Lived Architecture Understanding The Mea

T H E JOU RNA L OF
ANCIENT
A RC H I T E C T U R E
Per uso strettamente personale dell’autore. È proibita la riproduzione e la pubblicazione in open access.
For author’s personal use only. Any copy or publication in open access is forbidden.
A Yearly Journal
Editor in chief
Clemente Marconi, Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, United States - Università degli Studi di Milano, Italia
Editorial Board
Janet DeLaine, University of Oxford, United Kingdom
Marco Galli, Sapienza Università di Roma, Italia
Pierre Gros, Institut de France, Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, Paris, France
Henner von Hesberg, Universität zu Köln, Deutschland
Margaret Miles, University of California, Irvine, United States
Jean-Charles Moretti, Centre national de la recherche scientifique, Institut de recherche sur l’architecture antique, Lyon, France
Bonna Wescoat, Emory University, United States
Mark Wilson Jones, University of Bath, United Kingdom
Mantha Zarmakoupi, University of Pennsylvania, United States
«The Journal of Ancient Architecture» is an International Double-Blind Peer-Reviewed Scholarly Journal.

The eContent is Archived with Clockss and Portico.
THE J O UR N AL O F
AN CIENT
AR C HITECTU RE
2 · 2023
PISA · ROMA
FA BR I Z I O S E RRA · E DI T ORE
MMXXIII
http://jaa.libraweb.net
Amministrazione e abbonamenti
Fabrizio Serra editore ®
U√ci di Pisa: Via Santa Bibbiana 28, I 56127 Pisa,
tel. +39 050 542332, fax +39 050 574888, fse@libraweb.net
U√ci di Roma: Via Carlo Emanuele I 48, I 00185 Roma,
tel. +39 06 70493456, fax +39 06 70476605, fse.roma@libraweb.net
I prezzi u√ciali di abbonamento cartaceo e Online sono consultabili presso

il sito Internet della casa editrice www.libraweb.net
Print and Online o√cial subscription rates are available at Publisher’s website
www.libraweb.net
Autorizzazione del Tribunale di Pisa n. 13 in data 7/4/2021.

Direttore responsabile: Fabrizio Serra.
A norma del codice civile italiano, è vietata la riproduzione, totale o parziale (compresi estratti, ecc.),
di questa pubblicazione in qualsiasi forma e versione (comprese bozze, ecc.), originale o derivata,
e con qualsiasi mezzo a stampa o internet (compresi siti web personali e istituzionali, academia.edu, ecc.),
elettronico, digitale, meccanico, per mezzo di fotocopie, pdf, microfilm, film, scanner o altro,
senza il permesso scritto della casa editrice.
Under Italian civil law this publication cannot be reproduced, wholly or in part (including oπprints, etc.),
in any form (including proofs, etc.), original or derived, or by any means: print, internet
(including personal and institutional web sites, academia.edu, etc.), electronic, digital, mechanical,
including photocopy, pdf, microfilm, film, scanner or any other medium,
without permission in writing from the publisher.
Proprietà riservata · All rights reserved

© Copyright 2023 by Fabrizio Serra editore, Pisa · Roma
Fabrizio Serra editore incorporates the Imprints Accademia editoriale,
Edizioni dell’Ateneo, Fabrizio Serra editore, Giardini editori e stampatori in Pisa,
Gruppo editoriale internazionale and Istituti editoriali e poligrafici internazionali.
Stampato in Italia · Printed in Italy
issn print 2785-3861

e-issn 2974-7694
C ONT ENT S
Maria Panagiotonakou, Revisiting the Theater of Tyndaris: A New Chronology Proposal 9
Massimo Limoncelli, Principles and Methods for the Virtual Archaeological Reconstruction of an Ancient
Monument 31
Riccardo Olivito, Lived Architecture: Understanding the Meaning and Function of Roman Architec-
tural Depictions 61
Marco Galli, The Basilica Julia and the Recovery of the Forum Romanum: The Architectural Recon-
structions of L. Canina and A.-N. Normand 95
L I V E D AR CH IT ECT U R E:
UNDE RS TA N D I N G TH E MEANING AND F U NCT IO N
OF R O MA N A R C HIT ECT U R AL D EPICT IO NS
R i c c ardo O l ivito
Abstract · The following paper deals with the rep- art, is a long-lasting one. Of the vast literature
resentation, visualisation and perception of monuments on this topic, one still-fundamental work is the
and architecture in the Ancient world. Scholarship on study by Ernest Gombrich, Art and Illusion,1
ancient images of architecture has displayed marked in-
which constitutes a turning point in analyses of
terest in the subjects represented (namely architecture
and monuments) so as to propose or modify recon- the role played by images and their relationship
structive hypotheses regarding the buildings being de- with the physical world. More recently, Stephen
picted. On the contrary, studies have so far less widely Halliwell,2 Gottfried Boehm and Horst Brede-
investigated the modalities of display and observation kamp3 contributed significantly to the discussion
we can reconstruct for these images. Moving from the on ancient and modern concepts of mimesis and
concept of ‘lived architecture’ and reflecting on how the ‘active’ and ‘enacting’ role images play in
built environments shape each and everyone’s knowl-
edge of external reality, the paper will thus focus on mediating and shaping human interaction with
some Roman depictions of monuments and architec- external reality. This topic has been extensively
ture (e.g. the Anaglypha from the Forum Romanum, the explored in relation to the Ancient world as well,
‘riot fresco’ from Pompeii, the Columns of Trajan and in highly insightful works. One example is the re-
Marcus Aurelius). In doing so, it will suggest some of cent valuable and stimulating study by Tonio
the reactions such images might have stimulated in Hölscher, noteworthy in particular for suggesting
ancient viewers, eventually concluding that depictions
the idea of ‘conceptual realism’ as a possible sol-
of architecture and spaces can be fully interpreted as
expressions of the interactive relationship between hu- ution to the antithesis between art and reality.4
mans and the environment/landscape. This paper does not aim to deal with such a vast
and multifaceted topic in general terms. Rather,
Keywords · Images of Architecture, Lived Architec-
ture, Architectural Phenomenology, Anaglypha from it will focus on a more specific, albeit crucial
the Forum Romanum, ‘Riot Fresco’ from Pompeii, issue: the representation of space, and particularly
‘Forum Frieze’, Column of Trajan, Column of Marcus architecture, in the ancient Greek and Roman
Aurelius. world. In particular, it will investigate the com-
plex relationship between images of architecture
and viewers, reflecting on some of the possible
State of the art modes of observation such representations im-
plied and, as a consequence, the possible percep-
T he investigation of the dialogue between the
physical world and its iconographic represen-
tation, that is, the dialogue between reality and
tual processes at play (enactment, recognition,
disentanglement).
riccardo.olivito@imtlucca.it, Scuola imt Alti Studi Lucca, initial drafts of this paper, enriching it with their comments
Italia. and suggestions. In particular, special thanks go to Anna An-
guissola, Oriana Silia Cannistraci, Maria Luisa Catoni, and
This article stems from research I began conducting in 2017 Clemente Marconi. I am also grateful to the anonymous re-
as a Fulbright Visiting Scholar at the Institute of Fine Arts of viewer of this paper for the very precious suggestions and
the New York University and that is still under development comments, which helped improving it and clarifying some of
as a broader project regarding the representation of space and the theoretical issues. Imperfections remain my own.
architecture in the Greek and Roman world. The preliminary
1 2
results of this project have been presented in conferences and Gombrich 1960. Halliwell 2002.
3
workshops (e.g. Fourth Swiss Congress of Art History; Con- Boehm, Bredekamp 2009, Bredekamp 2010.
4
vegno Internazionale “Iconografia 2022”). On those occa- Hölscher 2018, in part. Chapter 4, The Dignity of Real-
sions, I had the opportunity to benefit from many stimulating ity. Describing and Recognizing in Ancient Art, with previous
discussions with colleagues and friends. bibliography. Regarding the so-called ‘conceptual realism’,
I want to thank the Fulbright Program for funding the in- see infra in this paper.
itial steps of this research as well as those who have read the
https://doi.org/10.19272/202314301003 · «the journal of ancient architecture» · 2 · 2023

http://jaa.libraweb.net
received: 18.3.2023 · revised: 23.5.2023 · accepted: 4.9.2023
62 riccardo olivito
This paper thus expands on previous scientific all, the role played by architecture in its relation-
literature that focused mainly on the iconographic ship with observers.
aspects of ancient images of architecture. It does This analytical trend, initiated mainly by numis-
so by considering two elements that have been far matic research,2 exerted enormous influence on
less widely investigated to date: the role of archi- other archaeological studies dealing with diπerent
tecture in shaping the way humans phenomeno- iconographic media: paintings, reliefs, mosaics,
logically experience the external world, and the and so on. This is the case, for instance, of Joseph
modalities of display and observation we can re- Maier’s book on the depiction of monuments and
construct for these types of images. In doing so, architecture in Roman reliefs.3 Maier does note the
the paper will suggest some of the reactions de- evident discrepancies between monumental reality
pictions of architecture might have stimulated in and iconographic transposition, but suggests that
ancient viewers. this divergence was due to the fact that ancient
Archaeological scholarship has indeed broadly artists created their representations very quickly.
examined ancient representations of architecture However, such rapidity of technical execution
and monuments, especially those from the Roman would not aπect their ability to reconstruct the
period. Extensive research has been conducted on original appearance of the monuments they were
the topics of ‘metapictures’ and ‘mise en abîme’, in- depicting. Dorothee Quante-Schöttler takes a
creasingly frequent objects of examination es- similar approach in her important overview of the
pecially in recent decades. As a result, scholars have history and possible evolution of such depictions,
carefully investigated representations of landscapes as well as their functions and the messages they
in internal spaces, vases on vases, sculptures on conveyed.4 More recently, Melanie Grunow-Sobo-
vases, and vases in sculptures, both from a purely cinsky has defined a set of criteria for identifying
art historical and a more general hermeneutic point the monuments depicted on diπerent types of
of view.1 media, e.g. legends in the case of depictions on
As far as architecture is concerned, archae- coins, or architectural details, sculptural apparatus
ologists and art historians have generally oscil- and the arrangement of buildings in the case of
lated between diπerent positions, mainly seeking reliefs and paintings.5 According to Grunow-So-
to carefully compare artistic depictions and monu- bocinsky, even when these elements are isolated
mental remains in the search for points of a√nity or limited in number, they would have allowed
or diπerence between images and actual monu- ancient viewers to recognise and identify most
ments. In making such attempts, scholars have al- architectural depictions.
most assumed that it is indeed possible for exter- Another contribution worth mentioning is
nal reality to be photographically transposed, in a Elizabeth Wolfram Thill’s investigation of Roman
way, into images. This approach, which we could state-reliefs.6 While adopting the same method-
define as ‘empirical’ and certainly positivistic, put ological premises as Grunow-Sobocinsky, Wolf-
a great deal of emphasis on the role of graphic el- ram Thill’s examination of these depictions is fo-
ements. As a direct consequence of this tendency, cused on unearthing their symbolic rather than
studies have displayed marked interest in the sub- iconographic value. She thus argues that the fre-
jects represented (namely architecture and monu- quent depiction of architecture and monuments in
ments) so as to propose or modify reconstructive the Roman world served to emphasise and legit-
hypotheses regarding the buildings being de- imise Roman cultural and thus political supremacy.
picted. In contrast, the literature has long ne- The approach employed by Grunow-Sobo-
glected the function of these images and, above cinsky, and even more so the one adopted by Wolf-
1
See for instance de Cesare 1997; Dietrich 2010; Burnett (Burnett 1999). For a diπerent and more complex
Gensheimer 2015; Lissarague 2001; Marconi 2011; approach to coins depicting architecture, see Marzano
Neils 2004; Oenbrink 1997; Settis 2002. Regarding the 2009, who correctly put great emphasis on the users (and
representation of space, see also the chapters in the very re- viewers) of the coins while examining the role played by
cent volume Elsner 2022, employing a comparative ap- specific iconographic choices on diπerent base-metal denomi-
proach to studying this topic. nations. See also some of the most recent contributions to
2
Scholarship on the depiction of monuments and archi- this topic by Nathan Elkins (Elkins 2015), with previous
tecture on Roman coins is vast. Donald F. Brown’s study of bibliography, and Stefan Ritter (Ritter 2017).
3
the depiction of temples on coins (Brown 1940) remains Maier 1985.
4
fundamental. Equally important are Günter Fuchs’s analysis Quante-Schöttler 2002.
5
of architecture on Republican and Imperial coins (Fuchs See: Grunow 2002; Grunow Sobocinski 2009;
1969) and the well-known volume by Philip V. Hill (Hill Grunow Sobocinski 2013; Grunow Sobocinski,
1989). A very interesting methodological reaction to the posi- Wolfram Thill 2015.
6
tivist works by Brown, Fuchs and Hill is that by Andrew Wolfram Thill 2012.
understanding the meaning and function of roman architectural depictions 63
ram Thill, constituted a turning point in the study with the topic of architectural images in his re-
of the representation of monuments and architec- nowned book The Embodied Image, Pallasmaa has in
ture in Roman art. Scholars have since increasingly fact suggested that the external world «is experi-
shifted from focusing on the iconographic element enced, sensed and assessed in relation to the experi-
– understood, in a positivistic sense, as a com- ential base line of architecture».4 This consider-
parative tool for identifying or reconstructing the ation has led Pallasmaa to distinguish between
original appearance of specific monuments and images of architecture, on one hand, and images
places – to investigating the role played by these that can either be included under the definition of
representations, as well as their social, political and ‘painted imagery’ or were produced by other forms
cultural functions, including in relation to ancient of art, since «architecture takes place in the real
viewers and the actions/events represented. world of our daily activities, in the actual theatre
In this latter vein, in a recent intriguing inves- of life».5 According to Pallasmaa, architecture –
tigation of Roman depictions of cities Stefan and its transposition into images – invites us to
Ritter has insightfully underlined the crucial im- more or less consciously recall authentic architec-
portance of the activities taking place in the archi- tural experiences: a floor (or its representation) in-
tectural space being represented. A key point in vites us to move and perform actions, a wall (or
Ritter’s thesis is the presence of human figures, its representation) separates or creates distinct
both inside and outside the city, that characterises spaces, a door allows us to either enter or distin-
most Roman depictions.1 Scholars have long over- guish among diπerent spaces, and a staircase sug-
looked this element, but it is actually fundamental gests the possibility of moving vertically.
to understanding how such images worked and to In contrast to the idea of architecture as a mere
reconstructing the relationship between images, sum of distinct elements or ‘geometric Gestalts’,
the messages they conveyed and ancient observers. architectural phenomenology considers en-
The role of the viewer has indeed been broadly counters, actions, and existential and embodied in-
debated, particularly in recent studies dealing with teractions in built space as essential architectural
the Roman world.2 Scholars have increasingly in- elements.
vestigated the relationship activated by images, To quote Pallasmaa: «A building directs, scales
both in private and public contexts.3 Nevertheless, and frames actions, interrelations, perceptions and
ancient depictions of architecture have been taken thoughts. Most importantly, it articulates our re-
into consideration in this sense only seldom. This lations with other people as well as with the
oversight is even more surprising if one acknowl- human institutions».6
edges, as we will try to do, that there is a close Such considerations may appear ‘natural’ and
link between viewers and the very function of even perhaps obvious, so much so that they have
architecture in the physical world. in fact often been disregarded in the scholarly de-
As a result, rather than questioning the accuracy bate on ancient representations of architecture.
of these images with regard to specific monuments Nevertheless, they are crucial to properly under-
or architecture, it is more useful to ask whether standing how humans interact with external real-
the identification/recognition of the architecture ity, whether natural or built, three-dimensional
being depicted was necessary or even a goal to (i.e. actual) or depicted.
pursue. And in the latter case, we should investi-
gate what made recognition possible. Represented Architecture
Adopting a purely phenomenological perspec- vs Lived Architecture
tive and influenced mainly by Martin Heidegger
and especially Gaston Bachelard and Maurice Mer- An initial premise necessary for the following
leau-Ponty, the well-known Finnish architect Ju- analysis is to shift from the concept of ‘represented
hani Pallasmaa has long stressed that a key func- architecture’ − and the idea of potentially ident-
tion of architecture is to provide a primary means ifying depicted monuments by observing them −
of orientation in the physical world. In dealing to the concept of ‘lived architecture’.
1 3
See Ritter 2014, p. 161. For a discussion of the repre- For a discussion of private spaces, iconography and so-
sentation of cities in the Roman world, see also Pappa- cial practice, see Costa 2022 with previous bibliography; re-
lardo, Capuano 2006 and La Rocca 2008. garding public sculpture and reliefs, see Trentin 2022 with
2 4
On a more general level, there is instead a large body of previous literature. Pallasmaa 2011, p. 122.
5
work investigating ancient viewers, especially in the Roman Pallasmaa 2011, p. 123.
6
world: see Zanker 1997 and especially the fundamental Pallasmaa 2011, p. 124.
studies by Elsner 1995, Elsner 2007 and, more recently,
Rutledge 2012 (in part. pp. 79-121) and Squire 2015.
64 riccardo olivito
In this context, ‘lived’ does not – necessarily − tecture’, and space theory would certainly require
mean ‘populated’. Rather, it suggests that each in- a much longer discussion. Nevertheless, there is an
dividual has a personal bodily conception and ex- important point to stress for the purposes of this
perience of the world. Such concrete experience is paper. Whereas previous studies have mainly
generally mediated by architecture, as built en- examined images of architecture by looking at
vironments shape each and everyone’s knowledge their content and treating them as an aseptic and
of external reality and allow individuals to grasp trustworthy iconographic medium, we will instead
it. This point had already been insightfully ex- try to reverse the perspective by looking at the
pressed in Henry Lefebvre’s foundational works possible reactions such images triggered in the be-
through the well-known spatial triad theorised holder.
in The Production of Space (spatial practice/per- Indeed, a crucial assumption underlying this
ceived space, representation of space/conceptual- study is that architecture is a very particular di-
ised space, space of representation/lived space)1 mension in which synaesthetic and kinaesthetic in-
and even more so through the reflections on the stances play a decisive role. As a consequence, the
very close relationship between architecture and beholder’s entire sensing body (not only the eyes
body (in Lefebvre’s definition, the ‘total body’ is and sight) and his/her kinaesthetic experience of
understood both as a natural body and a social the architectural realm are involved in interactions
body) that the French philosopher proposed in To- with the physical world and its graphic depiction.
ward an Architecture of Enjoyment.2 Su√ce it there- Images of architecture will thus be conceptualised
fore to quote only a famous passage from The Pro- here as means to reflect on some possible cogni-
duction of Space concerning the bodily experience tive, emotional and bodily reactions on the part
each individual has of a given space: «When ‘Ego’ of ancient patrons, artists, and observers, and their
arrives in an unknown country or city, he (sic) first relationship with monuments, buildings, and
experiences it through every part of his body − places. In particular, we will focus mainly on be-
through his senses of smell and taste, as (provided holders, understood as the final recipients of the
he does not limit this by remaining in his car) message conveyed by images and hence fully in-
through his legs and feet. His hearing picks up the volved in the hermeneutic process these represen-
noises and the quality of the voices; his eyes are tations implied.6
assailed by new impressions. For it is by means of There is no doubt that many Roman represen-
the body that space is perceived, lived − and pro- tations of architecture and monuments displayed
duced».3 ‘specific’ features, to adopt the definition used by
In a similar vein, one may consider the essential Annette Haug in her analysis of Late Antique im-
contributions to the theme of space by Michel Fo- ages of cities. Such ‘specific’ features allowed
cault4 or the stimulating considerations outlined viewers to immediately recognise the subject
by Karen Dale and Gibson Burrell. Beginning being represented.7 Nevertheless, whereas in Late
from an analysis of the ‘workspace’, Dale and Bur- Antique images ‘specificities’ were based not on
rell have reflected upon some of the cognitive some possible iconographic adherence to reality
mechanisms at play in the creation of the dialogue but rather on the use of inscriptions and legends
between individuals and space.5 In particular, I bearing the name of the city, earlier depictions of
refer to their hypothesis of a relationship based on architecture graphically alluded to very particular
the concepts of enchantment (that is, how symbols and ‘iconic’ architectural features in such a way
create meanings for a building or space and people that viewers could easily recognise the represented
feel and understand that building or space), em- subject.
placement (that is, the ‘fixed’ arrangement and The so-called Anaglypha from the Forum Ro-
construction of a certain building or space so that manum is undoubtedly a famous example of this.
they − i.e. arrangement and construction − orient The two marble panels, which will be examined
and guide the way people move and interact with in more detail below, depict the emperor engaging
that building or space), and enactment (that is, the in an adlocutio and cancellation of debts in front of
way in which people actually use space). a series of buildings clearly identifiable as those
A thorough review of such theoretical reflec- lining the southern side of the Forum. The Ana-
tions on the concepts of ‘lived space’, ‘lived archi- glypha do provide a clear image of the spatial con-
1 5
Lefebvre 1991, pp. 33, 38-39. Dale, Burrell 2008.
2
Lefebvre 2014 (ed. by Ł. Stanek), p. 149. 6
The equally pivotal role of artists and patrons, addressed
3
Lefebvre 1991, p. 162. here only incidentally, will be discussed in more depth else-
4 7
See for instance Foucault 1986. where. Haug 2007, p. 222.
text framing the two scenes and make it possible monuments, furniture) in Greek art,5 especially
to immediately recognise a specific location. Even when compared to Roman art. It was this point
in this case, however, the iconographic accuracy that eventually guided the choice of the examples
is only partial and there are some significant discussed here. Although all the examples are
diπerences between the depiction and the actual from the Roman period, they nonetheless allow
monuments and architecture of the Forum Ro- for a more general reflection on the topic of
manum.1 We can thus conclude that any eπort to ancient depictions of architecture.
carry out a precise comparison between images As a matter of fact, the key to interpreting these
and architecture based on the supposedly complete depictions does not lie in their supposed ‘objectiv-
adherence of such depictions to reality would be ity’.6 Indeed, a ‘positivist’ approach to these im-
misguided and erroneous. The idea of reproduc- ages is anachronistic and often unproductive.
ing the physical world exactly, almost photo- Here, we instead adopt a phenomenological ap-
graphically, was in fact alien to the modus operandi proach that takes into account the fundamental
of ancient sculptors, painters, mosaicists and role of bodily experience of/in the external world,
chisellers. As Jean-Pierre Vernant brilliantly notes especially as formulated in Maurice Merleau-Pon-
in his illuminating preface to the volume The city ty’s philosophical thought. According to the
of images: «The imagery is a construct, not a car- French philosopher, it is in fact the body that con-
bon copy; it is a work of culture, the creation of stitutes the grounds for our perception and con-
a language that like all other languages contains ception of the world («I observe external objects
an essential element of arbitrariness».2 with my body, I handle them, inspect them, walk
Perhaps implicitly building on Vernant’s for- around them»).7 For this argument, the most im-
mulation, Tonio Hölscher has recently rea√rmed portant aspect is the way Merleau-Ponty stresses
that external material reality was never conceived the biunivocal role of the human body as both the
of as an aseptic element; instead, it always consti- subject and object of our mediation with the ex-
tuted an essential part of the Greco-Roman ‘Le- ternal world: «My body is the fabric into which
benswelt’. This actually holds true for any other all objects are woven, and it is, at least in relation
period as well, so much so that the natural and to the perceived world, the general instrument of
anthropic elements constituting the space of my ‘comprehension’.8
human action do not represent «purely material Indeed, Merleau-Ponty’s theorisation has proved
components of meaning-less reality»3 in either the remarkably fruitful in recent attempts to re-exam-
Ancient world or today’s settings. To quote Höl- ine the relationship between objects and humans.
scher once again: «The reality of the human This is also true with regard to the Classical world.
Lebenswelt is through and through whether by Investigations of the concept of ‘embodied ob-
human shaping or by human perception, a prod- jects’, for instance, in the recent issue of Art History
uct of making conceptual sense, a cultural con- edited by Milette Gaifman and Verity Platt, have
struction. It is this conceptual reality that is the correctly pointed out the entangled and dynamic
subject of art».4 nature of such relationship, emphasising the need
The concept of ‘cultural construction’ and re- to bring «a phenomenological approach to ancient
sulting notion of ‘cultural realism’, brilliantly aesthetics and art history into dialogue with more
adopted in Hölscher’s investigation of Greek and radical ways of thinking about the relationship be-
Roman representations of the external world, can tween bodies, things and the environment».9 The
be used to explain why the artistic production of whole body thus becomes both a subject and an ob-
a given period or context always displays con- ject in the continuous dialogue between humans
siderable and significant exclusions. In the specific and external reality. At the same time, however, ob-
case of the depiction of architecture, for instance, jects take on a completely active role as elements
su√ce it to consider the substantial under-repre- capable of stimulating human reactions and behav-
sentation of the physical dimension (landscape, iours. This is all the more evident in the realm of
1 2
See infra. Vernant 1989, p. 8. ference, interpretation, or intelligence»). Daston and Galli-
3 4
See Hölscher 2018, p. 216. Ibid. son’s work is also quoted by Hölscher 2018, p. 210.
5 7
Regarding the representation/under-representation of Merleau-Ponty 1945 and especially Merleau-
space in the Greek world, see Dietrich 2010 with previous Ponty 1962 and Merleau-Ponty 1964. The quotation is
bibliography. from Merleau-Ponty 1962, p. 104.
6 8
For a discussion of the concept of ‘objectivity’ and its Merleau-Ponty 1962, p. 235; 272. See also Moran
history, see Lorrain Daston’s and Peter Galison’s illuminat- 2010, especially on the philosophical relation between the
ing work (Daston, Galison 2007, particularly p. 17 for the phenomenological reflection by Husserl and Merleau-Ponty.
9
definition of ‘objectivity’ as «blind sight, seeing without in- Gaifman, Platt 2018, p. 407.
66 riccardo olivito
architecture, which constitutes the main and ulti- Nevertheless, a caveat is necessary before moving
mate medium of interaction with the physical on to some examples that may help to better illus-
world. In this regard, a study of how images of trate this hypothesis. For the sake of brevity, the
architecture may contribute to such theoretical dis- following pages will focus mainly on relief sculp-
course seems particularly relevant. ture while also investigating two famous Pom-
It is possible to identify at least four diπerent peian paintings. And yet the possibility of extend-
types of reactions triggered by – bodily – inter- ing the approach adopted here to depictions in
actions among observers, images of architecture other media, such as coins, Illusionistic Second
and external reality: Style paintings, and gra√ti should not be under-
estimated.1 As a matter of fact, architecture usually
– Present architecture: in this case, ancient beholders
plays an important role in these cases as well, so
were able to simultaneously perceive the actual
monuments and their iconographic transposition, much so that a broader investigation, currently on-
the latter being displayed in the place represented. going by the author, will certainly allow further
As noted above, this does not necessarily imply that reflections on the possible interactions and dia-
the representations were populated with figural logue between viewers and images of architecture.
scenes; rather, it suggests that beholders were
bodily, simultaneously confronted with both actual
and depicted architecture. Present Architecture
– Experienced architecture: in this case, we can assume
that observers were familiar with both the existing The best examples for discussing the concept of
architecture and the activity/events being depicted, ‘present architecture’ are certainly the so-called
regardless of the fact that such images were dis- Anaglypha from the Forum Romanum. These two
played in a context diπerent than the one depicted. reliefs were discovered in 1872 in the central area
– Generic architecture: in this case, the architectural of the Forum.2 Since then, scholars have focused
context where an event or activity takes place is en- mainly on establishing the chronology and func-
tirely generic (‘non-specific’), allowing each observer
to freely associate the representation with a place
tion of the two Anaglypha, interpreting the scenes
‘specific’ and familiar to him/her regardless of pa- they depict, and identifying the original position
trons’ and artists’ original intentions. of the two panels in the Forum.
– Contrasting architecture: in this case, the viewer’s A comprehensive review of the many questions
distance (topographical, conceptual, cultural, social, still under discussion would not be possible here.
technological) from the places and architecture de- Given the aims of this paper, we instead focus
picted was deliberately emphasised. Such emphasis mainly on the represented architecture, consider-
thus acted by contrast in that it aimed to stress the
distance between the subjects being depicted and the ing above all the possible modes of observation
experiences/customs of viewers’ Lebenswelt. implied by the two Anaglypha.3 Before doing so,
however, it is essential to briefly outline the con-
Needless to say, these perceptual mechanisms did clusions scholars have come to in terms of inter-
not derive from conscious artistic strategies on the preting the monument’s scenes and chronology.
part of patrons and artists, nor did ancient viewers While some interesting attempts have recently
activate them deliberately. Indeed, the hypothesis been made to read the scenes as «linear series of
we will try to demonstrate is that each viewer au- vignettes illustrating imperial actions, juxtaposed
tonomously and unconsciously activates such to convey ideological, rather than primarily his-
mechanisms at the moment of observing images, torical, significance»,4 here we will mainly adhere
especially when architecture is represented. Fur- to previous hypotheses, according to which the re-
thermore, whereas the reactions mentioned above liefs depict two specific events.5
represent a limited sample of a much broader be- The two Anaglypha (Figg. 1-2) consist of a series
havioural spectrum, in some ways they constitute of carefully assembled marble slabs of diπerent
a solid basis for investigating how images of sizes. On the sides generally considered to be inter-
architecture triggered ancient viewers and their nal, two series of hostiae for a double sacrifice (suove-
bodily reactions. taurile) proceed in the same direction, facing each
1 3
See Gensheimer 2015, for diπerent types of images of For an initial analysis of this issue, see Olivito 2021.
4
art and architecture in the Greek and Roman world and See Wolfram Thill 2022 (quotation from p. 24).
5
Jones 2018 on some of the modalities of observation trig- The topic of the possible meaning and interpretation of
gered by such depictions. the scenes will be addressed in more detail in a forthcoming
2
Regarding the discovery of the Anaglypha, see Brizio paper.
1872b and Brizio 1872a. See also Giuliani, Verduchi
1987, pp. 79-80.
Fig. 1. The ‘Adlocutio relief’ (courtesy of © Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, D-DAI-ROM-2008.2563

and D-DAI-ROM-2008.2564, photographer Heide Behrens).
other. The external faces instead depict two rather dupondii, dating to 111 ce and celebrating the in-
complex scenes. The left end of the ‘adlocutio’ relief stitution of the Alimenta in 101 ce. 1
(Fig. 1) portrays a podium rostratum on top of which Given this specific element, it does not seem
a togated figure, certainly the princeps, is addressing that the emperor on the rostra can be identified as
the populus. Spectators are arranged based on their Trajan. Indeed, it is unlikely that Trajan, already
social class, with the togati close to the rostra, fol- represented in the sculptural group at the centre
lowed by the paenulati, i.e. the urban plebs. of the relief, would also simultaneously appear as
Although the populus is standing, the orienta- the protagonist of the adlocutio scene. Instead, it
tion of the crowd and the direction of the partici- seems legitimate to conclude that the emperor ad-
pants’ gaze suggest movement from right to left, dressing the populus was Hadrian, portrayed re-
towards the princeps. At the centre of the scene is turning to Rome in 118 ce and renewing the food
a second base, probably representing a sculptural supply measures already put in place by his pre-
group that also appears in some Trajan sestertii and decessor and symbolised by the sculptural group.2
1
Regarding these coins, see Wolfram Thill 2014, pp. more recently, Brown 2020, p. 612. Contra see Torelli
103-104. 1982, pp. 90-91 and Tortorella 2012, pp. 56-57, who con-
2
This hypothesis had already been formulated by Ham- sider the object of the adlocutio to be the distribution of a con-
mond 1953, pp. 178-180. See also Rüdiger 1973, p. 173 and, giarium by Trajan.
68 riccardo olivito
Fig. 2. The ‘Reliqua vetera abolita relief’ (courtesy of © Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, D-DAI-ROM-2008.2586
and D-DAI-ROM-2008.2588, photographer Heide Behrens).
At the right end of the relief, a fig tree, identified square (Fig. 3).3 From left to right we have the
by many scholars as the famous Ficus Ruminalis, Arcus Augusti, the Aedes Castorum, an empty space
and the statue of Marsyas are represented.1 which might represent the Vicus Tuscus and,
As to the background, Mario Torelli has bril- finally, the Basilica Iulia, interrupted by the above-
liantly confuted Britius’ hypothesis that it repre- mentioned ficus and Marsyas statue.
sents buildings from both of the long sides of the The second relief (Fig. 2) depicts the cancel-
Forum Romanum.2 On the contrary, we can now lation of debts owed to the tax authorities (reliqua
firmly assert that it depicts the south side of the vetera abolita). Some soldiers are walking from left
1 2
Regarding the ficus, see Coarelli 1995a and Coarelli See Brizio 1872b, pp. 313-317.
3
1995b; concerning Marsyas, see Santangelo 2016. See also See Torelli 1982, p. 92.
Brown 2020, especially in relation to the ficus Ruminalis.
Fig. 3. Plan of the Forum Romanum (adapted after Brown 2020, fig. 5).
to right, carrying several tabulae in the direction and an empty space that can be identified as the so-
of a pile which a lictor is about to set on fire. A called Vicus Iugarius. There follows the Aedes Sat-
togatus and a paenulatus flank the lictor, once again urni, an arch (perhaps the Arcus in Clivo Capitolino)
hinting at the diπerent classes that make up and, finally, the Aedes Divi Vespasiani et Titi.4
the populus.1 At the right end there is a second We can thus assume that the two panels pro-
podium rostratum, with traces of a seated figure, vide a topographically accurate albeit not entirely
unfortunately extremely incomplete. Nonetheless, architecturally-faithful representation of a well-
it seems reasonable to interpret this figure as the known place, the southern side of the Forum, as
emperor seated on a throne while observing the has been assumed for other monuments, such as
act performed by the soldiers. Although several the so-called Valle-Medici reliefs, likely depicting,
scholars have suggested the emperor represented among others, the Temple of Mars Ultor, in the
here is Trajan,2 it seems more likely to attribute Forum Augusti, and the temple of Magna Mater, on
the reliqua vetera abolita to Hadrian and date this the Palatine Hill.5 As in the case of the Anaglypha,
episode to 118 ce. The scene would then depict a the Valle-Medici reliefs also seem to insist on a
well-defined historical event, confirming a Ha- quite recognisable architectural backdrop in the
drianic rather than Trajanic dating for the Ana- attempt to topographically locate the scenes being
glypha.3 depicted, even while imbuing the monumental
In the background of this relief, at the far left landscape with strong symbolic value and sup-
and rendered in the same order but from a slightly posedly a√rming a clear dynastic continuity be-
diπerent perspective than in the adlocutio panel, the tween Augustus and Claudius.
ficus and Silenus statue are depicted once again. Indeed, the Anaglypha show some precise refer-
There follows a further portion of the Basilica Iulia ences to specific architectural features of the build-
1
As rightly suggested by Torelli: see Torelli 1982, p. 91. 1872, Jenkins 1901, Torelli 1982, and Tortorella 2012,
2 4
See Torelli 1982, p. 108. pp. 56-57. See Torelli 1982, p. 95.
3 5
This was the chronology proposed by Brizio 1872a, For the “Valle-Medici” reliefs, see La Rocca 1994,
then accepted by Seston 1927, Hammond 1953 and, more Grunow 2002, pp. 62-73; Quante-Schöttler 2002, pp.
recently, Wolfram Thill 2012 and Brown 2020. A Tra- 26-54; Fuchs 2011.
janic chronology has instead been hypothesised by Henzen
70 riccardo olivito
ings in the actual square, such as the lion head ing the Anaglypha were still partially assembled3
dripstones of the Basilica Iulia or the Ionic capitals and placed on two low travertine structures4 at a
of the Aedes Saturni, the only Ionic temple in the distance of about 3 metres from each other,
Forum. Wolfram Thill has recently suggested that oriented along a north-to-south axis. In this ar-
the latter can be considered an almost meaningless rangement, the external face of the adlocutio panel
element in that the only function of this use of faced west, in the direction of the so-called
the Ionic order instead of the more frequent Co- Caesar’s rostra, while the relief of the reliqua vetera
rinthian order was to ‘vary’ the architectural land- faced east, in the direction of the rostra in front of
scape.1 While this consideration is certainly valid the Aedes Divi Iuli (Fig. 4).
in many cases where several temples are depicted Generally speaking, scholars have questioned
on the same relief, in the specific case of the whether this could have been the original location
Anaglypha it seems to be only partly true. It is in- of the two Anaglypha. The plain, humble nature
deed significant that the Ionic order was used for of the travertine structures has been interpreted
the only monumental Ionic temple in the Forum as a decisive indication that they must have been
Romanum, namely the Aedes Saturni. Such a delib- moved, as it is di√cult to imagine them as the
erate artistic choice was likely aimed at enabling original bases for the marble reliefs. As a result,
viewers to recognise a specific building based on some scholars have suggested the two Anaglypha
its architectural order. were originally placed in the area of the Comitium,
These similarities go hand in hand with some an argument based mainly on the ficus and Marsyas
significant anomalies, however. The columns of details that many ancient literary sources place in
the Aedes Castorum constitute a clear example of this sector of the Forum.5 Others have instead pro-
this: the depiction shows only five columns, a posed a location in the central area of the Forum
number that is inconsistent not only with the near the ‘Aiuola di Marsia’, not far from where
octastyle building of the Roman Forum but with the reliefs were discovered.6
the most basic conventions of Greek and Roman As a matter of fact, although the Anaglypha
temple architecture. In the case of the Anaglypha, were undoubtedly displayed in the Forum area,
therefore, Grunow has rightly identified the essen- their exact position still remains uncertain. Never-
tial criterion that must have led ancient observers theless, closer consideration of the observational
to recognise the series of buildings depicted on the acts implied by the reliefs can provide some mean-
two Anaglypha as those bordering the southern ingful information. In a recent contribution to
side of the Forum as one of ‘juxtaposition’.2 Rather the analysis of the interrelation between ancient
than the accuracy of the architectural rendering, it viewers and so-called ‘celebratory state reliefs’,
was the sequential relationship between the A.-M. Leander Touati rightly states that: «the
diπerent monuments depicted and their topo- choice to depict movement or static postures in
graphical arrangement that enabled them to be these supports was not only a stylistic preference
recognised. or a means of constructing a pictorial narrative,
There is an even more significant element that but was also a genuine invitation or guide for the
ancient observers of the two panels must have passer-by».7 Even in the case of the Anaglypha, it
experienced, however, stemming from the context is worth reflecting on the movement of the sub-
in which the reliefs were displayed. As is well jects depicted and how this movement suggests
known, the site where the Anaglypha were orig- specific directions in which the scenes might be
inally displayed is still highly disputed, as in- read and observed.
formation on their discovery is scant. The two We have already noted that the external faces
Anaglypha had been reused in the foundations of the Anaglypha clearly highlight some well-de-
of a medieval tower (Torre del Campanaro) stand- fined directions of movement. This feature allows
ing in the central sector of the Forum, about 10 viewers to follow the unfolding of representation,
metres southwest of the façade of the Curia Iulia. leading them towards specific focal points. In the
When they were discovered, the slabs compos- adlocutio relief, for instance, the populus seems to be
1 4
See Wolfram Thill 2012, pp. 151-152. See Brizio 1872a, p. 310.
2
See Grunow 2002, p. 40. Regarding the concept of ‘jux- 5
See Coarelli 1977, pp. 223 π.; Torelli 1982, p. 102
tapositioin’, see also Wolfram Thill 2012, pp. 153-154. and pp. 108-109; Torelli 1999, p. 96.
3 6
The only exception seems to be the long fragment de- See Giuliani, Verduchi 1987, pp. 101-102 and De
picting the arches of the Basilica Iulia, in the adlocutio relief, Magistris 2010, pp. 159-162.
7
which was not connected with the other slabs. See Brizio See Leander Touati 2015, p. 203.
1872b, p. 234.
approaching the rostra by moving from the right
to left and the audience is likewise gazing in a
specific direction; these elements of movement
guide the viewer along a line that starts from the
ficus/Marsyas pairing to pass by the Alimenta statu-
ary group and eventually end at the actual ful-
crum of the scene, i.e. the princeps standing on the
rostra. Similarly, in the reliqua vetera relief the sol-
diers’ marching originates from the ficus/Marsyas
couple, leading the observer’s eye towards the pile
of tabulae and, finally, the rostra on which the prin-
ceps sits.
As for the inner faces of the reliefs, there is no
doubt that the two series of hostiae had to proceed
in the same direction, thus implying only one
possible option for the arrangement of the panels:
they must have been placed parallel to one another
and not in a line, as some scholars have assumed.1
A second consideration stems from the parallel
arrangement of the reliefs at the moment they were
found. As in the case of the two series of hostiae
which we have suggested mirror each other, there
must also have been a close dialogue activated be-
tween the external sides, albeit from a distance and
without allowing viewers to grasp the various
scenes simultaneously. The rostra on the adlocutio
relief (i.e. the rostra ad Aedem Divi Iuli, on the east
side of the Forum) matched those on the reliqua
vetera panel (the ones known as Ceasar’s rostra, on
the east side of the Forum), while the ficus/Marsyas
pairing on the adlocutio relief matched the same Fig. 4. The two Anaglypha in the place
couple on the second panel. Similarly, the Alimenta where they were discovered. On the background,
statuary group on the adlocutio relief mirrored the the western side of the Forum Romanum
pile of tabulae on the reliqua vetera relief. (courtesy of © Deutsches Archäologisches Institut,
D-DAI-Z-NL-RZW-0995_29171,02,
This iconographic dialogue gave rise to a unknown photographer).
graphic scheme we could describe as ‘rostra –
group of the Alimenta – ficus/Marsyas couple’ on
the adlocutio relief = ‘rostra – pile – ficus/Marsyas’ ad Aedem Divi Iuli. Given this configuration –
on the reliqua vetera abolita relief. In the back- which is actually the way the reliefs were posi-
ground, finally, the southern side of the Forum was tioned at the time of their discovery – an ancient
represented. viewer would have been able to appreciate more
Such a hypothesis is fundamental to this article directly the consistency and visual connection be-
in that it allows us to reflect on the possible visual tween the architecture depicted on the external
strategies triggered by viewers’ observation of faces of the Anaglypha and the actual architecture
the Anaglypha and, consequently, the relationship standing behind the panels: looking at the adlocu-
between viewers, images and the display context. tio relief, an observer’s gaze would have been
I have already speculated elsewhere that the Ana- faced with the monuments along the south-east-
glypha were arranged parallel to each other, not ern side of the Forum (the rostra ad Aedem Divi
far from where they were discovered and most Iuli, the arcus Augusti, the Aedes Castorum, an
likely along a north-south line (Fig. 5). The panel empty space indicating the Vicus Tuscus, a portion
with the adlocutio scene would thus have faced of the Basilica Iulia); looking at the reliqua vetera
Caesar’s rostra, while the panel with the reliqua relief, he or she would have noticed the monu-
vetera abolita would have looked towards the rostra ments along the south-western side of the square
1
See Hammond 1953, p. 133.
72 riccardo olivito
Fig. 5. Plan of the central area of the Forum Romanum with the indication of the place where the Anaglypha
were discovered: 1) so-called Aiuola di Marsia; 2) location of the ‘Reliqua vetera abolita relief’ in 1872;
3) location of the ‘Adlocutio relief’ in 1872 (adapted after De Magistris 2010, fig. 6).
(a further portion of the Basilica Iulia, an empty open questions regarding some of the depicted
space recognisable as the so-called Vicus Iugarius, monuments, the ‘juxtaposition’ of the five build-
the Aedes Saturni, the Arcus in Clivo Capitolino, the ings on the Haterii relief might have hinted at the
Aedes Divi Vespasiani et Titi and, finally, the so- possible involvement of the Haterii (in particular
called Caesar’s rostra).1 the redemptor Quintus Haterius Tychicus) in the con-
As for the ficus and Marsyas, they would have struction of several monuments in diπerent loca-
occupied the southern edge of the two panels, in tions of the city, without necessarily suggesting
the direction of the area where some ancient lit- their strict topographical proximity.5 In this
erary sources place one of the ficus trees recorded specific case, thus, the embodied reading of the de-
as occupying the Forum Romanum (known as the piction would not have implied the same bodily
ficus in medio foro),2 as well as the statue of Marsyas and kinetic reaction as the one suggested for the
that some scholars have suggested was located two panels from the Roman Forum. Indeed, the di-
close to the ficus in medio foro rather than in front rect comparison between observer, images, and
of the Comitium.3 Therefore, the ficus/Marsyas context was neither possible nor pursued. Con-
pairing connected and bound the two Anaglypha sequently, rather than under the category of ‘lived
both conceptually and visually, providing ob- architecture’, we should instead list the Sacra Via
servers with an anchor for their spatial orientation relief under that of ‘experienced architecture’.
and dynamic reading of the scenes.
There would thus have been a dialogue consist- Experienced Architecture
ing of interconnections and visual and semantic
cross-references unfolding between the two reliefs The second type of reaction triggered by images
and the actual Forum. Ancient beholders, physi- of architecture and monuments was the one invol-
cally positioned in the Forum, were invited to ving depictions which, although closely related to
move with the images along the panels, transfer- specific monumental settings, were nevertheless
ring the depicted scenes from the virtual space of intended to be displayed and observed in a
the reliefs to the actual square. In this sense, the diπerent place then the one they depicted. In these
Anaglypha can be seen to perfectly exemplify the cases, the viewer’s engagement was achieved
concept of ‘present architecture’ hypothesised here mainly by referring to events or situations so
in relation to several ancient depictions of archi- specific that the observer would be able to readily
tecture. recognise both the activities and the depicted
Undoubtedly, the reactions triggered by what places/architecture.
we have defined here as ‘present architecture’ are Two Pompeian examples can help illustrate the
only a subcategory of a much broader range. In- concept of ‘experienced architecture’: the one
deed, depictions such as the Anaglypha activated a known as the ‘riot fresco’ from the house of Actius
bodily and simultaneous interaction between im- Anicetus (Pompeii i 3, 23) and the one called the
ages and the represented architectural context. In ‘forum frieze’ from the Praedia of Iulia Felix (Pom-
this sense, the dynamic observation suggested for peii ii 4, 3). The riot fresco (Fig. 6) was found in
the two panels was rather exceptional, and images 1869 on the rear wall of the peristyle of a relatively
which did not imply such simultaneity were much modest Pompeian house, referred to as the domus
more frequent. of Actius Anicetus. The painting, now held at
This is the case of the so-called Sacra Via relief the National Archaeological Museum of Naples,6
from the Tomb of the Haterii, with the represen- is indisputably one of the most famous pieces
tation of five buildings, generally interpreted as from the Vesuvian area. It clearly depicts people
the depiction of actual monuments in Rome.4 fighting in a space architecturally dominated by an
Diπerent from the Anaglypha, and despite the still amphitheatre, a rectangular building with a cen-
1 4
The importance of the arrangement of the two panels at Concerning the Haterii relief, see: Sinn, Freyberger
the moment they were discovered had already been noted by 1996, Coarelli 2009 and Freyberger 2016 with previous
William Seston (Seston 1927, p. 178) and, more recently, bibliography.
5
Melanie Grunow (Grunow 2002, pp. 161-164). None of See contra Coarelli 2009, who instead holds that the
them, however, seem to have fully exploited the potential Sacra Via relief may suggest an accurate topographic se-
significance of this element for interpreting the Anaglypha in quence for the depicted buildings and, as a consequence, a
their original context. reading from the right to the left.
2 6
The so-called ficus in medio foro would have grown spon- National Archaeological Museum of Naples, inv. no.
taneously close to the Lacus Curtius (Plin. NH xv, 77-78). 112222.
3
Giuliani, Verduchi 1987, p. 102. For the more tradi-
tional location of the statue of Marsyas in front of the Co-
mitium and the Curia, see note 5 on page 70.
74 riccardo olivito
Fig. 6. The ‘riot fresco’ from Pompeii i 3, 23

(National Archaeological Museum of Naples, inv. no. 112222. Photo by the Author).
tral courtyard and a pool, and, in the background, for ten years while the entire comitia illicita were
a section of the city wall featuring two towers. dissolved. Whereas the actual causes of the riot are
As scholars have demonstrated, a fundamental still a matter of debate, there is no doubt about
element for interpreting the scene is a famous pas- the connection between this specific historical
sage by Tacitus (Annales xiv, 17) reporting a viol- event and the representation of the fight found in
ent fight that broke out in 59 ce between Pom- the fresco.1
peians and Nucerians while they were watching As a consequence, it is easy to conclude that the
games in the amphitheatre. Begun as a series of monuments represented in the fresco, certainly
insults and violent acts, the episode evolved into painted after 59 ce and before the 79 ce eruption,
a bloody brawl in which the Pompeians emerged were intended to suggest actual Pompeian build-
as winners. This violent event was immediately re- ings: in particular, the amphitheatre and ‘Palestra
ported to Nero, and he appointed the Senate, and Grande’, depicted in our fresco in a bird’s eye
then the consuls, to verify its nature and the moti- view from the north.
vations behind it. After the investigation, any As in the case of the Anaglypha, any attempt to
such public gathering was forbidden in Pompeii compare the actual monuments and their depiction
1
Regarding the possible causes of the riot, see: Pesando 2001, pp. 185-191 and Huet 2004.
Fig. 7. The Pompeian amphitheatre. View from the north (Photo by the Author).
would highlight both points of a√nity and dis- theatre (basically an oval-shape structure) and
crepancies. The amphitheatre, for instance, is easily quadriporticus, then inserted particular references
identifiable due to the presence of two staircases (arches, convergent staircases, pool, monumental
leading to the upper part of the cavea as well as the entrances, and gates) that allowed viewers to
large arches located beneath them. Indeed, both of identify these two specific monuments. Together
these elements are so directly comparable to those with the topographical configuration (proximity
found in the actual monument in Pompeii (Fig. 7) to the city walls and ‘juxtaposition’ between the
that one cannot mistake the intent of the architec- amphitheatre and the peristyle), the insertion of
tural depiction. Nevertheless, closer examination specific details was certainly aimed at aiding ob-
shows that the position of the two staircases has servers in recognising specific structures. Still,
been shifted in the painting to make them visible there was another and probably more decisive el-
from the painter’s sightline. Furthermore, the fa- ement that must have guided the hermeneutic pro-
çade of the painted building is higher than in the cess activated in ancient viewers looking at the
actual amphitheatre, and the number of arches ‘riot fresco’.
shown in the painting is greater than in the Pom- As we seek to demonstrate, recognition mainly
peian monument. Even the interior is not accu- derives from the relationship between architecture
rately represented: the arena is oriented incorrectly and action. Needless to say, the main event here
if we consider the painter’s sightline. In addition, is the well-known fight between Pompeians and
beneath the awning (velarium), the fresco shows Nucerians, an episode clearly familiar to the in-
only two sectors of seats, while archaeological habitants of the Vesuvian area.
studies have found that the Pompeian building fea- Apart from the main event, however, an ancient
tures three sectors (ima cavea, media cavea and summa viewer, especially one familiar with Pompeii, would
cavea). Several anomalies are also visible in the ren- have noticed at least one other meaningful and
dering of the ‘Palestra Grande’, further demon- telling detail depicted in the painting, namely the
strating the failure of a strict comparison between presence of vendors and temporary shops set up
actual monuments and images. in the area in front of the amphitheatre (Fig. 8).
We can thus conclude that the painter adopted Far from being a purely decorative motif, this el-
a general schema for the depiction of an amphi- ement must have evoked the presence of merchants
76 riccardo olivito
Fig. 8. Detail of the ‘riot fresco’, with temporary shops and vendors
doing business during the gladiatorial shows. This A second example may further support the hy-
particular use of the space in question is well pothesis that recognition is based not simply on
documented in painted inscriptions and gra√ti iconographic or architectural details but instead
discovered on the walls of the Pompeian amphi- on the possibility of clearly identifying the rela-
theatre1 and was a fundamental element of the urban tionship between architecture and its use, that is,
landscape in this sector of the city.2 the way we humans experience architecture. The
Given these elements, this example would seem ‘forum frieze’ was discovered in 1755 in the atrium
to be a case of ‘experienced architecture’. In a of the Praedia of Iulia Felix, a vast complex in the
phenomenological approach, what is recognised Regio ii near the amphitheatre in Pompeii in
are not the structures per se. The aspect allowing which both private and public functions seem to
viewers to recognise the scene is the function of have taken place.3 Of the original frieze measuring
the architectural setting: a space in which humans more than 31 meters in length only 11 meters have
interact and that contributes with its very pres- been preserved, mainly in the form of 16 small
ence to human action in the environment. Cases fragments displayed at the National Archaeologi-
such as the ‘riot fresco’ demonstrate that, the cal Museum of Naples. The frieze depicts the
stronger viewers’ ‘bodily’ familiarity with a space nundinae (i.e. a weekly market day), with many of
or object is, the more tolerant they will be of the fragments representing commercial activities:
possible diπerences and, as a consequence, the clothes and dress sellers, shoe sellers, second-hand
greater will be their level of recognition, even dealers, pedlars selling foods and even a slave
independent of the context in which the image market (venalicium). As for the architectural set-
was displayed. ting, a series of colonnaded porticoes with statues
1 3
Tituli picti: CIL iv 1096, 1096a, 1096b, 1097, 1097a, 1097b, For a discussion of the ‘forum frieze’, see Olivito 2013,
2096, 2096a. Gra√to: CIL iv 2485. with previous bibliography.
2
Regarding the connection between the ‘riot fresco’ and
the inscriptions, see Magaldi 1930, pp. 29-30 and, more re-
cently, Monteix 2013, p. 168, n. 38.
is visible in the background. The porticoes clearly result of some ‘ideal’ depiction of a well-known
define a closed square that is undoubtedly inter- building typology, that of the honorary arch.
pretable as a forum, likely the forum of Pompeii. Regardless, the informative potential of these
Indeed, similarly to the Anaglypha and the ‘riot fragments goes beyond the architectural aspect.
fresco’, there are points of both consistency and Indeed, in the framework of a scarcely accurate
diπerence between the images on the frieze and graphic representation, details such as the arch or
the actual Pompeian square, thus confirming the series of equestrian statues play a highly important
limits of a wholly positivistic approach to the role in that they attract viewers’ attention. Fur-
study of this type of representation. thermore, they reveal the strategy adopted by the
For instance, scholars sceptical of identifying painters who took advantage of the actual archi-
this location as the Pompeian public square have tectural setting of the forum, selecting specific el-
correctly noted that the order of the painted col- ements that were immediately recognisable and
onnades is not the same as found in the porticoes graphically transferring them into painted images.
of the forum of Pompeii. All of the columns in the These elements, often in a simplified version,
frieze are of Corinthian order, whereas in Pompeii were adapted to enrich a relatively anonymous
Corinthian columns only appeared in the north- and schematic representation: as a result, they be-
western corner of the actual square, while the re- came keys to interpreting a frieze which is only
maining parts were ringed by two-storey porticoes apparently generic. An ancient viewer would have
with Doric and Ionic columns. walked across the room where the frieze was dis-
On the other hand, although elements showing played without necessarily paying attention to the
remarkable similarity with specific features of the architectural order of the capitals or the exact ren-
Pompeian forum are less numerous, these similar- dering of the mouldings on the statue bases. A
ities are highly significant as they indicate a con- quick view would have given him/her the gist of
nection (both iconographic and semantic) with a colonnaded space, that is, the essential element
specific buildings and monuments. Two examples enabling the identification of a forum. On this
might be helpful to illustrate this point: one of basis, viewers’ attention would then have been di-
the fragments (Fig. 9)1 depicting three equestrian rected to a few elements (the arch, the series of
statues with a long inscription in front of a two- statues with an inscription, etc.) suggesting the
storey portico confirms painters’ tendency to en- recognition of a familiar space, namely the Pom-
gage in iconographic approximation and, at the peian forum. Even in this case, moreover, the focus
same time, to emphasise immediately recognisable of this new, more careful gaze would not have
details. Rather than using the capitals as markers, been the exact size or decoration of the arch or
painters aimed to allude to a specific building by the posture of the equestrian statues. More impor-
stressing the series of equestrian statues with an in- tant here was the meaningful link between build-
scription. The attention of ancient viewers, but ings and the activities occurring in front of them.
also modern ones, was not directed to the order of Let us refer again to the fragment showing an
the capitals; instead, it was immediately drawn to honorary arch: the cook and food seller here must
the sequence of statues. Without a doubt, this de- have suggested for ancient viewers a connection
tail must have suggested a connection with the between the area in front of the so-called arch of
situation still visible on the western side of the Tiberius, in the Pompeian forum, and the food
forum, where a series of bases identical to those de- market (macellum) which lies in the north-eastern
picted in the frieze stands in front of the colonnade corner of the square. As we know from literary
(Fig. 10). Even more direct and paradigmatic is sources, the macellum was indeed the place people
the fragment showing a cook and a food seller went to hire a coquus, as Terentius, for instance,
(Fig. 11).2 Here, an arch with a central fornix and testifies when referring to the macellum as one of
small niche is represented in the left corner. By vir- the main spaces where cooks were based.3
tue of its architectural features, this structure is This type of depiction generally drew attention
directly comparable to the so-called arch of Tibe- to the central action rather than the exactitude of
rius positioned east of the Pompeian Capitolium the architectural features. The fragment with three
(Fig. 12). There is such a profound similarity that statues and the inscription can be seen to further
it seems hard to consider it pure coincidence or the demonstrate this process. Far from being a decor-
1 3
National Archaeological Museum of Naples, inv. no. 9068. Ter. Eu. 255-258. See also Plautus, clearly referring to
2
National Archaeological Museum of Naples, inv. no. 9065. cooks competing to be hired for a large private party during
the nundinae in Rome: Pl. Aul. 280-349.
78 riccardo olivito
Fig. 9. Fragment of the ‘forum frieze’ from the Praedia of Iulia Felix (Pompeii ii 4, 3)
ative element, this fragment is one of the most im- functions of the weekly market days was to enable
portant ones for identifying the frieze as a depic- people coming from the countryside to learn
tion of the nundinae in the forum of Pompeii. In- about the latest legislative propositions (promul-
deed, as we learn from Macrobius, one of the main gationes) scheduled to be discussed at the following
Fig. 10. The four equestrian statuary bases along the western side of the forum of Pompeii (Photo by the Author).
Fig. 11. On the left: fragment of the ‘forum frieze’ from the Praedia of Iulia Felix (Pompeii ii 4, 3)
On the right: engraving from Pitture antiche d’Ercolano e contorni incise con qualche spiegazione.
Tomo iii, Naples, 1762, Tav. xliii, fig. at p. 22.
dies comitialis.1 Promulgationes were displayed for the frieze would undoubtedly have been familiar with
period of three nundinae in the most visible part of this custom and must immediately have thought
the city, likely the forum, where everybody was of a specific function played by a specific area in
able to easily access and read them. Viewers of the their own city. Was this area in Pompeii the one
1
Macr. vii 16, 34.
80 riccardo olivito
Fig. 12. The so-called Arch of Tiberius, in the northeastern corner of the forum of Pompeii.
A view from the south (Photo by the Author).
on the western side of the forum, where a series of tal forms, typically ‘Roman’ from an architectural
equestrian statues was arranged? Although hypo- point of view but lacking any reference to a
thetical, such a suggestion would further support specific building. This generic character allowed
the idea that the link between architecture and its observers to freely create multiple associations and
function/use played a fundamental role in terms links between the depicted activities and specific
of image recognition and visual strategies as well. places, based on their personal experiences and
regardless of any connection to a well-defined
Generic Architecture monumental or architectural context. At the same
time, given the generic nature of this kind of rep-
The third type of experience these depictions gave resentation, viewers were able to recall personal
rise to was triggered by images of ‘generic archi- experiences, customs or events even in cases where
tecture’. This category refers to depictions in no such human activity was depicted and the
which monuments and architectural settings are architectural element was the only object of rep-
entirely ‘not specific’, to adopt Haug’s definition. resentation.
Because of their generality, any observer was able In this sense, then, our hypothesis is based on
to freely understand such depictions regardless of the aforementioned assumption that people know,
patrons’ and artists’ actual intentions of indicating perceive and evaluate the world in relation to the
a particular place or building. This type of experi- experience of interacting with architecture that
ence was probably connected to most of the docu- they each carry with them. It thus follows that
ments in which an architectural or monumental architecture itself, and its transposition into an
setting is depicted, and indeed the phenomenon is image, entails the recovery, either conscious or
potentially so widespread as to require a much unconscious, of previous authentic architectural
more detailed discussion in future research. Here, experiences.
we will limit ourselves to a few more general con- An example of this type of generic architectural
siderations. image and the reactions it may have provoked is a
The main feature of such images is the entirely famous mid-1st century ce funerary relief from
generic and ideal rendering of specific monumen- Rome depicting cloth sellers, now on display at the
Fig. 13. Funerary relief from Rome (Florence, Galleria degli U√zi, inv. no. 315, from Zimmer 1982, fig. 39).
Galleria degli U√zi (Fig. 13).1 Two clients, each tation had to function diπerently, suggesting the
wearing a toga and accompanied by a slave, sit on generic idea of an urban context and thus favour-
a short bench while examining a piece of cloth that ing the evocation of personal experiences associ-
is held up for their inspection by two men wearing ated with a place not necessarily corresponding to
tunica. At the centre of the relief, a fifth male figure, the one imagined or desired by the patron. In this
likely the owner of the shop, is directing the trans- case, therefore, it was the general impression that
action in some way. In the background, a portico the depicted architecture sought to suggest that
with pilasters and Corinthian capitals is depicted. counted, rather than the potential to identify a
On top of the epistyle, a wall with four open win- specific building or place. Hence, we can agree
dows is covered in a tiled roof. with Stefan Ritter that the main, though not ex-
It is impossible to say whether the portico clusive, task of many Roman depictions of cities
alludes to a shop, as some scholars have suggested, and architecture was to allude to a sort of urban
or to some public building. Similarly, it is di√cult atmosphere which must have been familiar to and
to ascertain whether the vending scene takes place shared by most ancient observers.2
inside a private building or outside, in a public
space such as a street. Nonetheless, the association Contrasting Architecture
with such an elaborate architectural context must
undoubtedly have been immediately understood In the fourth and last type of reaction discussed here,
by the patron (i.e. the honoured deceased) and his observers were called on to acknowledge a distance
circle of family members and clientes. For an ‘ex- (topographical, conceptual, cultural, social, tech-
ternal’ observer, on the other hand, the represen- nological) between them and the places and build-
1 2
Florence, Galleria degli U√zi, inv. no. 315. See: Zimmer See Ritter 2014, p. 172. Regarding the theme of ‘urban
1982, p. 28, 125-126, cat. 39. See also Ritter 2014, p. 166 and atmosphere’, see Haug, Kreuz 2016 e Haug 2021.
p. 172.
82 riccardo olivito
Fig. 14. Trajan’s Column. Scene lxxix (from Coarelli 1999, tav. 92).
ings being depicted. Unlike the previous forms of Regarding the column dedicated by the Senatus
architectural triggers, the type of reaction referred and Populus Romanus to Trajan, probably in 113 ce,
to here as ‘contrasting architecture’ was a mechan- Wolfram Thill proposes three diπerent architec-
ism that operated through contrast. In this case, tural categories:
the use of images iconographically very distant 1. Architecture pertaining to the military sphere and
from the Roman architectural tradition invited the the warlike events that constitute the main subject
viewer to grasp and reflect on the topographical, of the column (camps, look-out posts, podiums for
cultural and technological distance between his/ the imperial adlocutiones);
her own world and the one the images alluded to. 2. Architecture related to Roman cities or provincial
A clear example of such a mechanism is the use urban centres that were fully ‘Romanised’ and there-
fore pacified;
of architecture (in the form of both cities and in-
3. Dacian architecture (villages, camps, palisades).
dividual buildings) found in the two cochlid col-
umns in Rome.1 Elizabeth Wolfram Thill has Of the second category, the city depicted in scene
carefully examined the depictions of architecture lxxix (Figg. 14-15) undoubtedly constitutes
(cities, camps, infrastructures, villages) on the two the best known and most frequently analysed
columns, highlighting similarities and diπerences example, ever since it was identified as Ancona –
and drawing intriguing conclusions as to the func- as suggested by Cichorius in his still-fundamental
tion these elements performed in the context of edition on the column reliefs – and the more re-
the two pictorial registers.2 cent hypothesis that it be identified as Brindisi.3
1 3
Still fundamental is the work by Settis (Settis et al. 1988) Cichorius 1896. See also Turcan-Déléani 1958 for
and the two works by Coarelli: Coarelli 1999 (Column of a first discussion of realism and schematism in the represen-
Trajan) and Coarelli 2008 (Column of Marcus Aurelius). tation of monuments and architecture in the Column of
2
See Wolfram Thill 2012, in particular pp. 67-109 (on Trajan.
the Column of Trajan) and pp. 172-186 (on the Column of
Marcus Aurelius).
Fig. 15. Trajan’s Column. Scene lxxix (from Coarelli 1999, tav. 93).
It is not my intention to enter into the debate ible association between the figurative register of
around the identification of this image with a Trajan’s Column and Trajan’s Commentarii of the
specific urban settlement, as the premises of this Dacian Wars, an association powerful enough that
debate are founded on studying precise icono- the images and text would have been somehow
graphic clues in the positivistic spirit this paper complementary.2
seeks to confute. Nevertheless, one cannot over- At the same time, it is precisely the extraordi-
look the monumental richness of the depiction, in narily typical and generic nature of such ‘Roman’
which the architectural elements (temples, trium- architecture that makes its contrast with the third
phal arch, sculptural decoration, quadriporticus, category identified by Wolfram Thill, namely Da-
port infrastructure) immediately connote the back- cian architecture, so meaningful and striking. Da-
ground as typically and clearly Roman. We can cian architecture is generally alien and unfamiliar
thus agree with Wolfram Thill in arguing that, in in relation to the Roman repertoire.3 Indeed, the
this case as in similar cases on the column, such team of sculptors emphasised its marked precari-
images functioned as «inspiration rather than ousness, the perishable materials used to build it
faithful reproduction».1 Therefore, people looking (mainly wood, reeds and straw), the generally cir-
at the column would have been guided by a pro- cular or cylindrical shapes, and the predominantly
cess I would define as ‘indirect knowledge’ thanks military nature of many of the buildings. Even in
to which they would surely recognise the depic- the case of larger centres such as the one depicted
tion as a Roman city, regardless of its exact in scenes lxxv-lxxvi (Fig. 16) and cxix-cxx
identification with a specific place. Furthermore, (interpreted by some scholars as the Dacian capi-
as hypothesised by Coarelli, the recognition pro- tal Sarmizegetusa) (Fig. 17), or the one in scenes
cess might have been further enhanced by a poss- cl-cli (Fig. 18), the diπerences as compared to
1 3
Wolfram Thill 2012, p. 78. For a discussion of the Dacian architecture on the Col-
2
See Coarelli 1999, p. 11. umn of Trajan, see especially Wolfram Thill 2017.
84 riccardo olivito
Fig. 16. Trajan’s Column. Scene lxxv (from Coarelli 1999, tav. 87).
Fig. 17. Trajan’s Column. Scene cxix (from Coarelli 1999, tav. 146).
Fig. 18. Trajan’s Column. Scenes cl-cli (from Coarelli 1999, p. 137, tav. 176).
Roman or ‘Romanised’ centres are evident and no exception. Nevertheless, there are many fewer
had to be immediately recognisable by an ancient representations of cities and architecture on the
viewer.1 Column of Marcus Aurelius, and the background
In doing so, according to Wolfram Thill, what of the scenes depicted here appears much less
these images conveyed was Rome’s cultural, tech- ‘constructed’ than on Trajan’s Column. This
nological, political and military superiority. At the diπerence, according to Wolfram Thill, is an indi-
same time, the inclusion of typically Roman build- cation that Marcus Aurelius’ war was conceptual-
ings or architecture in the depiction of pacified ised diπerently: it was no longer a conflict des-
provincial urban centres was intended to empha- tined to end with the conquest of new territories
sise the advantages of Romanisation and the and a process of urbanisation in the lands the em-
quality of life it guaranteed, in contrast to the pre- peror had acquired, as in the case of the Dacian
carious existence characterising the territories con- campaigns, but a war to annihilate the weak and
trolled by Decebalus.2 This would also explain the still un-urbanised Germanic populations.3 The
abundance of construction scenes on Trajan’s Col- low degree of urbanisation and technological and
umn, whereas such scenes are much less frequent architectural backwardness of the Germanic
in the images adorning Marcus Aurelius’ Column. peoples shown on Marcus Aurelius’ column is
The team of sculptors who created Marcus further emphasised by the sculptors’ marked in-
Aurelius’ Column undoubtedly used Trajan’s Col- sistence on the perishability of huts, villages, and
umn as a model, and the architecture it depicts is forts (e.g. in scenes xx and cii) (Figg. 19-20), de-
1 2
This article does not seek to engage with the widely de- Wolfram Thill 2017, p. 175.
3
bated question of the visibility and readability of the two Wolfram Thill 2012, p. 184.
sculpted registers. See Coarelli 1999 with previous bibli-
ography and, more recently, de Angelis 2014.
86 riccardo olivito
Fig. 19. Marcus Aurelius’ Column. Scene xx (from Coarelli 2000, p. 151).
picted here as much more precarious than on Tra- were particularly well carved, to be more easily
jan’s Column. legible for a larger audience passing by at ground
For the purposes of this article, however, there level.1 While some scholars are sceptical about this
is an additional element worth considering, one hypothesis, it is still noteworthy that both the rep-
which the two columns share. It has been sug- resented registers begin with a depiction of several
gested that the lowest registers of the columns forts placed on the Roman bank of the Danube
1
Hölscher 2002, p. 140; Dillon 2006, p. 259.
Fig. 20. Marcus Aurelius’ Column. Scene cii (from Coarelli 2000, p. 317).
(Trajan’s Column, Scene i) (Fig. 21) and near the opus quadratum with sloping roofs, surrounded by
border with Upper Pannonia, at Carnuntum (Mar- wooden palisades and flanked by wooden and
cus Aurelius’ Column) (Fig. 22), respectively. straw stacks. The Column of Marcus Aurelius is
Similarly, the following scenes on both columns even more explicit, depicting not only forts with
represent the crossing of a bridge over the Da- walls in opus quadratum surrounded by wooden
nube: an act that somehow marks the start of the palisades, but also a structure with wooden walls,
two emperors’ military campaigns. In the case of canes and straw, clearly alluding to indigenous
Trajan’s Column, the forts consist of structures in buildings.
88 riccardo olivito
Fig. 21. Trajan’s Column. Scene i (from Coarelli 1999, tav. i).
It seems evident that the decision to start the least for a brief moment, any reference to his/her
two figurative spirals with a depiction of ‘hybrid’ own architectural reality and, consequently, to
or even indigenous buildings was intended to di- his/her personal experience of the architectural di-
rect the observer’s attention to a (cultural and mension as well. In this context, the lack of human
geographical) horizon understood as exotic and figures in the two columns’ first scenes seems to
clearly distant from the space in which the two take on substantial value, only interrupted as it is
columns were displayed.1 The fact that the archi- by the beginning of the narration of the military
tectural element is the central and only protagon- campaigns with the soldiers standing guard at the
ist in the very and clearly legible incipit of the two front. Such an iconographic strategy would im-
registers augments the alienating or, more pre- mediately allow the viewer to read the following
cisely, contrasting eπect of physical involvement. scenes with an awareness of the remoteness and
Indeed, human action does not intervene until otherness of the places they represented.
later in the depictions, with the representation of The uninhabited borders between the Roman
some soldiers guarding the fortifications and the empire and the distant territories of Dacia and
subsequent crossing of the Danube by the Roman Pannonia marking the beginning of the otherwise
armies. In other words, a beholder standing be- crowded cochlid columns thus deliberately pro-
fore Trajan’s and Marcus Aurelius’ Columns, duced a contrasting eπect: on the one hand there
physically ‘embedded’ in an overwhelming archi- was the monumental reality of Rome, its buildings
tectural landscape (the Forum of Trajan and Cam- – with their functions – and the everyday experi-
pus Martius, respectively), was invited to lose, at ences observers had of such architecture; on the
1
Regarding the topic of exotism linked to Roman conquest, see Couslton 2003 and Wolfram Thill 2017, p. 174 in re-
lation to architecture.
Fig. 22. Marcus Aurelius’ Column. Scene i (from Coarelli 2000, p. 106).
other hand there was a distant world, character- program whose symbolic power stemmed in part
ised by fragile and precarious architecture, mainly from the visual and conceptual contrast between
linked to the military sphere and in any case not Dacian elements, such as Dacian weapons (on the
immediately associated with the experiential base of the column, for instance) or the marble
sphere of an ancient inhabitant of the empire’s statues of prisoners and captives decorating the
capital city. porticoes of the Forum Traiani, and Roman mo-
In the case of Trajan’s Column this eπect was tifs, such as the Equus Traiani dominating the cen-
further amplified by a highly complex iconographic tral area of the imperial square.1 The continuous,
1
Regarding the Dacian statues, see Ungaro, Di Cola garo 2018. More in general, for interpretations of the
2022, with previous literature. Regarding the iconographic ‘Other’ in Roman art and social practice, see Trentin 2022,
program of the Trajan forum, see the contributions in Parisi in part. pp. 408-411 on the ‘Barbarian Other’.
Presicce et al. 2018, in particular Polito 2018 and Un-
90 riccardo olivito
contrasting dialogue between ‘Romanitas’ and of the interactive relationship between humans
‘Otherness’ and an uninterrupted process of and the environment/landscape.
identification/alienation would thus have en- Even though we cannot always recover the
hanced the reactions of those who crossed the original ‘sense of presence’ of an ancient Roman
square, taking full advantage of the ultimate goal viewer looking at these depictions, we should
of the iconographic program underlying the Fo- avoid concluding that such images did not allow
rum Traiani. observers to recognise specific monuments or
buildings. On the contrary, we might suggest the
Final remarks provocatory conclusion that recognition and
bodily involvement was possible even for images
The previous pages have sought to reflect on the in which there was no artistic intention to depict
role of architectural images in ancient, and es- specific architecture. These depictions were not
pecially Roman, artistic practice. Studies frequently supposed to provide accurate iconographic trans-
attempt to use such images as evidence for recon- positions, but rather to exert evocative power. In-
structing monuments and places, and such research deed, as Pallasmaa has rightly pointed out: «Thus,
is undoubtedly worthy of interest and not lacking the impact of architecture on the human experi-
in successful results. However, it is always necess- ence is too deeply existentially rooted to be ap-
ary to recall that the ‘photographic’ representation proached solely as an element of visual design».2
of a particular monument or architectural context
was neither the goal nor the primary function of Bibliography
such images. In fact, this is not even the aim of
our perception of external reality. On the contrary, Boehm, Bredekamp 2009 = Ikonologie der Gegenwart,
ed. by G. Boehm, H. Bredekamp, Munich 2009.
what is key is the very function of architecture; Bredekamp 2010 = H. Bredekamp, Theorie des Bild-
the fact that it is meant to occupy a space and limit akts. Frankfurter Adorno-Vorlesungen 2007, Frankfurt
the indefinite landscape, thereby allowing for am Mein 2010.
human interaction within spatial and social en- Brizio 1872a = E. Brizio, Due bassorilievi in marmo
vironments. The more e√cient, direct, and experi- rappresentanti scene del Foro Romano, «Annali dell’In-
ence-based the connection between a specific archi- stituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica», 44, 1872a,
tecture and a specific human activity is, the greater pp. 309-330.
Brizio 1872b = E. Brizio, Scavi del foro romano, «Bul-
is the possibility that it may be recognised. This lettino dell’Instituto di corrispondenza archeologi-
consideration implies the need for a new and more ca», 12, 1872b, pp. 225-236.
articulated investigation of the concept of embo- Brown 1940 = D. F. Brown, Temples of Rome as Coin
died viewing activated by images of architecture. Types, New York 1940.
Whereas the present research was focused mainly Brown 2020 = N. G. Brown, The Living and the
on sculptural reliefs and paintings clearly connected Monumental on the Anaglypha Traiani, «aja», 124, 4,
with existing buildings, a broader reflection shall 2020, pp. 607-630.
Burnett 1999 = A. Burnett, Buildings and Monu-
consider other media, such as coins or the complex ments on Roman Coins, in Roman Coins and Public Life
architectures depicted in Second Style paintings, under the Empire: E. Togo Salmon Papers ii, ed. by G.
which invite the observer to similarly interact M. Paul, M. Ierardi, Ann Arbor 1999, pp. 137-164.
with the images being depicted. Cichorius 1896 = C. Cichorius, Die Reliefs der Trai-
In this sense, we should not try to look at archi- anssaule. Vol. 2, Berlin 1896.
tecture and human actions within the architectural Coarelli 1977 = F. Coarelli, Il Comizio dalle origini
setting as two separate poles that do not com- alla fine della Repubblica (Cronologia e Topografia), «pp»,
32, 1977, pp. 166-288.
municate with each other. From a phenomeno- Coarelli 1995a = F. Coarelli, s.v. Ficus Navia, in
logical viewpoint, they are both object and sub- Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae. Volume secondo.
ject. Architecture is not simply a decorative D-G, ed. by E. M. Steinby, Rome 1995, pp. 248-249.
background. It is a protagonist or, even more pre- Coarelli 1995b = F. Coarelli, s.v. Ficus Ruminalis,
cisely, a co-protagonist on the stage of human life. in Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae. Volume secondo.
Once we accept Merleau-Ponty’s idea that human D-G, ed. by E. M. Steinby, Rome 1995, p. 249.
perception of the world is the final result of our Coarelli 1999 = F. Coarelli, La Colonna Traiana,
Rome 1999.
continuous bodily interaction within the environ- Coarelli 2008 = F. Coarelli, La colonna di Marco
ment and of our being part of it,1 we must con- Aurelio = The column of Marcus Aurelius / Filippo Coa-
clude that these images representing architecture relli translated from the Italian by Helen Patterson, Rome
and spaces can also be interpreted as expressions 2008.
1 2
Merleau-Ponty 1945. Pallasmaa 2011, p. 124.
Coarelli 2009 = F. Coarelli, Rilievo del sepolcro degli Gaifman, Platt 2018 = M. Gaifman, V. Platt,
Haterii con monumenti romani, in Divus Vespasianus: Il Introduction: From Grecian Urn to Embodied Object,
bimillenario dei Flavi: Catalogo della mostra (Roma, «Art History», 41, 3, 2018, pp. 402-419.
marzo 2009-gennaio 2010), ed. by F. Coarelli, Rome Gensheimer 2015 = M. B. Gensheimer, Greek and
2009, p. 429. Roman Images of Art and Architecture, in The Oxford
Costa 2022 = S. Costa, Iconography and Social Practice Handbook of Greek and Roman Art and Architecture, ed.
in the Domestic Sphere, in The Oxford Handbook of by C. Marconi, Oxford 2015, pp. 84-104.
Roman Imagery and Iconography, ed. by L. K. Cline, Giuliani, Verduchi 1987 = C. F. Giuliani, P.
N. T. Elkins, Oxford 2022, pp. 292-314. Verduchi, L’area centrale del Foro Romano, Florence
Couslton 2003 = J. C. N. Couslton, Overcoming the 1987.
Barbarian: Depictions of Rome’s Enemies in Trajanic Gombrich 1960 = E. H. Gombrich, Art and Illusion:
Monumental Art, in The Representation and Perception of A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation,
Roman Imperial Power: Proceedings of the Third Work- Princeton 1960.
shop of the International Network “Impact of Empire. Grunow 2002 = M. D. Grunow, Architectural Images
Roman Empire, c. 200 b.c.-a.d. 476”, Netherlands in Roman State Reliefs, Coins, and Medallions: Imperial
Institute in Rome, March 20-23, 2002, ed. by L. De Ritual, Ideology, and the Topography of Rome, Michigan
Blois, P. Erdkamp, O. Hekster et al., Amsterdam University (Ph.D. Dissertation) 2002.
2003, pp. 389-424. Grunow Sobocinski 2009 = M. Grunow Sobo-
Dale, Burrell 2008 = K. Dale, G. Burrell, The cinski, Porta Triumphalis and Fortuna Redux: Recon-
Spaces of Organisation and the Organisation of Space: Power, sidering the Evidence, «Memoirs of the American
Identity and Materiality at Work, Basingstoke 2008. Academy in Rome», 54, 2009, pp. 135-164.
Daston, Galison 2007 = L. Daston, P. Galison, Grunow Sobocinski 2013 = M. Grunow Sobo-
Objectivity, 2007. cinski, Visualizing Architecture then and now: Mimesis
de Angelis 2014 = F. de Angelis, Sublime Histories, and the Capitoline Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, in
Expectional viewers: Trajan’s Columns and its Visibility, A Companion to Roman Architecture, ed. by R. B. Ul-
in Art and Rethoric in Roman Culture, ed. by J. Elsner, rich, C. K. Quenemoen, Oxford 2013, pp. 446-461.
M. Meyer, Cambridge 2014, pp. 89-114. Grunow Sobocinski, Wolfram Thill 2015 = M.
de Cesare 1997 = M. de Cesare, Le statue in imma- Grunow Sobocinski, E. Wolfram Thill,
gine: Studi sulle ra√gurazioni di statue nella pittura va- Monumental Reliefs, in The Oxford Handbook of Roman
scolare greca, Rome 1997. Sculpture, ed. by E. A. Friedland, E. K. Gazda, M.
De Magistris 2010 = E. De Magistris, Structurae: Grunow Sobocinski, Oxford 2015, pp. 276-291.
Ricerche su tecniche costruttive e monumenti antichi, Naples Halliwell 2002 = S. Halliwell, The Aesthetics of
2010. Mimesis. Ancient Texts and Modern Problems, Princeton
Dietrich 2010 = N. Dietrich, Figur ohne Raum? 2002.
Bäume und Felsen in der attischen Vasenmalerei des 6. und Hammond 1953 = M. Hammond, A Statue of Trajan
5. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., Berlin-New York 2010. Represented on the “Anaglypha Traiani”, «Memoirs of
Dillon 2006 = S. Dillon, Women on the Columna od the American Academy in Rome», 21, 1953, pp. 125-
Trajan and Marcus Aurelius and the Visual Language of 183.
Roman Victory, in Representations of War in Ancient Haug 2007 = A. Haug, Spätantike Stadtbilder. Ein Dis-
Rome, ed. by S. Dillon, K. Welch, Cambridge 2006, kurs zwischen Topik und Speziik, in Römische Bilderwel-
pp. 244-271. ten: Von der Wirklichkeit zum Bild und zurück. Kollo-
Elkins 2015 = N. T. Elkins, Monuments in Miniature: quium der Gerda Henkel Stiftung (Rom 15.-17. März
Architecture on Roman Coinage, New York 2015. 2004), ed. by T. Hölscher, F. Hölscher, Heidelberg
Elsner 1995 = J. Elsner, Art and the Roman Viewer: 2007, pp. 217-249.
The Transformation of Art from the Pagan World to Haug 2021 = A. Haug, Emotion and the City, in Urban
Christianity, Cambridge 1995. Space and Urban History in the Roman World, ed. by M.
Elsner 2007 = J. Elsner, Roman Eyes: Visuality and Flohr, Oxon-New York 2021, pp. 39-65.
Subjectivity in Art and Text, Princeton 2007. Haug, Kreuz 2016 = Stadterfahrung als Sinneserfahrung
Elsner 2022 = Landscape and Space. Comparative Per- in der romischen Kaiserzeit, ed. by A. Haug, P.-A.
spectives from Chinese, Mesoamerican, Ancient Greek, and Kreuz, Turnhout 2016.
Roman Art, ed. by J. Elsner, Oxford 2022. Henzen 1872 = G. Henzen, Rilievi di marmo scoperti
Foucault 1986 = M. Foucault, Of other spaces, «Dia- sul foro romano, «Bullettino dell’Instituto di corrispon-
critics», 16, 1, 1986, pp. 22-27. denza archeologica», 12, 1872, pp. 273-282.
Freyberger 2016 = K. S. Freyberger, Das “Bau- Hill 1989 = P. V. Hill, The Monuments of Ancient
tenrelief” aus dem Hateriergrab in Rome. Eine neue Deu- Rome as Coin Types, London 1989.
tung, «Kölner Jahrbuch», 49, 2016, pp. 367-389. Hölscher 2002 = T. Hölscher, Bilder der Macht und
Fuchs 1969 = G. Fuchs, Architekturdarstellungen auf Heerschaft, in Traian: Ein Kaiser der Superlative am Be-
römischen Münzen der Republik und der frühen Kaiserzeit, ginn einer Umbruchzeit?, ed. by A. Nünnerich-Asmus,
Berlin 1969. Mainz am Rhein 2002, pp. 127-144.
Fuchs 2011 = M. Fuchs, Der gerettete Staat. Die Krise Hölscher 2018 = T. Hölscher, Visual Power in
des Jahres 59 n.Chr. und die Tempelreliefs Valle-Medici, Ancient Greece and Rome: Between Art and Social Real-
in Kunst und Politik. Religion und Gedächtniskultur: ity, Oakland (ca) 2018.
Von der späten Republik bis zu den Flaviern, ed. by H. Huet 2004 = V. Huet, La représentation de la rixe de
Meyer, Munich 2011, pp. 139-155. l’amphitéâtre de Pompéi: Une préfiguration de l’«hooliga-
92 riccardo olivito
nisme»?, «Société française d’histoire urbaine | His- Olivito 2013 = R. Olivito, Il fòro nell’atrio: Immagini
toire urbaine», 2/10, 2004, pp. 89-112. di architetture, scene di vita e di mercato nel fregio dai Prae-
Jenkins 1901 = A. S. Jenkins, The “Trajan-Reliefs” dia di Iulia Felix (Pompei, ii, 4, 3), Bari 2013.
in the Roman Forum, «aja», 5, 1, 1901, pp. 58-82. Olivito 2021 = R. Olivito, Per una nuova ipotesi sulla
Jones 2018 = N. B. Jones, Starting from Places: Con- disposizione degli Anaglypha dal Foro Romano, in Mune-
tinuous Narration and Discontinuous Perspectives in ra Musarum: Studi per Lucia Faedo, ed. by A. An-
Roman Art, «The Art Bulletin», 100, 2018, pp. 7-35. guissola, M. Castiglione, F. Guidetti, Pisa 2021
La Rocca 1994 = E. La Rocca, Arcus et Arae Clau- («Studi classici e orientali», 67.2), pp. 377-389.
dii, in Die Regierungszeit des Kaisers Claudius (41-54 n. Pallasmaa 2011 = J. Pallasmaa, The Embodied Image:
Chr.): Umbruch oder Episode? Internationales interdis- Imagination and Imagery in Architecture, Chichester 2011.
ziplinäres Symposion, Freiburg i. Br. 16.-18. Februar Pappalardo, Capuano 2006 = U. Pappalardo, A.
1991, ed. by V. M. Strocka, Mainz am Rhein 1994, Capuano, Immagini della città nella pittura romana: vi-
pp. 267-293. sioni fantastiche o realtà architettoniche?, in Imaging
La Rocca 2008 = E. La Rocca, Lo spazio negato: La Ancient Rome: Documentation - Visualization - Imagin-
pittura di paesaggio nella cultura artistica greca e romana, ation, ed. by L. Haselberger, J. Humphrey, Port-
Milan 2008. smouth 2006, pp. 75-90.
Leander Touati 2015 = A.-M. Leander Touati, Parisi Presicce et al. 2018 = Traiano: Costruire l’Im-
Monuments and Images of the Moving City, in The Moving pero, creare l’Europa, Catalogo mostra, 2ª ed., ed. by C.
City: Processions, Passages and Promenades in Ancient Parisi Presicce, M. Milella, S. Pastor, Rome 2018.
Rome, ed. by I. Östenberg, S. Malmberg, J. Bjørne- Pesando 2001 = F. Pesando, Gladiatori a Pompei, in
bye, London 2015, pp. 203-224. Sangue e Arena, ed. by A. La Regina, Milan 2001, pp.
Lefebvre 1991 = H. Lefebvre, The Production of 175-197.
Space, Oxford 1991. Polito 2018 = E. Polito, I segni della vittoria nel Foro
Lefebvre 2014 (ed. by Ł. Stanek) = H. Lefebvre, di Traiano: Continuità e novità, in Parisi Presicce et
Toward an Architecture of Enjoyment, Minneapolis 2014 al. 2018, pp. 263-267.
(ed. by Ł. Stanek). Quante-Schöttler 2002 = D. Quante-Schött-
Lissarague 2001 = F. Lissarague, Greek Vases: The ler, Ante aedes: Darstellung von Architektur in römi-
Athenians and their Images, New York 2001. schen Reliefs, Hamburg 2002.
Magaldi 1930 = E. Magaldi, Il commercio ambulante Ritter 2014 = S. Ritter, Cities in Roman Art: The
a Pompei, «Atti dell’Accademia Pontaniana», lx, City as a Stage for Human Activities, in Reconstruction
1930, pp. 61-87. and the Ancient City: Rome and Abroad - an Interdisci-
Maier 1985 = J. Maier, Architektur im römischen Relief, plinary Approach, ed. by Ch. Häuber, F. X. Schütz,
Bonn 1985. M. Gordon, Munich 2014, pp. 161-175.
Marconi 2011 = C. Marconi, The Birth of an Image: Ritter 2017 = S. Ritter, Buildings on Roman coins:
The Painting of a Statue of Herakles and Theories of Rep- Identification problems, «jng», 67, 2017, pp. 101-143.
resentation in Ancient Greek Culture, «res», 59-60, 2011, Rüdiger 1973 = U. Rüdiger, Die Anaglypha Ha-
pp. 145-167. driani, «Ant. Plastik», xii, 1973, pp. 161-173.
Marzano 2009 = A. Marzano, Trajanic Building Pro- Rutledge 2012 = S. H. Rutledge, Ancient Rome as
jects on Base-Metal Denominations and Audience Target- a Museum. Power, Identity, and the Culture of Collecting,
ing, «Papers of the British School at Rome», 77, Oxford 2012.
2009, pp. 125-158. Santangelo 2016 = F. Santangelo, The Statue of
Merleau-Ponty 1945 = M. Merleau-Ponty, Le Marsyas, in Ruin or Renewal? Places and the Transforma-
Doute de Cezanne, «Fontaine», 8, 47, 1945, pp. 80-100. tion of Memory in the City of Rome, ed. by M. García
Merleau-Ponty 1962 = M. Merleau-Ponty, Phe- Morcillo et al., Rome 2016, pp. 49-72.
nomenology of Perception, London-New York 1962. Seston 1927 = W. Seston, Les «Anaglypha Trajani»
Merleau-Ponty 1964 = M. Merleau-Ponty, Eye du Forum romain et la politique d’Hadrien en 118,
and Mind, in M. Merleau-Ponty, The Primacy of «mefra», 44, 1927, pp. 154-183.
Perception, ed. by J. M. Edie, Evanston 1964. Settis 2002 = S. Settis, Le pareti ingannevoli: La Villa
Monteix 2013 = N. Monteix, Espace commercial et di Livia e la pittura di giardino, Milan 2002.
puissance publique à Pompéi, in Dialogues entre sphère Settis et al. 1988 = S. Settis, A. La Regina, G.
publique et sphère privée dans l’espace de la cité romaine: Agosti, La Colonna Traiana, Turin 1988.
Vecteurs, acteurs, significations, ed. by A. Dardenay, E. Sinn, Freyberger 1996 = F. Sinn, K. S. Freyber-
Rosso, Bordeaux 2013, pp. 161-184. ger, Museo Gregoriano Profano. Grabdenkmäler 2. Die
Moran 2010 = D. Moran, Husserl and Merleau-Ponty Ausstattung des Hateriergrabes, Mainz am Rhein 1996.
on Embodied Experience, in Advancing Phenomenology: Squire 2015 = M. Squire, Sight and the Ancient Senses,
Essays in Honor of Lester Embree, ed. by T. Nenon, P. London-New York 2015.
Blosser, Dordrecth - Heidelberg - London -New York Torelli 1982 = M. Torelli, Typology and Structure of
2010, pp. 175-195. Roman Historical Reliefs, Ann Arbor 1982.
Neils 2004 = J. Neils, Vases on Vases, in P. G. Torelli 1999 = M. Torelli, s.v. Plutei Traianei, in
Warden, Greek Vase Painting: Form, Figure, and Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae. Volume quarto.
Narrative, Dallas 2004, pp. 28-34. P-S., ed. by E. M. Steinby, Rome 1999, pp. 95-96.
Oenbrink 1997 = W. Oenbrink, Das Bild im Bilde: Tortorella 2012 = S. Tortorella, Monumenti sta-
Zur Darstellung von Götterstatuen und Kultbildern auf tali fra Traiano e Marco Aurelio: Esibizione del potere e
griechischen Vasen, Frankfurt-New York 1997. provvidenze imperiali, in L’età dell’equilibrio: Traiano,
Adriano, Marco Aurelio, ed. by E. La Rocca, C. Parisi Wolfram Thill 2012 = E. Wolfram Thill,
Presicce, Rome 2012, pp. 53-60. Cultural Constructions: Depictions of Architecture in
Trentin 2022 = L. Trentin, Images and Interpretation Roman State Reliefs, Chapel Hill (Ph.D. Disserta-
of “the Other” in Roman Social Practice, in The Oxford tion) 2012.
Handbook of Roman Imagery and Iconography, ed. by L. Wolfram Thill 2014 = E. Wolfram Thill, The
K. Cline, N. T. Elkins, Oxford 2022, pp. 405-424. Emperor in Action: Group Scenes in Trajanic Coinage and
Turcan-Déléani 1958 = M. Turcan-Déléani, Monumental Reliefs, «ajn», 26, 2014, pp. 87-140.
Les monuments représentés sur la colonne Trajane: Schéma- Wolfram Thill 2017 = E. Wolfram Thill,
tisme et réalisme, «Mélanges d’archéologie et d’his- Urbanism and the Enemy: Dacian Architecture on the
toire», 70, 1958, pp. 149-176. Column of Trajan, in Columna Traiani-Trajanssäule:
Ungaro 2018 = L. Ungaro, Simboli e immagini del Siegesmonument und Kriegsbericht in Bildern, ed. by F.
trionfo in marmo: “Barbari”, romani e congeries armorum Mitthof, G. Schörner, Vienna 2017, pp. 169-178.
nel Foro di Traiano, in Parisi Presicce et al. 2018, Wolfram Thill 2022 = E. Wolfram Thill, Dis-
pp. 291-296. patches from the Home Front: The Anaglypha Panels in
Ungaro, Di Cola 2022 = L. Ungaro, V. Di Cola, Rome, «Britannia», 53, 2022, pp. 5-30.
Sculture dal Foro di Traiano: Nuovi approcci metodologici, Zanker 1997 = P. Zanker, In Search of the Roman
«Archeologia e Calcolatori», 33, 2022, pp. 255-278. Viewer, in The Interpretation of Architectural Sculpture
Vernant 1989 = J.-P. Vernant, Preface, in A City in Greece and Rome, ed. by D. Buitron-Oliver, Wash-
of Images: Iconography and Society in Ancient Greece, ed. ington 1997, pp. 179-191.
by C. Berard, Ch. Bron, J.-L. Durand et al., Prince- Zimmer 1982 = G. Zimmer, Römische Berufdsarstel-
ton 1989, pp. 7-8. lungen, Berlin 1982.
e dit in g b y f ab rizi o serra and g i uli a tozzi .
s e t in serra g aramond by
f ab riz io s e rr a ed i tore, pi sa · roma.
p rin t ed and bound by
t ip ograf ia di agnano, ag nano pi sano (pi sa).
*
Dicembre 2023
(cz 2 · fg 21)

Lived Architecture Understanding The Mea

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Lived Architecture Understanding The Mea

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

T H E JOU RNA L OF

«The Journal of Ancient Architecture» is an International Double-Blind Peer-Reviewed Scholarly Journal.

I prezzi u√ciali di abbonamento cartaceo e Online sono consultabili presso

Autorizzazione del Tribunale di Pisa n. 13 in data 7/4/2021.

Proprietà riservata · All rights reserved

Stampato in Italia · Printed in Italy

issn print 2785-3861

https://doi.org/10.19272/202314301003 · «the journal of ancient architecture» · 2 · 2023

Fig. 1. The ‘Adlocutio relief’ (courtesy of © Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, D-DAI-ROM-2008.2563

Fig. 6. The ‘riot fresco’ from Pompeii i 3, 23

Potrebbero piacerti anche