύο καὶ σκηπτούχου,]
210 [Μουσαίῷ, ἱερῷ τῆς Ἀρτέμιδος τῷ ἐπὶ τῶν παρ]αθη[κῶν,
 διαδεχομένων καὶ συμ-]
[προπεμπόντων καὶ τῶν ἐφήβων ἀπὸ τῆς Μαγνητιῆς
πύλης είς τὸ θέα-]
[τρον καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ θεάτρου μέχρι τῆς Κορησσικῆς πύλης
μετὰ] πάσης [εὐπρε-
[πείας . . .
. . . ὅπως ἐξῇ τοῖς χρυσο-
420 φ[οροῦσιν τῇ θεῷ φέρειν εἰς τὰς] εκκλησίας καὶ τοὺς
 ἀγῶνας
τὰ ἀπεικ[ον]ίσματα καὶ <τὰς> εἰκόνας τὰ καθιερωμέν[α
ὑπὸ Γαΐο]υ
Οὐειβίου Σαλουταρίου ἐκ τοῦ προνάου τῆς Ἀρτέμιδος,
συν-
επιμελουμένων καὶ τῶν νεοποιῶν, συνπαραλαμβανόντων
καὶ τῶν
ἐφήβων ἀπό τῆς Μαγνητικῆς πύλης καὶ
συμπροπευπόντων
425 μέχρι τῆς Κορησσικῆς πύλης . . .
(22–31) . . . and further now coming forward in the assembly
he has promised to dedicate nine type-statues, and twenty
silver images, five of our lord emperor Nerva Traianus Cae-
sar Augustus Germanicus Dacicus and his most revered
wife Plotina and the revered Senate and the Roman eques-
trian order and the Roman people, and apart from these
108 appendix
fifteen statues representing the city of the Ephesians, of the
demos and the six tribes and the boule and the gerousia
and the ephebeia . . .
(156–60) . . . that these be placed during the assemblies above
the block of the boule among the golden Artemis, and the
other images. A golden Artemis, weight of 3 pounds, and
the two silver stags about her and the rest of gold gilded,
weight of 2 pounds, 10 ounces, 5 grammes . . .
(168–69) Equally another silver Artemis the Torch-bearer,
similar to the one in the exedra of the ephebes, weight of 7
pounds, 5 ounces, . . . . . grammes . . .
(182–83) Equally another silver Artemis [ ] in hand, weight
of . . . . pounds, 9 ounces . . .
(202–13) The aforementioned type-statues should be
placed during every regular assembly, and during the new
moon’s sacrifice of the archieratic year in the theatre by
the fitting people on the nine inscribed bases in three
groups over the blocks set out as the dedication on the
bases and the dedication in the bequest for the boule, the
gerousia, the ephebeia, and (each) tribe. After the assem-
blies have been dismissed, the type-statues and the images
should be carried back to the sanctuary of Artemis and
should be handed over by the guards, two of the neo-
poioi and a beadle attending, to Mousaios, sacred slave of
Artemis, custodian of the things deposited, the ephebes
receiving and escorting from the Magnesian Gate into the
theatre, and from the theatre right into the Koressian Gate
with all due dignity.
(419–25) That it may be permitted to the gold-bearers for
the goddess to bring into the assemblies and the contests
the type-statues and the images dedicated by Caius Vibius
Salutaris from the pronaos of Artemis, the neopoioi sharing
in the care, the ephebes sharing in receiving them from the
Magnesian Gate, and in escorting the procession up to the
Koressian Gate.
3. Gytheion. decree for the imperial cult (15 CE)
text: Woodward, 1954: no. 923
translation: modified from Sherk, 1988: 32–33
ὅταν ὁ ἀγορανόμος τοὺ[ς
25 ἀγῶ]νας ἄγῃ τοὺς θυμελικοὺς, πομπὴν στελλέτω ἐκ τοῦ
 Ἀσκληπιοῦ καὶ τῆς Ὑγιεία[ς]
πομπευόντον τῶν τε ἐφήβων καὶ τῶν νέων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων
πολειτῶν ἐστεμμένων δάφν[ης]
στεφάνοις καὶ λευκὰ ἀπεχομέν‹ω›ν. συμπομπευέτωσαν δὲ
καὶ αἱ ἱεραὶ κόραι καὶ αἱ γυναῖκες ἐν
[τ]αῖς ἱεραῖς ἐσθῆσιν.
. . . οἱ ἔφοροι οἱ ἐπὶ Χαίρωνος στρατηγοῦ καὶ ἱερέως θε
οῦ Σεβαστοῦ Καίσαρος οἱ περὶ Τερέντιον Βιάδαν
ἐγδότωσαν τρεῖς γραπτὰς εἰκόνας τοῦ θε
35 οῦ Σεβαστοῦ καὶ Ἰουλίας τῆς Σεβαστῆς καὶ Τιβερίου
 Καίσαρος τοῦ Σεβαστοῦ καὶ τὰ διὰ θέατρον
ἴκρια τῷ χορῷ καὶ θύρας μιμικὰς τέσσερας καὶ τῇ
συνφωνίᾳ ὑποπόδια.
When the agoranomos celebrates the theatrical games, he
shall conduct a procession from the temple of Asklepios
and Hygieia including in it all the ephebes and young men
and other citizens wearing garlands of bay leaves, and in
white clothing. They shall be accompanied in the proces-
sion by the sacred maidens and the women in their sacred
clothing . . . While Khairon is strategos and the priest of
divine Augustus Caesar, the overseers who are colleagues
of Terentius Biades shall deliver three painted images of
the divine Augustus and Iulia Augustus and Tiberius Cae-
sar Augustus, and for the theatre the platform for the cho-
rus and four doors for stage performances and footstools
for the orchestra.
4. Oxyrhyncus. affidavit of priestly rank (336 CE)
text: Grenfell & Hunt, 1914: 189–91, no. 1265
translation: modified from Grenfell and Hunt,
1914
Μετὰ τὴν ὑπατείαν Ἰουλίου Κωνσταντίνου
πατρικίου ἀδελφοῦ τοῦ δεσπότου ἡμῶν
Κωνσταντίνου Αὐγούστου καὶ Ῥουφίου
Ἀλβίνου τῶν λαμπ(ροτάτων)
5 Φλααυίῳ Παρανίῳ τῷ καὶ Μακροβίῳ λο(γιστῇ)
 Ὀξ(υρυχίτου)
παρὰ Αὐρηλίου Θωνίου Δημητρίου
ἀπὸ τῆς αὐτῆς πόλεως ἱερέως
ἱεροῦ Διὸς καὶ Ἥρας καὶ τῶν συννάων
θεῶν μεγίστων [κα]ὶ κωμαστοῦ
10 θίων προτομῶν καὶ νίκης αὐτῶν
προαούσης.
The year after the consulship of Julius Constantius, patri-
cian, brother of our master Constantius Augustus, and
Rufius Albinus, the most illustrious. To Flavius Paranius
also called Macrobius, logistes of the Oxyrhynchite nome,
from Aurelius Thonius son of Demetrius, of the same city,
priest of the temple of Zeus, Hera, and the associated most
great gods, celebrant of the divine protomai and his Victory
which goes before.
5. Oinoanda. endowment of Gaius Ilius Demos-
thenes (124 CE)
text: Wörrle, 1988: 10
translation: modified from Mitchell, 1990: 185
61 . . . ὁμοίως αἱρεῖσθαι ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ καὶ σεβαστοφόρους ι΄,
 οἵ[τι]-
 inscriptional and papyrological texts 109

νες φοροῦτες ἐσθῆτα λευκὴν καὶ στέφα[νον σε]λίνινον ρας διὰ βίου Τι(βέριον) Κ(λαύδιον) Φλῶ-
βαστάσουσι καὶ ρον, υἱὸν Τι(βερίου) Κλ(αυδίου) Μολι-
προάξουσι καὶ προπομπεύσουσι τὰς σεβαστικὰς εἰκόνας 5 ανοῦ, ἄρξαντα κα-
καὶ τὴν [τοῦ] λῶς τὴν ἐπώνυμον
πατρῴου ἡμῶν θεοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος . . . ἀρχὴν καὶ φιλοτει-
μησάμενον εἰς κα-
. . . likewise ten sebastophoroi should also be chosen by him
τασκευὴν ἀγάλμα-
who, wearing white clothing and a crown of celery leaves,
10 τος πομπικοῦ ἀργυ-
will handle and bring forward and escort the images of the
ρέου Θεᾶς Ἐλευθέ-
emperors and the image of our central god Apollon . . .
ρας (δην.) μ(ύρια) ͵βφʹ.
Πρ(οβούλου) Πλάτωνος Μειδίου.
6. Termessos Maior. honorific decree for Tiberios The ancestral priest for life-tenure of the goddess Eleuthe-
Klaudios Phloros ria, Tiberios Klaudios Phloros, son of Tiberios Klaudios
text: Kalinka, & Heberdey, 1920: no. 136 Molianos, of the foremost nobility eponymous magistrate,
for the furnishing of a processional statue in sliver of the
ἡ πατρὶς goddess Eleutheria, 12500 denarii. From the standing com-
ἱερέα θεᾶς Ἐλευθέ- mittee, Platon in charge.
 Indices

A. Ancient Texts

Literary
Ammianus Marcellinus xxiii.3.7 50 Festus
Appianus, historia Romana xii.116 40 35 80
Apuleius, metamorphoses 56 67
 xi.9 83 351 58, 75
 xi.11 84 386 86–89
Athenaios, deipnosophistai v.202a–c 62 472 67, 75
Augustinus, de civitate Dei iv.31 2 500 83, 84
Florus 2.13 39, 40
Cicero
 de officiis 1.131 63, 103 Herodianus
 de haruspicum responso 11.23 84 i.10.5 83
Claudianus, panegyricus de quatro consulatu Honorii viii.7 26, 29
Augusti 50, 53, 65
Clemens Alexandrinus, protrepticus 4.44 33 Josephus, historia Ioudaïkou polemou pros Romaious
codex Theodosianus vii.132 61
ii.8.20 105 vii.136 42
xv.4.1.1 105 vii.152 49
xv.5.2 105
xvi.10.17 105 Livius
i.10.5 39
Dio Cassius v.13 67, 75, 81–82, 105
xliii.45.2–3 24, 42 xxii.1 78
xliv.6.3 42, 88 xxii.10 67, 81
xlv.2.3 59 xxvi.30.9 40
xlvii.18.4 24 xxvi.34.12 40
xlvii.40.4 85, 103, 104 xxvii.16.7 40
xlvii.40.8 2, 19, 27 xxix.14.14 50
xlviii.31.5 62, 63 xxxi.62.9 99
l.8.2 94 xxxix.13.8–14 17
l.10.2 88 xl.59 57, 67, 75, 81
liii.30.6 88 Lucretius ii.600–60 64
lviii.4.4 88
Macrobius, Saturnalia
lxii.14 41
i.6.15 85, 103
lxii.20–21 41
i.23.13 58, 59, 65, 68–69
lxxii.31 62, 88
iii.4 55
lxxiii.17.4 88
Martialis, epigrammata 9.22.9–10 57, 63
lxxv.4.1 88
lxxix.8.1 62
Nonnos, Dionysiaka xxx.68 55
Diodoros Sikeliotes v.55 55
Dionysios of Halikarnassos
Obsequens, Julius, de prodigiis 70 18, 53
i.61 & 68 55
Ovidius
ii.19 64
amores
vii.72 45, 47, 59, 94
iii.2.43–57 47, 61, 63
xii.9 67
fasti
lxxii.13 63
i.201 59
iii.733–34 57
Euripides, Iphigeneia he en Taurois 1156–77 35
iv.179–87 49
Eusebius, de martyribus Palastinae xi.30 80
iv.345 48, 60
iv.389–92 47
112 a. ancient texts

Pausanias x.3.7 55
i.29.2 1 x.3.19–22 55
ii.32.5 26 xii.2.6 22
v.10.4 33 xiv.2.7 55
Philo Judaeus, in Flaccum 17 76 Suetonius
Philostratos, bioi sophiston 2.1 1 Iulius
Plinius, naturalis historia 37 39
vii.145 83 76 24
xxxiv.1 15 Augustus
xxxiv.5 48–49 32 15
xxxiv.10 48–49 57 16
xxxiv.40 40 76 67
xxxv.159 15 94.6 59
Ploutarkhos 100 27, 49
peri mousikes 14 26 Nero
Nomas 8.8 2, 15 25 41
Fabios Maximos 22.5 40 34 17
aitia Romaïka 290C 53 Vespasianus 5.7 84
Titos 1 45 Domitianus 4–5 98
Polybios vi.53 21 Titus 2 24
Prudentius, peri stephanon x. 154–61 48, 59
Tacitus, annales
scriptores historiae augustae ii.41 39, 40
Antoninus Caracallus 9.11 42 xi.31.2–3 17
Commodus 9 25 xiv.44 86
Marcus Antoninus Tertullianus
13 67, 75 de spectaculis
21 24 7.93 24, 42, 45, 54, 94, 104–105
Pescenius Niger 6 25 8–9 44
Severus 22 24, 103 10 104–105
Seneca ad nationes 1.10 86
de beneficiis iii.28.5 57, 63
Hercule Oetaeus 107–11 39 Valerius Maximus
Statius, Thebais ii.269–75 55 i.1.16 83, 84
Strabon ii.1.2 86
iv.1.4–5 2, 22, 50 ii.4.5 75
vi.3.1 40 xxi.2 79
viii.4.4 22

Epigraphic and Papyrological

CIL I.G. II2, 3606 26
III, p. 845 85 ILS 3804 55
V.795a 50
V.796 50 papyri Osloenses
V.5272 67 3, 94 25, 49
VI.740 85 papyri Oxyrhynchus
VI.2233 84 10, 1265 25, 49
VI.32323 86 12, 1449 25, 49
VI.32324 86
VI.32329 86
VI.32333 83
X.6102 85, 99
XIV.36 50
 b. place names 113

B. Place Names

Alexandreia 16, 62, 75, 79 Nikaia 82

Almo 50 Nikomedia 81–82
Amiternum 52
Antium 58–59, 65 Oinoanda 22–23
Aquae Calidae, Mauretania 60 Ostia 50
Aquileia 26, 29, 50
Arsinoe 59, 63 Philae 76
Athenai 1, 17, 26, 60, 82, 83 Phrygia 50
Akademeia 1 Pisaurum 71
Augsburg 71 Pompeii 53, 58, 60, 61, 104
Pontus 40
Beneventum 19, 40, 90 Praeneste 58, 65, 78
Puteoli 43–45
Caere 10
Caesarea Maritima 79 Roma 1, 2, 6, 10, 16, 19, 26, 33, 39–40, 45, 50–51, 52, 55, 57,
Callinicum 50 58, 59, 62, 80, 86, 88, 99, 101, 104
Capua 16, 40, 54 Arch of Constantinus 46, 90
Arch of Titus 40, 49
Danube 41 Aventine Hill 2, 12, 14
Dastarcum 22 Caelian Hill 14, 90
Delos 2, 16, 26, 63 Capitoline Hill 14, 39, 40, 86, 103–104
Circus Maximus 41, 44, 47, 83–84, 94, 98, 103
Eleutherai 1 Colosseum 88
Ephesos 14, 19, 21, 50, 62, 103, 104 Curia 27, 49
Artemision 2, 21, 104 Domus Aurea 16–18, 19
exedra of the ephebes 21 Domus Faustae 29, 49
theatre 21 Circus Maximus 24, 42, 44–45, 50, 84–86, 101, 103, 105
Forum Romanum 63
Formiae 99 Iseum 19, 20, 65
Odeum 98
Gerenia 22 Palatine Hill 49, 61, 101
Gytheion 67, 78, 81–82 Sacra Via 40
Stadium of Domitianus 98
Heliopolis (Baalbak) 65
Herakleopolis Magna 76–78 Samothrake 55
Sidon 79
Karnak 20 Sosipolis 82
Sperlonga 36
Laodiceia ad Mare 79 Syrakosios 40

Makedonia 2 Taras 40
Magnesia-on-the-Maiandros 15, 55, 78 Taurike 35
Massilia 2, 22 Termessos Maior 23
Mérida 21, 22 Thessaloniki 26–27
Messene 35–36 Torre Nova 18–19, 84
Minturnae 16 Troia 2, 55
Tusculum 82
114 c. personal names

C. Personal Names

Abaecherli, A. xxviii, 39, 45, 68, 70, 79, 82, 87–88 Dacian 41
Aeneas 105 Daidalos 56, 61
Agorakritos 60 Daktuloi 55
Agrippina 17 Damsky, B. 88
Alexander Severus 27 Danube 41
Angelion 26 Delle Corte, M. 60
Antoninus Pius 88 Demeter 71
Antonius 2, 63 Demosthenes, Gaius Iulius 22–23, 24
Anubis 25, 71 Diana (see also Artemis) 2, 50
Aphrodite (see also Venus) 26, 78 Dio Cassius 27, 42, 62, 63, 94
Apollon 22, 26, 44–45, 79 Diomedes 36
Apollon Patroos 22–23 Dionysios of Halikarnassos 45, 47–48, 59, 63, 64–65,
Apuleius 83 67, 94
Artemis (see also Diana) 2, 19, 21, 22, 35, 50 Dionysos (see also Liber) 1, 2, 16–18, 57, 63
Artemis Orthia 35–36 Domitianus 41, 42, 98
Asklepios 22, 78, 79
Astarte 79, 85 Eleutheria 23
Athena 26 Erinyes 35
Athena Pammousos 22 Eros/Erotes 57, 76, 79, 84, 88, 90, 94, 98, 105
Athena Parthenos 27, 61 Euripides 35
Athena Polias 1, 2
Attis 83 Fabius Maximus 40
Augustus (see also Octavianus) 3, 6, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 20, Faustina Maior 61
23, 27, 49, 67, 78, 81, 82 Faustina Minor 62
Festus 67–68, 83, 84, 86–89
Bellona 53, 55, 60, 83–84 Fortuna/Fortunae 58, 65, 68–69, 78
Bonnano, A. 3 Franceso d’Olanda 16–17
Bouchè-Leclercq, A. 70 Frothingham, A. 41
Brendel, O. 58, 68
Brutus 2 Gebhard, E. 22
Galerius 26–29, 49
Caesar, Julius 2, 15, 42, 63, 89 Gallus 33
Caldus, C. 69 Geta 24, 103
Caracalla 24, 62, 103 Graces 8
Cassius 2, 26
Castiglione, L. xxviii, 75–76, 78 Hadrianus 23
Ceres 67, 80 Harpokrates 19, 20, 65, 71, 74, 75
Champeaux, J. 69 Hebe 98–99
Cicero 63, 103 Helios (see also Sol) 70
Claudianus 53, 65–66 Hephaistos (see also Vulcanus) 15, 55, 61
Claudius 6, 12, 16, 62, 65, 89, 90 Herakles/Hercules 40, 98–99
Claudius II 49 Hermanubis 71
Clemens Alexandrinus 33 Herodes (king) 81
Clinton, K. 17 Herodes Attikos 26
Commodus 23, 25, 79, 83 Herodianus 26, 83
Concordia 27 Himmelmann, N. 44–45
Constantinus 29, 49 Honorius 53, 65–66
Constantius 29, 49 Humphrey, J. 47
Constantius II 33 Hygieia 78, 79
Cumont, F. 18
Cybele (see also Meter) 47–49, 50, 57–58, 59, 60–61, 64, Iphigeneia 35–36
78, 80, 83–84, 99, 101, 104 Isis 19, 25, 65, 70, 71, 76, 83, 84, 86, 98–99
Isis Eleutheria 62
 c. personal names 115

Jordan river 40 Odysseus 36

Josephus 42, 49, 61–62, 63 Orestes 35–36
Julia Domna 27, 61 Osiris 77
Julia Flavia (Gens) 29 Ovidius 29, 47–48, 57, 59, 60, 62, 63
Julian 50
Juno 47, 52, 59, 60, 64, 86, 90 Pan 76
Jupiter 59, 63, 79, 83, 99 Pax Augusta Claudiana 62
Jupiter Capitolinus 39–40, 47, 52, 59, 60, 62, 64, 67, 69, Penates 55
83, 86, 88–89, 94, 98 Perdix 56
Justinianus 29, 105 Petrie, W. 76–78
Juventas 99 Pheidias 59
Philippos II 88
Kabeiroi 55 Philocalus 83
Koenen, L. 76 Phloros, Tiberios Klaudios 23
Korybantes 55 Pietas 29
Plinius 83
La Regina, A. 53 Plotina 23
La Rocca, E. 90 Ploutarkhos 15
Lar/Lares 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17, 20, 33 Pompeius 40, 63
Lederer, P. xxviii, 75 Priapus 98
Levi, A. 89 Prudentius 59
Liber (see also Dionysos) 17, 57–58, 59, 60, 78–79 Psyche 76
Licinius 49 Ptolemies 19
Livia 67, 78 Ptolemaios Philadelphos 21
Livius 57, 67, 81–82, 105
Lucilla 8 Robert, L. 25
Lucius Verus 8, 79 Roma 62, 79
Lucretius 64–65 Romanelli, P. 69
Luna 79, 81 Romulus 39, 54
Lysippos 40 Romulus, M. Valerius 49
Rustius, Q. 68
Marcrobius 58, 59, 65, 68–69, 85 Ryberg, I. xxviii, 3, 6, 8, 12, 15, 16, 53
Manlius, C. 9, 16
Marcus Aurelius 23, 67, 75 Sabina 23
Marcellus, Claudius 40 Salutaris, Gaius Vibius 14, 19, 22, 23, 24, 33, 62, 103, 104
Mars 53, 62, 90, 99 Santa Maria Scrinari, V. 29
Maximianus 49 Sarapis 19, 70, 71, 76, 77, 79, 98–99
Maximinus 26 Saturnus 78
Maximus 26, 29 Schürmann, W. 12
Megaloi Theoi 55 Selene 70
Mercury 79 Senwosret II 19
Meter (see also Cybele) 60 Senwosret III 19
Milne, J. 76 Septimius Severus 24, 75, 103
Minerva (see also Athena) 10–12, 14, 15, 17, 47, 52, 56, 59, Sol (see also Helios) 44–45, 46, 79, 81
60, 61, 81, 86, 90, 99, 103, 104 Sothis 75
Minerva Capta 33 Spannagel, M. 41–42, 44
Mingazzini, P. 44 Stern, H. 33
Mithradates 40 Stewart, P. 71
Strabon 22
Neith 20 Straton 79
Neptunus 47, 63, 81 Stuart Jones, H. 15
Nero 16–18, 41, 84, 86 Suetonius 67
Nike (see also Victoria) 25–26, 78
Numa 15, 33 Talos 56
Taylor, L. xxviii, 67–68, 86–88, 90
Obsequens, Julius 53 Tektaios 26
Octavianus (see also Augustus) 2 Telkhines 55, 61
116 c. personal names

Tertullianus 24, 42, 45, 63, 86, 88, 94, 104–105 Victoria (see also Nike) 2–3, 17, 18, 24, 26–33, 45–46, 47,
Thoas 36 49, 51, 52–53, 61, 64, 103, 104
Thutmose III 20 Volcanus (see also Hephaistos) 55
Tiberius 67, 78
Titus 40–41, 49, 88 Wahibre 20
Torelli, M. 9 Weege, F. 16–17
Tortorella, S. 47 Weinstock, S. 88
Traianus 19, 21, 23, 40, 88, 90 Will, E. 79, 81
Turner, V. 103 Wörrle, M. 23
Tykhe 79, 80 Wrede, H. 16

Valerius Maximus 79, 83, 86 Youtie, H. 76

Van Ooteghem, J. 67
Venus (see also Aphrodite) 63, 78, 90, 98, 99, 105 Zanker, P. 6, 8, 16
Venus Pompeiana 57 Zeus Olympios 27, 59
Vespasianus 42, 49, 61, 88 Zeus Sosipolis 78
 d. greek & latin words 117

D. Greek & Latin Words

aedicula 57 kline/klinai 76, 78
aegis 90 komastes/komastai, κωμαστής/κωμασταί 25, 49
agalma, ἄγαλμα 2, 22, 23 kouros 44–45
ἀγάλματος πομπικοῡ 23, 62
agnothetes 23 lavatio 50–51, 60
amphithaleis, ἀμφιθαλεῖς 18 lectisternium/lectisternia (see also banquet) 57–58,
apeikonisma, ἀπεικόνισμα 14–15, 21–22, 23, 33 67–71, 75, 78, 79, 80–82, 86–88, 101, 105
aphidruma, ἀφίδρυμα 2, 22 libamina 57
arbor intrat 83 liknon 17–18
Augusti 26 ludi (see also games)
ludi Apollinares 45
Babylonica (see also Babylonian cloth) 87, 88–89 ludi circensis 24
biga/bigae 47, 53 ludi Megalenses 47, 49, 50
bisellium 99 ludi Romani 42, 45
bretas, βρέτας 35 ludi saeculares 86
ludi sevirales 47
Caesares 26 ludus Troiae 47
camillus/camilli 6, 8 lustrum 12, 14
canna intrat 83
cannophoroi 83–84 magister/magistri 3, 6, 8, 12, 15–16
capita deorum 57–58, Ch. 3 passim, 103–105 minister/ministri 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15–16, 17, 20, 104
carceres 24
cista 84, 99, 101 nomenclator 85
cornucopia 27
currus 86 obsecratio 57–58

dea pedisequa 60 paenulae 50, 57, 63

desultores 47 patera 57
δίφρος 62 peplos 10, 18
dendrophoroi 83–84, 101 pompa circensis 24, 27, 41, 42, 45
pontifex maximus 15
eikon, εἰκών 22, 23, 67 processus circensis (see also circus procession) 59
epulum Iovis 67, 69, 86 processus consularis (see also consular procession) 42,
evocatio 26, 40 45, 50–51, 53
exomis 55 protomai 23, 25–26, 58
exuviae 23, 53, 81–82, Ch. 4 passim, 103–105 pulvinar 75, 80, 83, 94, 101, 105

fasces 54 quadriga 47–49
fastigium 57
ferculum/fercula 39–42, 47, 51, 55, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, ricinium 3, 4, 6
78, 89, 94, 98, 99
flamine/flamines 53 sacrarium 21
scipio 50
Galli 101 sebastophoroi 23, 25
gerousia 23 Septemvir Epulones 46
gratulatio 57 sellisternium/sellisternia 86–88, 90, 94, 98, 99, 101
simulacrum/simulacra 24
hastiferi 83–84 sistrum 98
spina 47, 50, 94
imago 24 struppi 67
supplicatio 57–58, 67
kalathos 77
khiton 10, 29
118 d. greek & latin words

tensa/tensae 47, 53, 83, 84, 86, 94 venationes 47, 54

tetrastylon 94, 98 vexillum 43
θεῶν ἀγάλματα 42 vicomagistri 3
theophoroi, θεοφόροι  18–19
thiasos 16–18, 47, 49 xoanon, ξόανον 22, 59, 78
triumphator/triumphatores 42, 53
 e. general subjects 119

E. General Subjects

applicatio in clientelam 9  armourers 54–55, 60

Aquileia  carpenters (see also Roma, collegium fabrum
Museo Archeologico, sarcophagus lid 50–51, 52, 57,  tignariorum altar) 12, 14, 56, 60–61, 104
59, 61, 64, 105  Dionysian 18
Ara Pietatis Augustae 4  poets and playwrights 14

Babylonian cloth (see also Babylonica) 90 Herculaneum, Casa dei Cervi (see also Napoli, Casa dei
baldachin 24, 50, 55–56, 63 Cervi) 90, 94, 99
banquet (see also lectisternium) 67, 69–70, 71, 74–76, 78,
82, 86, 101, 104, 105 Idios Logos 78
Berlin imperial cult 3, 4, 6, 8–9, 10, 16, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26–27,
 gem with thunderbolt, once 7656 88, 98 33, 48–49, 62, 67, 78, 81, 87–88, 99, 101, 105
 terracotta lamp, Ägyptisches Museum 12417 65
 money box, once Antiquarium 31275 71, 74, 75 London
 sarcophagus lid, no. 864 84  lamp, British Museum Q2044 76
Berlin/Lugano  lamp, British Museum Q2046 76
 money box, once Lederer Coll. 71, 74  sarcophagus lid, British Museum, GR 1805.7–3.145 84
 terracotta relief, once Lederer Coll. 71, 74 lustration 3
Budapest
 tense relief, Museum der Bildenden Künste, Mantova
 2000.24.A 84  relief with thunderbolt, Palazzo Ducale 88–90, 98
 money-box, Varga-Castiglione Coll., 123 71 Melonenfrisur 81
München
Cairo  money-box, once Museum Antiken Kleinkunst
 terracotta lamp, Egyptian Archaeological Museum  5614 71, 74–75
 27081 65
 terracotta relief, Egyptian Archaeological Museum Napoli
 27163 71, 74, 75  Casa dei Cervi (see also Herculaneum, Casa dei
Calendar of 354 33, 83, 104, 105  Cervi) 90, 94
Cambridge  grave relief, Museo Nazionale 6704 53–55
altar (?), Fitzwilliam Museum, GR5.1938 99, 101  painting from Pompeii VI 7.8, Museo Nazionale
Chieti  8991 55
 funeral relief from Amiternum, Museo Naz. 52–53,  sarcophagus lid from Puteoli, Museo Nazionale 43–45
 59–60, 64 New York
circus procession (see also processus circensis) 42–43,  Cybele statuette, Metropolitan Museum 1897.22.24 61
 45, 47, 49, 50–51, 65, 84, 94, 99, 101, 103–105  Torre Nova statue base inscription, Metropolitan
consular procession (see also processus consularis) 42  Museum 18–19, 84
couch 56, 67, 68–71, 74–79, 82, 86, 103–104
cult statue 1–2, 58–61, 62, 69, 71, 83 palaistra 44–45
Palestrina
Dionysia 83  Fortunae statuette, Museo Archeologico
 Prenestino 58, 68–70
Eleusinian Mysteries 16–18  Nilotic mosaic, Museo Archeologico Prenestino 65
ephebe 19, 21, 44 Palladium 2, 15, 36
Panathenaia 83
Foligno Paris
circus relief, Palazzo Trinci 24, 94 Barberini dyptich, Louvre 29, 104, 105
funeral procession 20–21 bronze cup from Caesarea Maritima, Louvre 79–81,
105
games (see also ludi) 60, 80, 82, 84, 99 terracotta relief with litter, Louvre Cp4324 45–47
 Capitoline games 98 throne of Saturn, Louvre 94
 circus games 47, 83 terracotta lamp, Louvre E14371 71, 75
 consular games 33 terracotta lamp, Louvre E20615 65
guilds 15–16, 19, 54–56, 60, 63, 104 Plynteria 1, 83
120 e. general subjects

Pompeii 35, 70, 104 sarcophagus lid, San Lorenzo fuori la Mura 47–50, 51,
Casa delle Nozze d’Ercole (VII.9.47) 19, 98–99 61, 64, 105
Casa della Caccia Antica 79 triumphal relief fragment, Museo Chiaramonti 41, 45,
Bottega del Profumiere (VI 7.8) 55–56, 63–64 64
Via dell’Abbondanza (IX 7.1) 56–58, 59, 60, 64–65,
78, 79 Senate 6, 27
Sorrento
Ravenna  relief with Cybele 60
 throne reliefs, Museo Arcivescovile 94
 throne reliefs, S. Vitale 94 theatre 21, 23–24, 42, 63, 67, 78, 81, 86–90, 94, 98–99, 101,
Roma 103–105
Ara Pacis 10 triumph 20, 39–43, 49, 50, 53, 54–55, 59, 61, 83
collegium fabrum tignariorum altar, Museo
Capitolino 10, 14, 15–16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 33 Vatican
Domus Aurea, Volta Dorata painting 16–19  Belvedere altar 6–8, 9, 12, 16
Domus Faustae paintings, Museo Nazionale delle  Lar relief 8, 9, 33
Terme 29, 33, 49, 105  Manilius altar 9–10, 16
Great Trajanic frieze, Arch of Constantine 90  sarcophagus for child 94
Iphigenia and Orestes mosaic, Museo Capitolino  shipwright’s workshop medallion 12
4948 36  Vicomagistri altar 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 16, 33
litter relief, Museo Chiaramonti 41 Venezia
Minerva workshop relief, Museo Capitolino 12, 14  throne reliefs, Museo Archeologico 94
procession relief, Villa Medici 4, 6, 8, 10
sarcophagus lid, Museo Capitolino 2464 84