The Tropaeum Traiani: a dark source

[CaesarAugustus]

Tropaeum Traiani... if we look at wikipedia we will find:
The Tropaeum Traiani is a monument in Roman Civitas Tropaensium (site of modern Adamclisi, Romania), built in 109 in then Moesia Inferior, to commemorate Roman Emperor Trajan's victory over the Dacians, in the winter of 101-102, in the Battle of Adamclisi. Before Trajan's construction, an altar existed there, on the walls of which were inscribed the names of the 3,000 legionaries and auxilia (servicemen) who had died "fighting for the Republic". (Latin: Tropaeum from Greek: Tropaion, source of English: "trophy").


We have several information. It was a commemorative monument, to commemorate Roman Emperor Trajan's victory over the Dacians. In the same site there was also an altar, with names of roman soldiers writte on it, name of around 3,000 legionaries and auxilia who had died "fighting for the Republic".

But this Tropaeum is a dark source, hard to read, first of all for its state of conservation with which it was found, and for the quality of its metope, or panels, hard to consider as work coming from classical period.

On this thread I will try to sum up this monument within its ancient discovery, looking at its changing reception according to the historical phase, and according to that we will see how it is hard to use it to make any assumption about roman army.

Source for this thread is mainly Between Limestone and Concrete: European Reactions to the Tropaeum Traiani in the 19th and 20th Centuries,
Ana M. Mitrovici.

---

The "discovery"

During 15th and 16th century Romania's principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia were under Ottoman suzerainty. 

The first modern signs of the Tropaeum are coming from Prussian officers, Baron Helmuth von Moltke and Baron Karl von Vincke, helping the Sultan Mahmoud II modernizing the army. We are around 1837, and we have a description, rather inaccurate:
Vincke for instance, perhaps even thinking of his own life in the military, interpreted the structure as a tomb housing the remains of an important general. Although rather anecdotal, Moltke’s account of his encounter with the monument also points to at least two unfortunate instances in which the monument was subjected to vandalism, no doubt the result of eager treasure hunters.
So, the first desription we have are describing it as a tomb housing, subject to vandalism. It seems already ruined.

By 1862, Wallachia and Moldavia would have been united in the Kingdom of Romania, and this will lead to unrestricted passage to the region for academics, often interested in ethnograpich details, probably coming from a social interest in antiquities. This will increase the monument's notoriety, attracting antiquarians and foreign travelers. Unfortunately, often with no training in archeology.

In 1855 for example we have a description of the local ruins by M. Jules Michael, a French engineer, discussing about Roman defense and published in 1862. Michel describes a landscape littered with marble debris, numerous sculpted friezes hollowed out by villagers and used as feeding trough for livestock. He was not able to find inscriptions to identify its function. We have this sort of description for the Tropaeum:
‘very curious’ ruined monument resembling a tumulus or some kind of unidentified masonry cylinder
Related reliefs clearly followed in tradition of Roman art but lacked skill (schematic execution of profiles, pose and dress of the figures). Considering the poor technical execution of the sculpture, there was a "barbarian hand", with a funerary prurpose for the monument, or maybe a watchtower to alert local inahbitants in case of incoming barbarians attacks.

Published in 1880, we have M.C. Soutzo's analyses. He focused on the construction of the cylinder and on the style of the reliefs and the ornamental motifs found on nearby fragments, concluding that the craftsmanship was rudimentary to the extreme, clumsy and irregular. Soutzo rejected the idea that the "barbarians who brought about the fall of the Roman Empire" were capable of
accomplishing such a feat. No doubt referring to the ‘‘barbarians’’ who invaded during late antiquity, Soutzo could not believe that these tribes possessed the necessary skill to carve such regular blocks. Similarly, Soutzo rejected the possibility that the monument was either Greek or Roman in origin, suggesting instead that it must have been erected by some tribe of people largely familiar with
Greek building techniques, but rather unskilled in carving. Soutzo’s work also borrowed substantially from an account in a local Romanian newspaper, published in 1880, which attributed the monument to Persian craftsmanship...

Apart the difficult attribution of the monument, we can see that the damage and robbery of the monument in this case appear to have occurred on several occasions, both by those looking for treasure and by locals who used the stone for building materials. The reuse of fragments in new local contexts, along with damage of the monument over years of neglect had contributed to its gradual decay. Consequently, since many of the fragments were taken to other areas in the vicinity and reused, the monument was largely stripped bare by the end of the 19th century.

[Crispianus]

"But this Tropaeum is a dark source, hard to read, first of all for its state of conservation with which it was found, and for the quality of its metope, or panels, hard to consider as work coming from classical period."

Why So ? there is after all quite a bit of what you might call non classical art from contexts involving roman military, or do you mean something else here...

One thing I do find interesting though on the metopes are the shoes...

[CaesarAugustus]

"But this Tropaeum is a dark source, hard to read, first of all for its state of conservation with which it was found, and for the quality of its metope, or panels, hard to consider as work coming from classical period."

Why So ? there is after all quite a bit of what you might call non classical art from contexts involving roman military, or do you mean something else here...

One thing I do find interesting though on the metopes are the shoes...

You can read what I have already written about the discovery. The style of the panels is hard to consider coming from classical period and it was initially considered as non-roman work. Even after, and we will see how and why it has been considered a roman work, that sort of style has raised questions about its origin, if contemporary to Traianus, or coming from later period, maybe IV century. We will see with following studies how the Tropaeum has associated to Traianus campaigns, and how it has been reconstructed.

[Crispianus]

"The style of the panels is hard to consider coming from classical period"

I've read it already, but it doesn't answer the question as to why? considering the other evidence...

an example:

         

The 1882 version of this image suggests a more Classical interpretation, this is quite common in images of this type from the 19th century but clearly a long way from the original:

   

From "Tracht und Bewaffnung des römischen Heeres während der Kaiserzeit" L.Lindenschmit.

[Praefectusclassis]

We're all used to thinking of the Rhineland tombstones (and then usually the best sculptures) and Trajan's column, but those are both quite specific to a place and time. There are plenty of examples of crude sculpture from elsewhere (and other times) in the empire.

[CaesarAugustus]

New studies
So, we have seen so far the Tropaeum initially has not been taken for what it was, it was neither considered as Roman from severals, and was ruined and looted. Actually we don't know what has really been found there, we don't have real reports, we know that several part were missing, largely stripped. But, we can go on with centuries, we are going to discover other interesting things.

The second phase of the interpretation of the monument is coming with the 19th century, with the search for a sense of national identity both for Italy and Romania. And we can see this shift in the political situation with the new fate of the monument, and people around it.
Romanian intellectuals looked to Italy for suppurt and inspiration in forming their own sense of identity as emergent nation. I am not going to dig in literature and other, but it is something documented and you can find it. I am more interested to the monument here.

Grigore Tocilescu, director of Bucharest National Museum, presented his recent findings on the Tropaeum (Sur le monument triomphal de l’empereur Trajan a` Adamklissi (Dobrudja) et la ville de Tropaeum Traiani). The monument was given national importance, a contribution for Romania as it emerged as an independent state. Tocilescu spent a big effort to recover lost fragments and reconstruct the monument, apart its study in tracing the names and histories of the ancient settlements and related topography. Anyway, he was responsible for relocation of over forty of the panels, thirty frieze fragements, and a majority of the trophy sculptures from the site of the Bucharest Museum.

Following this recover of lost fragments... part of which were also coming from locally reused ornamental remnants... with this collection of newly gathered material, Tocilescu was finally able to identify the figures of the "barbarians" as Dacians, and the scenes from the panels collected here and there... as a battle narrative from the military campiagns lead by Trajan. Tocilescu dated the monument around 108-109 AD, after the second Trajanic campaign, on the basis of a large fragmented dedicatory inscription.
Tocilescu also written about the style of the monument and the collected panels. In an attempt to situate the monument within a larger canon of known and respected works, he compared the panels with the Column of Trajan in Rome...
Tocilescu not only patched a composition, he attempted to reconstruct what this made up composition was representing, but he also described it as... an example of high imperial art during the II century. While admitting a much "cruder" craftmanship than the column, he justified the stylistic rendering considering it as the result of province work... not been instructed in formal sculptural technique.
In order to keep the distance from previous observers, instead of talking about crude and unskilled craftsmanship, he called it as the work of scene sketched from firsthand observation.
The fact he identified only Romans and Dacians was obviously not accepted (all captives were Dacians). But Tocilescu was not stopped by this. In 1893 he presented his work again, presenting new data concerning depicting captives. And, just not to miss anything, he attributed the design and construction of the trophy to... Apollodorus of Damascus... the same architect of the Column (and the Bridge across the Danube). The absence of allegorical symbols... the result of attempted realism. The monument goal: intimidate conquered natives with a visual message, intellegible to the local population on the borders of the empire (but, we know the borders at the time were in Moldova, not on the Danube...).

So, what was doing Tocilescu? He was giving a new interpretation, based on scattered fragments assembled and interpreted in a cheerful way, in an attempt to situate the monument in the canon of Western Art, creating a national monument, ensuring its role in propagating a sens of nationalism, and underlyning its importance in the creation of a new identity:
"Trajan’s Trophy (Tropaeum Traiani) marked the capture of Dacia by the Romans, from which the Romanian nation emerged"

It is obvious to say that Tocilescu was criticized for several reasons, not last for removing fragments. For a decade (1885-1894) fragments of sculptures, panels and other elements were transported in a series of shipments from original sites to Bucharest.

It is important to say that studies done in the same period by Adolf Furtwaangler, German archaeologist and director of the Glyptothek Museum in Germany, gave a total different interpretation of the monument, arguing for an Augustan date, totally contradicting the more popular and fairly well established Trajanic attribution.

[CaesarAugustus]

Interpretation evolution and monument rebuild

Between the start of the XX century and the second world war, new studies were conducted on the monument from Romanian archeologists, split between the notion of a dominant Dacian influece spread across Europe, and an investigation on Getae people, recognized as part of the Romania origin together with Dacian people. 
But, the Tropaeum was still considered at the birth of Romania as a nation, giving the birth to the third phase of the monument, and giving origin to its reconstruction.

Under Florea Bobu Florescu (excavating between 1943-1958) there was a big attempt to reconstruct the sequence of the panels based on the original finds at the monument's base. In 1965 stone fragments were shipped from Bucharest to the original site in a late attempt to preserve the site's integrity.
So, this third phase was oriented in gathering missing data, assessing site's condition, clarify panel's sequence and reconstructing the trophy to reflect its former glory...

This... reconstruction... faced a massive obstacle... there were less panels than expected...
Multiple panels have been considered to be lost in the Danube, while en route to Bucharest following Tocilescu's activities. 
For what seen, this is an arbitrary reconstruction, and the disappearence in the Danube of innumerable pieces seems to be just a vernacular rumor. Anyway, the existence of these phantom missing panels would had aid in giving a more accurate (and meaningful) reconstruction. Obviously, these panels had been lost forever...
After several years from the spread of that rumors, Florescu interviewed witnesses of the shipments, to verify the rumors. The result was that at the end the collection of fragments... was enough complete. Probably it helps to know that the "witnesses" were possibly too young at the time to remember or to have effectivley known anything about that shipments.

Anyway, the collection of that... sort of something... was almost complete and it was time for a "serious" interpretation. To understand the monument, to decipher the order of its narrative. And, also, to propose models that would eventually lead to the monument's reconstruction. Obviously, giving all missing information, several possibilities were proposed for its reconstruction. One of the proposals instead suggested the possibility to keep all ancient fragments, rebuilding something new with copies of the original fragments. 

Several considerations led to the adoption of the more conservative solution. The notion of authenticity was not solved at all. The order of panels was not clear at all (it was totally made up). The idea was that there would have been in total 54 panels and 26 crenellations, but just 49 and 23 had been found (Tocilescu's findings... as we have seen... here and there). Fixing in place the panels would have also made complex an eventual movement or further studies. And there was also the topic of conservation of the findings.
On the other side, the reconstruction from copies would had offered a more uniform view, giving better possibilities to preserve the ruin.
The important thing that was accepted was that any reconstruction would have been just hypothetical.

By 1975 the (re)construction of a monument began, ready for its delivery in 1977, Romania's centennial celebration of its War of Independence (1877). With a new national symbol, the "birth certificate of the Romanian nation".
Just in case, the panels were built to be possibly re-arranged, it was a tentative model.

The model visible today cannot be identical to its ancient predecessor, and the trophy as it stands today is more an event with a new historical context that removes it from its ancient predecessor in form and function. The illusory aspect of its authenticiry is inevitable, but it is just an hypothetical interpretation of the monument's original appearance.

[CaesarAugustus]

Some remarks
We have seen so far that the monument is just an hypothetical interpretation of the monument's original appearance. We are not sure about anything, and to be honest we are neither sure about the origin of the panels. Not to mention its sequence and interpretation. But this is a topic we will deepen in following messages.

Here we will note down a few remarks on its global interpretation, on the message it was carrying. The first comparison we can do is with Augustus's trophy at La Turbie, France, celebrating the subjugation of the Alpine tribes. It is not a mystery that some authors have concluded the Adamklissi trophy is another Augustean trophy. 

A first interpretation of the monument is a physical manifestation of Roman political propaganda in the provinces. According to Iain Ferris, there would be a double layer. The monument served to glorify the subjugation of the Dacian population, and the visual program emphasized the power of Roman world over primitive barbarians. In addition, captive barbarians bound to trees represent the subjugation of the nation, included its people and nature.
According to Valerie Hope, the trophy would be part of a complex, bound to the altar that would include the name of around 3800 soldiers who died in battle. The altar would commemorate the loss, while the trophy would celebrate Trajan's victory.

Given these interpretations, assuming the reconstruction is correct... and we have seen we don't have too many reasons to be sure about that... what is not clear is how the intended audience should read and respond to it.
A simple reply is that the monument, or maybe the complex, would have significance and interpretation according to the audience. So, its meaning for a soldier would be totally different from its meaning for subjected/conquered people. But, this does not totally reply our question. And, considering it has been often read that monument has been commissioned by the same soldiers (contradicting the very reconstruction that led to its reconstruction), only serves to add further confusion.
We have also seen that part of its message would be a sort of warning for border people, but in that case it was placed in the wrong place, considering the border planned after the second Dacian campaign were in Moldava. 

Anyway, considering aesthetic considerations, scholarships trends and the troubled studies behind him, the trophy has been deemed less valuable for its visual and technical style  - (additional uncertainty about the panels certainly didn't help), which has been judged as crude in execution, primitive in style, definitively inferior to the Column of Trajan from an artistic standpoint - than for its monumental scale, message, and relatively remote geographical location. Attention has been focused on considering the monument as a physical manifestation of widespread Roman power. Issues regarding its construction, visual message and complex social reception, given the described uncertainty, are to be considered mere speculations.

[CaesarAugustus]

The place
We have seen that one of the questions concerning the monument is why it was placed there. Some authors have suggested it was a message, a warning, for border people. But, if we accept it was done around 108-109 AD, we have to exclude this message because the border was far from there (not less than 140 km).
We may think the tropaeum was built in the operation theatre, like for the Augustean at La Turbie. But it is neither the case, because the position was far from the operation theatre. 

Around 200 m for the tropaeum an altar has been found, containing names of soldiers died in battle. According to Tocilescu, the altar was built in around the same period as, we have seen before, we should look at them as part of the same complex. The solution for building the monument there would come from a battle fought while Dacian forces were attempting a diversive attack. But we don't really have literary documentation for this attack. According to other scholars like Cichorius and Dorutiu, who highlighted the diversity in the building material and involved military units, the altar is to be considered as commemoration for the soldiers died under Domitianus, around 86/87. This would explain the dedication to avenging mars that has been found (Ultor Mars) near the Tropaeum Traiani.
But this justification remains doubtful and hypothetical, and does not really explain the 200 meters between the two monuments.

[CaesarAugustus]

The panels from an artistic point of view
We have seen the panels have been judged as crude in execution, primitive in style. If we look at them more carefully we can see following characteristics:
- the inanimate bodies of the fallen - dead or dying - that adapt to fill the empty spaces of the panels
- the lack of perspective and the depth of the relief itself (truly constitutes a break with the principles of classical art) / the spontaneous tendency towards an overturned perspective
- the use of the human figure as an inorganic decorative element
These are elements which will be dominant aspects of late antique art, as a reflection of the profound economic-social crisis of the time. The lack of perspective a break with the principles of classical art.

In short, all these points led several scholars to think that this monument was the result of at least two phases, the first possibly in the age of Trajanus (or even of Augustus, according to Furtwängler), the other much later, with Constantinus or even Valens (Iorga, Cichorius, Ferri, Vulpe). 

The same Florescu, who tried to demostrate the unitary work, concluded that there was a qualitative difference between the conception (grandiose conception by a great artist) and the execution made by more or less expert marble workers. The more expert would had worked at some of the panels... but honestly it is not clear which one...

[CaesarAugustus]

Destruction and fate
Today we have a partial reconstruction of Tropaeum Augusti (La Turbie), while as seen for the Tropaeum Traiani it has been attempted a full (hypothetical) reconstruction.
But it is important to know the difference in the phate of the two munuments. 

In the Middle Ages, the Augustean triumphal monument was transformed into a fortification with a watchtower, the remains of which could still be seen in the upper part of the building until 1705 when under the order of King Louis XIV, it was mined and later used as much as a stone quarry, under the open sky, an aspect evidenced by the blocks and fragments reused at the construction of the Saint Michael church at that time, as well as at several residential constructions in the area.

For the Tropaeum Traiani, it is not known how long the triumphal monument has been unbroken. It seems that in the second and third centuries A.D., it suffered degradation caused by earthquakes or human activity. In 170 A.D. the citadel of Tropaeum Traiani was subjected to the attacks of the Goths. Its state leads to the hypothesis that it was either attacked or destroyed by an earthquake until 316 A.D. What we know is that the place is a seismic area (SEISMIC RESPONSE OF TROPAEUM TRAIANI MONUMENT, ROMANIA, BETWEEN HISTORY AND EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING ASSESSMENTS - GEORGESCU).

It is really interesting to see that Tropaeum Augusti, considered more ancient, would have reached us if it was not for King Louis XIV. While for the Tropaeum Traiani it is likely a reconstruction already under Constantinus, which would justify the "strange" stylistic choices we see in the monument.

[CaesarAugustus]

Trajan's representation
Considering the monument has been associated to Traianus, it was quite mandatory to find Traianus represented...

And Traianus has been found, here and there... 

Here a couple of panels where they say to see Traianus:

Metope 25


Metope 42

Honestly, I don't know where they say Traianus. Here another panel:

Instanbul Museum.
There is not much difference in the hair and face... especially with the first.

We can consider that the bust of the emperor was distributed throughout the empire, and it was something like:

That does not seem at all what represented in the two panels. Here some representations from the Trajan's Column:






Simply, there is no attinence at all between Traianus and what represented in Tropaeum's panels. Face of other people and completely uncorrelated clothes. Also, if we look at the column, I think there is just one place where it seems Trajan could have a sword, it is in the last panel I have linked. But I would not bet it is a sword. And in the case it is at the left, where we expect it should be, considering Traianus is not an infantry man.
Instead, in that sort of panels, Traianus appears to be always with a sword at his side. In the Metope 42 it is even at his right... like an infantry man (they had the sword on the right to avoid issues with the scutum).

So, in the Tropaeum, this association between the panels and Traianus is totally made up. We don't really have reasons to conclude we are looking at Traianus. And, looking at the clothes he wears, there is no real reason to think he is an emperor, and even that is from the same period of Traianus.

[Nathan Ross]

We don't really have reasons to conclude we are looking at Traianus. And, looking at the clothes he wears, there is no real reason to think he is an emperor, and even that is from the same period of Traianus.

Yes, the first panel shows two soldiers in paenulae. The second might be two officers, and just maybe the one on the left is Trajan, but he doesn't look very imperiatorial!

The period details appear to be right for the 1st-2nd century though. Paenulae, short-sleeved tunics, knee breeches, the hairstyles. Nothing 'late Roman' about any of it.

the Tropaeum Traiani it is likely a reconstruction already under Constantinus, which would justify the "strange" stylistic choices we see in the monument.

I haven't come across this theory before. As far as I know we don't have any literary evidence for Constantine or other late Roman emperors restoring old monuments from the Principiate. If they did, they would presumably restore them in their own style, rather than doing some sort of antiquarian job on them. The equipment and clothing on the metopes is not 4th century, and while it's different to the Trajan's Column stuff it appears very close to finds from the 1st-2nd century. I see no reason to doubt the date of the panels themselves, however they might have been moved around in later centuries. Who else is suggesting this?

Art historians of the 19th century in particular do seem to have wanted to erect a sort of cordon sanitaire around 'classical art', banishing anything that didn't fit with their ideas of the glory of Rome to the darkness of 'barbarism' or the 'degraded' later empire. I'm not aware that anyone still seriously does this though.

The Adamklissi sculptors were not 'breaking with classical tradition', as they were never part of classical tradition. Like the sculptors of a great many Roman tombstones and reliefs from all over the frontier military regions, they were the heirs of a different artistic tradtion, one now almost entirely erased except in these few carvings that have survived by incorporation into monuments.

[Crispianus]

We don't really have reasons to conclude we are looking at Traianus. And, looking at the clothes he wears, there is no real reason to think he is an emperor, and even that is from the same period of Traianus.

Yes, the first panel shows two soldiers in paenulae. The second might be two officers, and just maybe the one on the left is Trajan, but he doesn't look very imperiatorial!

The period details appear to be right for the 1st-2nd century though. Paenulae, short-sleeved tunics, knee breeches, the hairstyles. Nothing 'late Roman' about any of it.

the Tropaeum Traiani it is likely a reconstruction already under Constantinus, which would justify the "strange" stylistic choices we see in the monument.

I haven't come across this theory before. As far as I know we don't have any literary evidence for Constantine or other late Roman emperors restoring old monuments from the Principiate. If they did, they would presumably restore them in their own style, rather than doing some sort of antiquarian job on them. The equipment and clothing on the metopes is not 4th century, and while it's different to the Trajan's Column stuff it appears very close to finds from the 1st-2nd century. I see no reason to doubt the date of the panels themselves, however they might have been moved around in later centuries. Who else is suggesting this?

Art historians of the 19th century in particular do seem to have wanted to erect a sort of cordon sanitaire around 'classical art', banishing anything that didn't fit with their ideas of the glory of Rome to the darkness of 'barbarism' or the 'degraded' later empire. I'm not aware that anyone still seriously does this though.

The Adamklissi sculptors were not 'breaking with classical tradition', as they were never part of classical tradition. Like the sculptors of a great many Roman tombstones and reliefs from all over the frontier military regions, they were the heirs of a different artistic tradtion, one now almost entirely erased except in these few carvings that have survived by incorporation into monuments.

Its worthwhile reading Furtwängler's paper if only because it puts an opposite spin on it, to my mind given the limitations its quite plausible... he does include material, construction, art and archaeology as evidence of his conclusion which is basically that it was built by M. Licinius Crassus during his sojourn into the region in 29-28BC...

"Das Tropaion von Adamklissi und provinzialromische Kunst" Furtwängler 1903

It translates fairly well in google if you have no German...

Obviously theres a lot of water under the bridge since then.

[CaesarAugustus]

"Das Tropaion von Adamklissi und provinzialromische Kunst" Furtwängler 1903

It translates fairly well in google if you have no German...

Obviously theres a lot of water under the bridge since then.

Indeed, quite interesting

And it may justify what I see in this panel:


If you look at the soldier in the right, the torso seems to be made by horizontal bands. I have also thought to one of the models found at Kalkriese, representing a first stage of the Segmentata:

(https://historybytez.com/2020/10/06/new-...kalkriese/)


Anyway, if you are able to spot Traianus in that panels, tell me. I have looked and looked at them and I cannot find him.